On Graph Refutation for Relational Inclusions

We introduce a graphical refutation calculus for relational inclusions: it reduces establishing a relational inclusion to establishing that a graph constructed from it has empty extension. This sound and complete calculus is conceptually simpler and easier to use than the usual ones.Comment: In Proceedings LSFA 2011, arXiv:1203.542

On Graphical Calculi for Modal Logics

We present a graphical approach to classical and intuitionistic modal logics, which provides uniform formalisms for expressing, analysing and comparing their semantics. This approach uses the flexibility of graphical calculi to express directly and intuitively the semantics for modal logics. We illustrate the benefits of these ideas by applying them to some familiar cases of classical and intuitionistic multi-modal logics.Cálculos Gráficos para lógicas modais Apresentamos uma abordagem gráfica para as lógicas modais clássica e intuicionista, capaz de fornecer formalismos uniformes para expressar, analisar e comparar suas respectivas semânticas. Tal abordagem utiliza a flexibilidade dos cálculos gráficos para expressar, direta e intuitivamente, a semântica das lógicas modais. Ilustramos os benefícios dessas ideias aplicando-as a alguns casos conhecidos de lógicas multimodais clássica e intuicionista.---Artigo em inglês

The Constructive method for query containment checking (extended version)

We present a new method that checks Query Containment for queries with negated derived atoms and/or integrity constraints. Existing methods for Query Containment checking that deal with these cases do not check actually containment but another related property called uniform containment, which is a sufficient but not necessary condition for containment. Our method can be seen as an extension of the canonical databases approach beyond the class of conjunctive queries.Postprint (published version

On the characterization of models of H*: The semantical aspect

We give a characterization, with respect to a large class of models of untyped lambda-calculus, of those models that are fully abstract for head-normalization, i.e., whose equational theory is H* (observations for head normalization). An extensional K-model $D$ is fully abstract if and only if it is hyperimmune, {\em i.e.}, not well founded chains of elements of D cannot be captured by any recursive function. This article, together with its companion paper, form the long version of [Bre14]. It is a standalone paper that presents a purely semantical proof of the result as opposed to its companion paper that presents an independent and purely syntactical proof of the same result

On Graphical Calculi for Modal Logics

We present a graphical approach to classical and intuitionistic modal logics, which provides uniform formalisms for expressing, analysing and comparing their semantics. This approach uses the flexibility of graphical calculi to express directly and intuitively the semantics for modal logics. We illustrate the benefits of these ideas by applying them to some familiar cases of classical and intuitionistic multi-modal logics

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

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 $N$ and SOS $M$ if and only if there is a resolution refutation from $N\cup M$ using a clause in $M$. 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 $N$ und SOS $M$ widerlegungsvollständig, genau dann wenn es eine Auflösungswiderlegung von $N\cup M$ unter Verwendung einer Klausel in $M$ 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

Analyzing Satisfiability and Refutability in Selected Constraint Systems

This dissertation is concerned with the satisfiability and refutability problems for several constraint systems. We examine both Boolean constraint systems, in which each variable is limited to the values true and false, and polyhedral constraint systems, in which each variable is limited to the set of real numbers R in the case of linear polyhedral systems or the set of integers Z in the case of integer polyhedral systems. An important aspect of our research is that we focus on providing certificates. That is, we provide satisfying assignments or easily checkable proofs of infeasibility depending on whether the instance is feasible or not. Providing easily checkable certificates has become a much sought after feature in algorithms, especially in light of spectacular failures in the implementations of some well-known algorithms. There exist a number of problems in the constraint-solving domain for which efficient algorithms have been proposed, but which lack a certifying counterpart. When examining Boolean constraint systems, we specifically look at systems of 2-CNF clauses and systems of Horn clauses. When examining polyhedral constraint systems, we specifically look at systems of difference constraints, systems of UTVPI constraints, and systems of Horn constraints. For each examined system, we determine several properties of general refutations and determine the complexity of finding restricted refutations. These restricted forms of refutation include read-once refutations, in which each constraint can be used at most once; literal-once refutations, in which for each literal at most one constraint containing that literal can be used; and unit refutations, in which each step of the refutation must use a constraint containing exactly one literal. The advantage of read-once refutations is that they are guaranteed to be short. Thus, while not every constraint system has a read-once refutation, the small size of the refutation guarantees easy checkability

A cookbook for temporal conceptual data modelling with description logic

We design temporal description logics suitable for reasoning about temporal conceptual data models and investigate their computational complexity. Our formalisms are based on DL-Lite logics with three types of concept inclusions (ranging from atomic concept inclusions and disjointness to the full Booleans), as well as cardinality constraints and role inclusions. In the temporal dimension, they capture future and past temporal operators on concepts, flexible and rigid roles, the operators `always' and `some time' on roles, data assertions for particular moments of time and global concept inclusions. The logics are interpreted over the Cartesian products of object domains and the flow of time (Z,<), satisfying the constant domain assumption. We prove that the most expressive of our temporal description logics (which can capture lifespan cardinalities and either qualitative or quantitative evolution constraints) turn out to be undecidable. However, by omitting some of the temporal operators on concepts/roles or by restricting the form of concept inclusions we obtain logics whose complexity ranges between PSpace and NLogSpace. These positive results were obtained by reduction to various clausal fragments of propositional temporal logic, which opens a way to employ propositional or first-order temporal provers for reasoning about temporal data models