Knowledge Compilation Meets Communication Complexity

Choosing a language for knowledge representation and reasoning involves a trade-off between two competing desiderata: succinctness (the encoding should be small) and tractability (the language should support efficient reasoning algorithms). The area of knowledge compilation is devoted to the systematic study of representation languages along these two dimensions--in particular, it aims to determine the relative succinctness of languages. Showing that one language is more succinct than another typically involves proving a nontrivial lower bound on the encoding size of a carefully chosen function, and the corresponding arguments increase in difficulty with the succinctness of the target language. In this paper, we introduce a general technique for obtaining lower bounds on Decomposable Negation Normal Form (DNNFs), one of the most widely studied and succinct representation languages, by relating the size of DNNFs to multi-partition communication complexity. This allows us to directly translate lower bounds from the communication complexity literature into lower bounds on the size of DNNF representations. We use this approach to prove exponential separations of DNNFs from deterministic DNNFs and of CNF formulas from DNNFs.

[1]  Georg Schnitger,et al.  Triangle-Freeness Is Hard To Detect , 2002, Comb. Probab. Comput..

[2]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  A Knowledge Compilation Map , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Paul Beame,et al.  New Limits for Knowledge Compilation and Applications to Exact Model Counting , 2015, UAI.

[4]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  A Lower Bound on the Size of Decomposable Negation Normal Form , 2010, AAAI.

[5]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams , 1987 .

[6]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence SDD: A New Canonical Representation of Propositional Knowledge Bases , 2022 .

[7]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  On the Tractable Counting of Theory Models and its Application to Truth Maintenance and Belief Revision , 2001, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[8]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Reasoning with propositional knowledge: frameworks for boolean satisfiability and knowledge compilation , 2010 .

[9]  Stasys Jukna,et al.  Boolean Function Complexity Advances and Frontiers , 2012, Bull. EATCS.

[10]  A. Razborov.  Communication Complexity , 2011 .

[11]  Igor Razgon.  Quasipolynomial Simulation of DNNF by a Non-determinstic Read-Once Branching Program , 2015, CP.

[12]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  The Tractability of Subsumption in Frame-Based Description Languages , 1984, AAAI.

[13]  Michelle Pal,et al.  Communication Complexity and Parallel Computing , 1999, IEEE Concurrency.

[14]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Lower bounds for VLSI , 1981, STOC '81.

[15]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning 1 , 1987, Comput. Intell..

[16]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Decomposable negation normal form , 2001, JACM.

[17]  H. Venkateswaran,et al.  Monotone Multilinear Boolean Circuits for Bipartite Perfect Matching Require Exponential Size , 2004, FSTTCS.

[18]  M. Paterson,et al.  Boolean Function Complexity , 1992 .

[19]  Martin Sauerhoff,et al.  Approximation of boolean functions by combinatorial rectangles , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Juraj Hromkovic,et al.  On multi-partition communication complexity , 2004, Inf. Comput..

[21]  Bart Selman,et al.  The Comparative Linguistics of Knowledge Representation , 1995, IJCAI.