Optimizing the computation of overriding

We introduce optimization techniques for reasoning in DLN---a recently introduced family of nonmonotonic description logics whose characterizing features appear well-suited to model the applicative examples naturally arising in biomedical domains and semantic web access control policies. Such optimizations are validated experimentally on large KBs with more than 30K axioms. Speedups exceed 1 order of magnitude. For the first time, response times compatible with real-time reasoning are obtained with nonmonotonic KBs of this size

A Lightweight Defeasible Description Logic in Depth: Quantification in Rational Reasoning and Beyond

Description Logics (DLs) are increasingly successful knowledge representation formalisms, useful for any application requiring implicit derivation of knowledge from explicitly known facts. A prominent example domain benefiting from these formalisms since the 1990s is the biomedical field. This area contributes an intangible amount of facts and relations between low- and high-level concepts such as the constitution of cells or interactions between studied illnesses, their symptoms and remedies. DLs are well-suited for handling large formal knowledge repositories and computing inferable coherences throughout such data, relying on their well-founded first-order semantics. In particular, DLs of reduced expressivity have proven a tremendous worth for handling large ontologies due to their computational tractability. In spite of these assets and prevailing influence, classical DLs are not well-suited to adequately model some of the most intuitive forms of reasoning. The capability for abductive reasoning is imperative for any field subjected to incomplete knowledge and the motivation to complete it with typical expectations. When such default expectations receive contradicting evidence, an abductive formalism is able to retract previously drawn, conflicting conclusions. Common examples often include human reasoning or a default characterisation of properties in biology, such as the normal arrangement of organs in the human body. Treatment of such defeasible knowledge must be aware of exceptional cases - such as a human suffering from the congenital condition situs inversus - and therefore accommodate for the ability to retract defeasible conclusions in a non-monotonic fashion. Specifically tailored non-monotonic semantics have been continuously investigated for DLs in the past 30 years. A particularly promising approach, is rooted in the research by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor for preferential (propositional) logics and Rational Closure (RC). The biggest advantages of RC are its well-behaviour in terms of formal inference postulates and the efficient computation of defeasible entailments, by relying on a tractable reduction to classical reasoning in the underlying formalism. A major contribution of this work is a reorganisation of the core of this reasoning method, into an abstract framework formalisation. This framework is then easily instantiated to provide the reduction method for RC in DLs as well as more advanced closure operators, such as Relevant or Lexicographic Closure. In spite of their practical aptitude, we discovered that all reduction approaches fail to provide any defeasible conclusions for elements that only occur in the relational neighbourhood of the inspected elements. More explicitly, a distinguishing advantage of DLs over propositional logic is the capability to model binary relations and describe aspects of a related concept in terms of existential and universal quantification. Previous approaches to RC (and more advanced closures) are not able to derive typical behaviour for the concepts that occur within such quantification. The main contribution of this work is to introduce stronger semantics for the lightweight DL EL_bot with the capability to infer the expected entailments, while maintaining a close relation to the reduction method. We achieve this by introducing a new kind of first-order interpretation that allocates defeasible information on its elements directly. This allows to compare the level of typicality of such interpretations in terms of defeasible information satisfied at elements in the relational neighbourhood. A typicality preference relation then provides the means to single out those sets of models with maximal typicality. Based on this notion, we introduce two types of nested rational semantics, a sceptical and a selective variant, each capable of deriving the missing entailments under RC for arbitrarily nested quantified concepts. As a proof of versatility for our new semantics, we also show that the stronger Relevant Closure, can be imbued with typical information in the successors of binary relations. An extensive investigation into the computational complexity of our new semantics shows that the sceptical nested variant comes at considerable additional effort, while the selective semantics reside in the complexity of classical reasoning in the underlying DL, which remains tractable in our case

OPTIMIZATION OF NONSTANDARD REASONING SERVICES

The increasing adoption of semantic technologies and the corresponding increasing complexity of application requirements are motivating extensions to the standard reasoning paradigms and services supported by such technologies. This thesis focuses on two of such extensions: nonmonotonic reasoning and inference-proof access control. Expressing knowledge via general rules that admit exceptions is an approach that has been commonly adopted for centuries in areas such as law and science, and more recently in object-oriented programming and computer security. The experiences in developing complex biomedical knowledge bases reported in the literature show that a direct support to defeasible properties and exceptions would be of great help. On the other hand, there is ample evidence of the need for knowledge confidentiality measures. Ontology languages and Linked Open Data are increasingly being used to encode the private knowledge of companies and public organizations. Semantic Web techniques facilitate merging different sources of knowledge and extract implicit information, thereby putting at risk security and the privacy of individuals. But the same reasoning capabilities can be exploited to protect the confidentiality of knowledge. Both nonmonotonic inference and secure knowledge base access rely on nonstandard reasoning procedures. The design and realization of these algorithms in a scalable way (appropriate to the ever-increasing size of ontologies and knowledge bases) is carried out by means of a diversified range of optimization techniques such as appropriate module extraction and incremental reasoning. Extensive experimental evaluation shows the efficiency of the developed optimization techniques: (i) for the first time performance compatible with real-time reasoning is obtained for large nonmonotonic ontologies, while (ii) the secure ontology access control proves to be already compatible with practical use in the e-health application scenario.

Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning

These are the proceedings of the 11th Nonmonotonic Reasoning Workshop. The aim of this series is to bring together active researchers in the broad area of nonmonotonic reasoning, including belief revision, reasoning about actions, planning, logic programming, argumentation, causality, probabilistic and possibilistic approaches to KR, and other related topics. As part of the program of the 11th workshop, we have assessed the status of the field and discussed issues such as: Significant recent achievements in the theory and automation of NMR; Critical short and long term goals for NMR; Emerging new research directions in NMR; Practical applications of NMR; Significance of NMR to knowledge representation and AI in general

Thinking Things Through

A Photcopy of Thinking Things Through, Princeton Univeresity Press, 198

Set- and Graph-theoretic Investigations in Abstract Argumentation

Abstract argumentation roots to similar parts in philosophy, linguistics and artificial intelligence. The core (syntactic) notions of argument and attack are commonly visualized via digraphs, as nodes and directed edges, respectively. Semantic evaluation functions then provide a meaning of acceptance (i.e. acceptable sets of arguments also called extensions) for any such abstract argumentation structure. In this thesis, for the very first time, we tackle the questions of acceptance and conflict from a graph- and set-theoretic point of view. We elaborate on the interspace between syntactic conflict/independence (defined by attack structure) and their semantic counterparts (defined by joint acceptance of arguments). Graph theory regards the filters and techniques we use to, respectively, categorize and describe abstract argumentation structures. Set theory regards the issues we have to deal with particularly for non-finite argument sets. For argumentation in the arbitrarily infinite case this thesis can and should be seen as reference work. For the matter of conflicts in abstract argumentation we further provide a solid base and formal framework for future research. All in all, this is a mathematicians view on abstract argumentation, deepening the field of conception and widening the angle of applicability

Deductive Systems in Traditional and Modern Logic

The book provides a contemporary view on different aspects of the deductive systems in various types of logics including term logics, propositional logics, logics of refutation, non-Fregean logics, higher order logics and arithmetic