Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approach

A study of query answering in prioritized ontological knowledge bases (KBs) has received attention in recent years. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed and their complexity is rather well-understood, the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answers has paid less attention. Explaining query answers permits users to understand not only what is entailed or not entailed by an inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority, but also why. We, therefore, concern with the use of argumentation frameworks to allow users to better understand explanation techniques of querying answers over inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority. More specifically, we propose a new variant of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, which corresponds to a given inconsistent DL-LiteR KB. We clarify a close relation between preferred subtheories adopted in such prioritized DL-LiteR setting and acceptable semantics of the corresponding argumentation framework. The significant result paves the way for applying algorithms and proof theories to establish preferred subtheories inferences in prioritized DL-LiteR KBs

Temporal Query Answering in DL-Lite over Inconsistent Data

In ontology-based systems that process data stemming from different sources and that is received over time, as in context-aware systems, reasoning needs to cope with the temporal dimension and should be resilient against inconsistencies in the data. Motivated by such settings, this paper addresses the problem of handling inconsistent data in a temporal version of ontology-based query answering. We consider a recently proposed temporal query language that combines conjunctive queries with operators of propositional linear temporal logic and extend to this setting three inconsistency-tolerant semantics that have been introduced for querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. We investigate their complexity for DL-LiteR temporal knowledge bases, and furthermore complete the picture for the consistent case

Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks

In many domains of public discourse such as arguments about public policy, there is an abundance of knowledge to store, query, and reason with. To use this knowledge, we must address two key general problems: first, the problem of the knowledge acquisition bottleneck between forms in which the knowledge is usually expressed, e.g., natural language, and forms which can be automatically processed; second, reasoning with the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the knowledge. Given such complexities, it is labour and knowledge intensive to conduct policy consultations, where participants contribute statements to the policy discourse. Yet, from such a consultation, we want to derive policy positions, where each position is a set of consistent statements, but where positions may be mutually inconsistent. To address these problems and support policy-making consultations, we consider recent automated techniques in natural language processing, instantiating arguments, and reasoning with the arguments in argumentation frameworks. We discuss application and “bridge” issues between these techniques, outlining a pipeline of technologies whereby: expressions in a controlled natural language are parsed and translated into a logic (a literals and rules knowledge base), from which we generate instantiated arguments and their relationships using a logic-based formalism (an argument knowledge base), which is then input to an implemented argumentation framework that calculates extensions of arguments (an argument extensions knowledge base), and finally, we extract consistent sets of expressions (policy positions). The paper reports progress towards reasoning with web-based, distributed, collaborative, incomplete, and inconsistent knowledge bases expressed in natural language

EMIL: Extracting Meaning from Inconsistent Language

Developments in formal and computational theories of argumentation reason with inconsistency. Developments in Computational Linguistics extract arguments from large textual corpora. Both developments head in the direction of automated processing and reasoning with inconsistent, linguistic knowledge so as to explain and justify arguments in a humanly accessible form. Yet, there is a gap between the coarse-grained, semi-structured knowledge-bases of computational theories of argumentation and fine-grained, highly-structured inferences from knowledge-bases derived from natural language. We identify several subproblems which must be addressed in order to bridge the gap. We provide a direct semantics for argumentation. It has attractive properties in terms of expressivity and complexity, enables reasoning by cases, and can be more highly structured. For language processing, we work with an existing controlled natural language (CNL), which interfaces with our computational theory of argumentation; the tool processes natural language input, translates them into a form for automated inference engines, outputs argument extensions, then generates natural language statements. The key novel adaptation incorporates the defeasible expression ‘it is usual that’. This is an important, albeit incremental, step to incorporate linguistic expressions of defeasibility. Overall, the novel contribution of the paper is an integrated, end-to-end argumentation system which bridges between automated defeasible reasoning and a natural language interface. Specific novel contributions are the theory of ‘direct semantics’, motivations for our theory, results with respect to the direct semantics, an implementation, experimental results, the tie between the formalisation and the CNL, the introduction into a CNL of a natural language expression of defeasibility, and an ‘engineering’ approach to fine-grained argument analysis

Personalizable Knowledge Integration

Large repositories of data are used daily as knowledge bases (KBs) feeding computer systems that support decision making processes, such as in medical or financial applications. Unfortunately, the larger a KB is, the harder it is to ensure its consistency and completeness. The problem of handling KBs of this kind has been studied in the AI and databases communities, but most approaches focus on computing answers locally to the KB, assuming there is some single, epistemically correct solution. It is important to recognize that for some applications, as part of the decision making process, users consider far more knowledge than that which is contained in the knowledge base, and that sometimes inconsistent data may help in directing reasoning; for instance, inconsistency in taxpayer records can serve as evidence of a possible fraud. Thus, the handling of this type of data needs to be context-sensitive, creating a synergy with the user in order to build useful, flexible data management systems. Inconsistent and incomplete information is ubiquitous and presents a substantial problem when trying to reason about the data: how can we derive an adequate model of the world, from the point of view of a given user, from a KB that may be inconsistent or incomplete? In this thesis we argue that in many cases users need to bring their application-specific knowledge to bear in order to inform the data management process. Therefore, we provide different approaches to handle, in a personalized fashion, some of the most common issues that arise in knowledge management. Specifically, we focus on (1) inconsistency management in relational databases, general knowledge bases, and a special kind of knowledge base designed for news reports; (2) management of incomplete information in the form of different types of null values; and (3) answering queries in the presence of uncertain schema matchings. We allow users to define policies to manage both inconsistent and incomplete information in their application in a way that takes both the user's knowledge of his problem, and his attitude to error/risk, into account. Using the frameworks and tools proposed here, users can specify when and how they want to manage/solve the issues that arise due to inconsistency and incompleteness in their data, in the way that best suits their needs

Understanding Inconsistency -- A Contribution to the Field of Non-monotonic Reasoning

Conflicting information in an agent's knowledge base may lead to a semantical defect, that is, a situation where it is impossible to draw any plausible conclusion. Finding out the reasons for the observed inconsistency and restoring consistency in a certain minimal way are frequently occurring issues in the research area of knowledge representation and reasoning. In a seminal paper Raymond Reiter proves a duality between maximal consistent subsets of a propositional knowledge base and minimal hitting sets of each minimal conflict -- the famous hitting set duality. We extend Reiter's result to arbitrary non-monotonic logics. To this end, we develop a refined notion of inconsistency, called strong inconsistency. We show that minimal strongly inconsistent subsets play a similar role as minimal inconsistent subsets in propositional logic. In particular, the duality between hitting sets of minimal inconsistent subsets and maximal consistent subsets generalizes to arbitrary logics if the stronger notion of inconsistency is used. We cover various notions of repairs and characterize them using analogous hitting set dualities. Our analysis also includes an investigation of structural properties of knowledge bases with respect to our notions. Minimal inconsistent subsets of knowledge bases in monotonic logics play an important role when investigating the reasons for conflicts and trying to handle them, but also for inconsistency measurement. Our notion of strong inconsistency thus allows us to extend existing results to non-monotonic logics. While measuring inconsistency in propositional logic has been investigated for some time now, taking the non-monotony into account poses new challenges. In order to tackle them, we focus on the structure of minimal strongly inconsistent subsets of a knowledge base. We propose measures based on this notion and investigate their behavior in a non-monotonic setting by revisiting existing rationality postulates, and analyzing the compliance of the proposed measures with these postulates. We provide a series of first results in the context of inconsistency in abstract argumentation theory regarding the two most important reasoning modes, namely credulous as well as skeptical acceptance. Our analysis includes the following problems regarding minimal repairs: existence, verification, computation of one and characterization of all solutions. The latter will be tackled with our previously obtained duality results. Finally, we investigate the complexity of various related reasoning problems and compare our results to existing ones for monotonic logics

Constrained Query Answering

Traditional answering methods evaluate queries only against positive and definite knowledge expressed by means of facts and deduction rules. They do not make use of negative, disjunctive or existential information. Negative or indefinite knowledge is however often available in knowledge base systems, either as design requirements, or as observed properties. Such knowledge can serve to rule out unproductive subexpressions during query answering. In this article, we propose an approach for constraining any conventional query answering procedure with general, possibly negative or indefinite formulas, so as to discard impossible cases and to avoid redundant evaluations. This approach does not impose additional conditions on the positive and definite knowledge, nor does it assume any particular semantics for negation. It adopts that of the conventional query answering procedure it constrains. This is achieved by relying on meta-interpretation for specifying the constraining process. The soundness, completeness, and termination of the underlying query answering procedure are not compromised. Constrained query answering can be applied for answering queries more efficiently as well as for generating more informative, intensional answers