Counting models for a two conjunctive formula $F$, a problem known as $\sharp $2Sat, is a classic $\sharp $P complete problem. Given a 2-CF $F$ as input, its constraint graph $G$ is built. If $G$ is acyclic, then $\sharp $2Sat can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we address the case when $G$ has cycles. When $G$ is cyclic, we propose a decomposition on the constraint graph $G$ that allows the computation of $\sharp $2Sat in incremental way. Let $T$ be (...) a cactus graph of $G$ containing a maximal number of independent cycles, and let $\overline{T}=-E)$ be a subset of frond edges from $G$. The clauses in $\overline{T}$ are ordered in connected components $\{K_1, \ldots, K_r\}$. Each $, i=1,\ldots,r$ is a knot of the graph. The arrangement of the clauses of $\overline{T}$ allows the decomposition of $G$ in knots and provides a way of computing $\sharp $2Sat in an incremental way. Our procedure has a bottom-up orientation for the computation of $\sharp $2Sat. It begins with $F_0 = T$. In each iteration of the procedure, a new clause $C_i \in \overline{T}$ is considered in order to form $F_i = $ and then to compute $\sharp $2Sat$$ based on the computation of $\sharp $2Sat$$. (shrink)

Why should moral philosophers, moral psychologists, and machine ethicists care about computational complexity? Debates on whether artificial intelligence (AI) can or should be used to solve problems in ethical domains have mainly been driven by what AI can or cannot do in terms of human capacities. In this paper, we tackle the problem from the other end by exploring what kind of moral machines are possible based on what computational systems can or cannot do. To do so, we analyze normative (...) ethics through the lens of computational complexity. First, we introduce computational complexity for the uninitiated reader and discuss how the complexity of ethical problems can be framed within Marr’s three levels of analysis. We then study a range of ethical problems based on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, with the aim of elucidating the complexity associated with the problems themselves (e.g., due to combinatorics, uncertainty, strategic dynamics), the computational methods employed (e.g., probability, logic, learning), and the available resources (e.g., time, knowledge, learning). The results indicate that most problems the normative frameworks pose lead to tractability issues in every category analyzed. Our investigation also provides several insights about the computational nature of normative ethics, including the differences between rule- and outcome-based moral strategies, and the implementation-variance with regard to moral resources. We then discuss the consequences complexity results have for the prospect of moral machines in virtue of the trade-off between optimality and efficiency. Finally, we elucidate how computational complexity can be used to inform both philosophical and cognitive-psychological research on human morality by advancing the moral tractability thesis. (shrink)

Many tasks in statistical and causal inference can be construed as problems of entailment in a suitable formal language. We ask whether those problems are more difficult, from a computational perspective, for causal probabilistic languages than for pure probabilistic (or “associational”) languages. Despite several senses in which causal reasoning is indeed more complex—both expressively and inferentially—we show that causal entailment (or satisfiability) problems can be systematically and robustly reduced to purely probabilistic problems. Thus there is no jump in computational complexity. (...) Along the way we answer several open problems concerning the complexity of well-known probability logics, in particular demonstrating the ${\exists \mathbb {R}}$ -completeness of a polynomial probability calculus, as well as a seemingly much simpler system, the logic of comparative conditional probability. (shrink)

The recognition that human minds/brains are finite systems with limited resources for computation has led some researchers to advance theTractable Cognition thesis: Human cognitive capacities are constrained by computational tractability. This thesis, if true, serves cognitive psychology by constraining the space of computational‐level theories of cognition. To utilize this constraint, a precise and workable definition of “computational tractability” is needed. Following computer science tradition, many cognitive scientists and psychologists define computational tractability as polynomial‐time computability, leading to theP‐Cognition thesis. This article (...) explains how and why the P‐Cognition thesis may be overly restrictive, risking the exclusion of veridical computational‐level theories from scientific investigation. An argument is made to replace the P‐Cognition thesis by theFPT‐Cognition thesisas an alternative formalization of the Tractable Cognition thesis (here, FPT stands for fixed‐parameter tractable). Possible objections to the Tractable Cognition thesis, and its proposed formalization, are discussed, and existing misconceptions are clarified. (shrink)