50 research outputs found

    Towards Parallel Repair Using Decompositions

    Get PDF
    Ontology repair remains one of the main bottlenecks for the development of ontologies for practical use. Many automated methods have been developed for suggesting potential repairs, but ultimately human intervention is required for selecting the adequate one, and the human expert might be overwhelmed by the amount of information delivered to her. We propose a decomposition of ontologies into smaller components that can be repaired in parallel. We show the utility of our approach for ontology repair, provide algorithms for computing this decomposition through standard reasoning, and study the complexity of several associated problems

    On a notion of abduction and relevance for first-order logic clause sets

    Get PDF
    I propose techniques to help with explaining entailment and non-entailment in first-order logic respectively relying on deductive and abductive reasoning. First, given an unsatisfiable clause set, one could ask which clauses are necessary for any possible deduction (\emph{syntactically relevant}), usable for some deduction (\emph{syntactically semi-relevant}), or unusable (\emph{syntactically irrelevant}). I propose a first-order formalization of this notion and demonstrate a lifting of this notion to the explanation of an entailment w.r.t some axiom set defined in some description logic fragments. Moreover, it is accompanied by a semantic characterization via \emph{conflict literals} (contradictory simple facts). From an unsatisfiable clause set, a pair of conflict literals are always deducible. A \emph{relevant} clause is necessary to derive any conflict literal, a \emph{semi-relevant} clause is necessary to derive some conflict literal, and an \emph{irrelevant} clause is not useful in deriving any conflict literals. It helps provide a picture of why an explanation holds beyond what one can get from the predominant notion of a minimal unsatisfiable set. The need to test if a clause is (syntactically) semi-relevant leads to a generalization of a well-known resolution strategy: resolution equipped with the set-of-support strategy is refutationally complete on a clause set NN and SOS MM if and only if there is a resolution refutation from NMN\cup M using a clause in MM. This result non-trivially improves the original formulation. Second, abductive reasoning helps find extensions of a knowledge base to obtain an entailment of some missing consequence (called observation). Not only that it is useful to repair incomplete knowledge bases but also to explain a possibly unexpected observation. I particularly focus on TBox abduction in \EL description logic (still first-order logic fragment via some model-preserving translation scheme) which is rather lightweight but prevalent in practice. The solution space can be huge or even infinite. So, different kinds of minimality notions can help sort the chaff from the grain. I argue that existing ones are insufficient, and introduce \emph{connection minimality}. This criterion offers an interpretation of Occam's razor in which hypotheses are accepted only when they help acquire the entailment without arbitrarily using axioms unrelated to the problem at hand. In addition, I provide a first-order technique to compute the connection-minimal hypotheses in a sound and complete way. The key technique relies on prime implicates. While the negation of a single prime implicate can already serve as a first-order hypothesis, a connection-minimal hypothesis which follows \EL syntactic restrictions (a set of simple concept inclusions) would require a combination of them. Termination by bounding the term depth in the prime implicates is provable by only looking into the ones that are also subset-minimal. I also present an evaluation on ontologies from the medical domain by implementing a prototype with SPASS as a prime implicate generation engine.Ich schlage Techniken vor, die bei der Erklärung von Folgerung und Nichtfolgerung in der Logik erster Ordnung helfen, die sich jeweils auf deduktives und abduktives Denken stützen. Erstens könnte man bei einer gegebenen unerfüllbaren Klauselmenge fragen, welche Klauseln für eine mögliche Deduktion notwendig (\emph{syntaktisch relevant}), für eine Deduktion verwendbar (\emph{syntaktisch semi-relevant}) oder unbrauchbar (\emph{syntaktisch irrelevant}). Ich schlage eine Formalisierung erster Ordnung dieses Begriffs vor und demonstriere eine Anhebung dieses Begriffs auf die Erklärung einer Folgerung bezüglich einer Reihe von Axiomen, die in einigen Beschreibungslogikfragmenten definiert sind. Außerdem wird sie von einer semantischen Charakterisierung durch \emph{Konfliktliteral} (widersprüchliche einfache Fakten) begleitet. Aus einer unerfüllbaren Klauselmenge ist immer ein Konfliktliteralpaar ableitbar. Eine \emph{relevant}-Klausel ist notwendig, um ein Konfliktliteral abzuleiten, eine \emph{semi-relevant}-Klausel ist notwendig, um ein Konfliktliteral zu generieren, und eine \emph{irrelevant}-Klausel ist nicht nützlich, um Konfliktliterale zu generieren. Es hilft, ein Bild davon zu vermitteln, warum eine Erklärung über das hinausgeht, was man aus der vorherrschenden Vorstellung einer minimalen unerfüllbaren Menge erhalten kann. Die Notwendigkeit zu testen, ob eine Klausel (syntaktisch) semi-relevant ist, führt zu einer Verallgemeinerung einer bekannten Resolutionsstrategie: Die mit der Set-of-Support-Strategie ausgestattete Resolution ist auf einer Klauselmenge NN und SOS MM widerlegungsvollständig, genau dann wenn es eine Auflösungswiderlegung von NMN\cup M unter Verwendung einer Klausel in MM gibt. Dieses Ergebnis verbessert die ursprüngliche Formulierung nicht trivial. Zweitens hilft abduktives Denken dabei, Erweiterungen einer Wissensbasis zu finden, um eine implikantion einer fehlenden Konsequenz (Beobachtung genannt) zu erhalten. Es ist nicht nur nützlich, unvollständige Wissensbasen zu reparieren, sondern auch, um eine möglicherweise unerwartete Beobachtung zu erklären. Ich konzentriere mich besonders auf die TBox-Abduktion in dem leichten, aber praktisch vorherrschenden Fragment der Beschreibungslogik \EL, das tatsächlich ein Logikfragment erster Ordnung ist (mittels eines modellerhaltenden Übersetzungsschemas). Der Lösungsraum kann riesig oder sogar unendlich sein. So können verschiedene Arten von Minimalitätsvorstellungen helfen, die Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen. Ich behaupte, dass die bestehenden unzureichend sind, und führe \emph{Verbindungsminimalität} ein. Dieses Kriterium bietet eine Interpretation von Ockhams Rasiermesser, bei der Hypothesen nur dann akzeptiert werden, wenn sie helfen, die Konsequenz zu erlangen, ohne willkürliche Axiome zu verwenden, die nichts mit dem vorliegenden Problem zu tun haben. Außerdem stelle ich eine Technik in Logik erster Ordnung zur Berechnung der verbindungsminimalen Hypothesen in zur Verfügung korrekte und vollständige Weise. Die Schlüsseltechnik beruht auf Primimplikanten. Während die Negation eines einzelnen Primimplikant bereits als Hypothese in Logik erster Ordnung dienen kann, würde eine Hypothese des Verbindungsminimums, die den syntaktischen Einschränkungen von \EL folgt (einer Menge einfacher Konzeptinklusionen), eine Kombination dieser beiden erfordern. Die Terminierung durch Begrenzung der Termtiefe in den Primimplikanten ist beweisbar, indem nur diejenigen betrachtet werden, die auch teilmengenminimal sind. Außerdem stelle ich eine Auswertung zu Ontologien aus der Medizin vor, Domäne durch die Implementierung eines Prototyps mit SPASS als Primimplikant-Generierungs-Engine

    Computational Complexity of Strong Admissibility for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

    Get PDF
    Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments arecalled semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. Recently, the notion of strong admissibility has been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we study the computational complexityof the following reasoning tasks under strong admissibility semantics. We address 1. the credulous/skeptical decision problem; 2. the verification problem; 3. the strong justification problem; and 4. the problem of finding a smallest witness of strong justification of a queried argument

    Building high-quality merged ontologies from multiple sources with requirements customization

    Get PDF
    Ontologies are the prime way of organizing data in the Semantic Web. Often, it is necessary to combine several, independently developed ontologies to obtain a knowledge graph fully representing a domain of interest. Existing approaches scale rather poorly to the merging of multiple ontologies due to using a binary merge strategy. Thus, we aim to investigate the extent to which the n-ary strategy can solve the scalability problem. This thesis contributes to the following important aspects: 1. Our n-ary merge strategy takes as input a set of source ontologies and their mappings and generates a merged ontology. For efficient processing, rather than successively merging complete ontologies pairwise, we group related concepts across ontologies into partitions and merge first within and then across those partitions. 2. We take a step towards parameterizable merge methods. We have identified a set of Generic Merge Requirements (GMRs) that merged ontologies might be expected to meet. We have investigated and developed compatibilities of the GMRs by a graph-based method. 3. When multiple ontologies are merged, inconsistencies can occur due to different world views encoded in the source ontologies To this end, we propose a novel Subjective Logic-based method to handling the inconsistency occurring while merging ontologies. We apply this logic to rank and estimate the trustworthiness of conflicting axioms that cause inconsistencies within a merged ontology. 4. To assess the quality of the merged ontologies systematically, we provide a comprehensive set of criteria in an evaluation framework. The proposed criteria cover a variety of characteristics of each individual aspect of the merged ontology in structural, functional, and usability dimensions. 5. The final contribution of this research is the development of the CoMerger tool that implements all aforementioned aspects accessible via a unified interface

    Federated knowledge base debugging in DL-Lite A

    Full text link
    Due to the continuously growing amount of data the federation of different and distributed data sources gained increasing attention. In order to tackle the challenge of federating heterogeneous sources a variety of approaches has been proposed. Especially in the context of the Semantic Web the application of Description Logics is one of the preferred methods to model federated knowledge based on a well-defined syntax and semantics. However, the more data are available from heterogeneous sources, the higher the risk is of inconsistency – a serious obstacle for performing reasoning tasks and query answering over a federated knowledge base. Given a single knowledge base the process of knowledge base debugging comprising the identification and resolution of conflicting statements have been widely studied while the consideration of federated settings integrating a network of loosely coupled data sources (such as LOD sources) has mostly been neglected. In this thesis we tackle the challenging problem of debugging federated knowledge bases and focus on a lightweight Description Logic language, called DL-LiteA, that is aimed at applications requiring efficient and scalable reasoning. After introducing formal foundations such as Description Logics and Semantic Web technologies we clarify the motivating context of this work and discuss the general problem of information integration based on Description Logics. The main part of this thesis is subdivided into three subjects. First, we discuss the specific characteristics of federated knowledge bases and provide an appropriate approach for detecting and explaining contradictive statements in a federated DL-LiteA knowledge base. Second, we study the representation of the identified conflicts and their relationships as a conflict graph and propose an approach for repair generation based on majority voting and statistical evidences. Third, in order to provide an alternative way for handling inconsistency in federated DL-LiteA knowledge bases we propose an automated approach for assessing adequate trust values (i.e., probabilities) at different levels of granularity by leveraging probabilistic inference over a graphical model. In the last part of this thesis, we evaluate the previously developed algorithms against a set of large distributed LOD sources. In the course of discussing the experimental results, it turns out that the proposed approaches are sufficient, efficient and scalable with respect to real-world scenarios. Moreover, due to the exploitation of the federated structure in our algorithms it further becomes apparent that the number of identified wrong statements, the quality of the generated repair as well as the fineness of the assessed trust values profit from an increasing number of integrated sources
    corecore