A KLM Perspective on Defeasible Reasoning for Description Logics

In this paper we present an approach to defeasible reasoning for the description logic ALC. The results discussed here are based on work done by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) on defeasible conditionals in the propositional case. We consider versions of a preferential semantics for two forms of defeasible subsumption, and link these semantic constructions formally to KLM-style syntactic properties via representation results. In addition to showing that the semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in description logics. With the semantics of the defeasible version of ALC in place, we turn to the investigation of an appropriate form of defeasible entailment for this enriched version of ALC. This investigation includes an algorithm for the computation of a form of defeasible entailment known as rational closure in the propositional case. Importantly, the algorithm relies completely on classical entailment checks and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible ontologies is no worse than that of the underlying classical ALC. Before concluding, we take a brief tour of some existing work on defeasible extensions of ALC that go beyond defeasible subsumption

KLM-Style Defeasible Reasoning for Datalog

In many problem domains, particularly those related to mathematics and philosophy, classical logic has enjoyed great success as a model of valid reasoning and discourse. For real-world reasoning tasks, however, an agent typically only has partial knowledge of its domain, and at most a statistical understanding of relationships between properties. In this context, classical inference is considered overly restrictive, and many systems for non-monotonic reasoning have been proposed in the literature to deal with these tasks. A notable example is the Klm framework, which describes an agent's defeasible knowledge qualitatively in terms of conditionals of the form “if A, then typically B”. The goal of this research project is to investigate Klm-style semantics for defeasible reasoning over Datalog knowledge bases. Datalog is a declarative logic programming language, designed for querying large deductive databases. Syntactically, it can be viewed as a computationally feasible fragment of firstorder logic, so this continues a recent line of work in which the Klm framework is lifted to more expressive languages

Defeasible Reasoning in SROEL: from Rational Entailment to Rational Closure

In this work we study a rational extension $SROEL^R T$ of the low complexity description logic SROEL, which underlies the OWL EL ontology language. The extension involves a typicality operator T, whose semantics is based on Lehmann and Magidor's ranked models and allows for the definition of defeasible inclusions. We consider both rational entailment and minimal entailment. We show that deciding instance checking under minimal entailment is in general $\Pi^P_2$-hard, while, under rational entailment, instance checking can be computed in polynomial time. We develop a Datalog calculus for instance checking under rational entailment and exploit it, with stratified negation, for computing the rational closure of simple KBs in polynomial time.Comment: Accepted for publication on Fundamenta Informatica

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

Defeasibility and Balancing

“Defeasibility” and “balancing” are expressions introduced in recent times to deal with long-standing legal phenomena, which in the context of the constitutional state acquire a special prominence. What is at issue, in fact, is the necessity to recognise exceptions implicit in the norms, in order to provide the legal system with the flexibility needed to maximise the chances of finding a correct—just—answer without abandoning the legal system; and (which to a large extent is another aspect of the same phenomenon) to resolve difficult cases (those for which there is no predefined rule, but only principles) argumentatively, by resorting to a procedure, balancing, the use of which does not necessarily imply an exercise in arbitrariness, although it does involve certain risks that recommend a prudent and limited use of this resource. The last part of the paper summarises the ideas that legal theorists and practitioners should bear in mind in order to understand and make proper use of these two controversial but indispensable notions