Explainable methods for knowledge graph refinement and exploration via symbolic reasoning

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have applications in many domains such as Finance, Manufacturing, and Healthcare. While recent efforts have created large KGs, their content is far from complete and sometimes includes invalid statements. Therefore, it is crucial to refine the constructed KGs to enhance their coverage and accuracy via KG completion and KG validation. It is also vital to provide human-comprehensible explanations for such refinements, so that humans have trust in the KG quality. Enabling KG exploration, by search and browsing, is also essential for users to understand the KG value and limitations towards down-stream applications. However, the large size of KGs makes KG exploration very challenging. While the type taxonomy of KGs is a useful asset along these lines, it remains insufficient for deep exploration. In this dissertation we tackle the aforementioned challenges of KG refinement and KG exploration by combining logical reasoning over the KG with other techniques such as KG embedding models and text mining. Through such combination, we introduce methods that provide human-understandable output. Concretely, we introduce methods to tackle KG incompleteness by learning exception-aware rules over the existing KG. Learned rules are then used in inferring missing links in the KG accurately. Furthermore, we propose a framework for constructing human-comprehensible explanations for candidate facts from both KG and text. Extracted explanations are used to insure the validity of KG facts. Finally, to facilitate KG exploration, we introduce a method that combines KG embeddings with rule mining to compute informative entity clusters with explanations.Wissensgraphen haben viele Anwendungen in verschiedenen Bereichen, beispielsweise im Finanz- und Gesundheitswesen. Wissensgraphen sind jedoch unvollständig und enthalten auch ungültige Daten. Hohe Abdeckung und Korrektheit erfordern neue Methoden zur Wissensgraph-Erweiterung und Wissensgraph-Validierung. Beide Aufgaben zusammen werden als Wissensgraph-Verfeinerung bezeichnet. Ein wichtiger Aspekt dabei ist die Erklärbarkeit und Verständlichkeit von Wissensgraphinhalten für Nutzer. In Anwendungen ist darüber hinaus die nutzerseitige Exploration von Wissensgraphen von besonderer Bedeutung. Suchen und Navigieren im Graph hilft dem Anwender, die Wissensinhalte und ihre Limitationen besser zu verstehen. Aufgrund der riesigen Menge an vorhandenen Entitäten und Fakten ist die Wissensgraphen-Exploration eine Herausforderung. Taxonomische Typsystem helfen dabei, sind jedoch für tiefergehende Exploration nicht ausreichend. Diese Dissertation adressiert die Herausforderungen der Wissensgraph-Verfeinerung und der Wissensgraph-Exploration durch algorithmische Inferenz über dem Wissensgraph. Sie erweitert logisches Schlussfolgern und kombiniert es mit anderen Methoden, insbesondere mit neuronalen Wissensgraph-Einbettungen und mit Text-Mining. Diese neuen Methoden liefern Ausgaben mit Erklärungen für Nutzer. Die Dissertation umfasst folgende Beiträge: Insbesondere leistet die Dissertation folgende Beiträge: • Zur Wissensgraph-Erweiterung präsentieren wir ExRuL, eine Methode zur Revision von Horn-Regeln durch Hinzufügen von Ausnahmebedingungen zum Rumpf der Regeln. Die erweiterten Regeln können neue Fakten inferieren und somit Lücken im Wissensgraphen schließen. Experimente mit großen Wissensgraphen zeigen, dass diese Methode Fehler in abgeleiteten Fakten erheblich reduziert und nutzerfreundliche Erklärungen liefert. • Mit RuLES stellen wir eine Methode zum Lernen von Regeln vor, die auf probabilistischen Repräsentationen für fehlende Fakten basiert. Das Verfahren erweitert iterativ die aus einem Wissensgraphen induzierten Regeln, indem es neuronale Wissensgraph-Einbettungen mit Informationen aus Textkorpora kombiniert. Bei der Regelgenerierung werden neue Metriken für die Regelqualität verwendet. Experimente zeigen, dass RuLES die Qualität der gelernten Regeln und ihrer Vorhersagen erheblich verbessert. • Zur Unterstützung der Wissensgraph-Validierung wird ExFaKT vorgestellt, ein Framework zur Konstruktion von Erklärungen für Faktkandidaten. Die Methode transformiert Kandidaten mit Hilfe von Regeln in eine Menge von Aussagen, die leichter zu finden und zu validieren oder widerlegen sind. Die Ausgabe von ExFaKT ist eine Menge semantischer Evidenzen für Faktkandidaten, die aus Textkorpora und dem Wissensgraph extrahiert werden. Experimente zeigen, dass die Transformationen die Ausbeute und Qualität der entdeckten Erklärungen deutlich verbessert. Die generierten unterstützen Erklärungen unterstütze sowohl die manuelle Wissensgraph- Validierung durch Kuratoren als auch die automatische Validierung. • Zur Unterstützung der Wissensgraph-Exploration wird ExCut vorgestellt, eine Methode zur Erzeugung von informativen Entitäts-Clustern mit Erklärungen unter Verwendung von Wissensgraph-Einbettungen und automatisch induzierten Regeln. Eine Cluster-Erklärung besteht aus einer Kombination von Relationen zwischen den Entitäten, die den Cluster identifizieren. ExCut verbessert gleichzeitig die Cluster- Qualität und die Cluster-Erklärbarkeit durch iteratives Verschränken des Lernens von Einbettungen und Regeln. Experimente zeigen, dass ExCut Cluster von hoher Qualität berechnet und dass die Cluster-Erklärungen für Nutzer informativ sind

Computational Ontologies and Information Systems II: Formal Specification

This paper extends the study of ontologies in Part I of this study (Volume 14, Article 8) in the context of Information Systems. The basic foundations of computational ontologies presented in Part I are extended to formal specifications in this paper. This paper provides a review of the formalisms, languages, and tools for specifying and implementing computational ontologies Directions for future research are also provided

Is Neuro-Symbolic AI Meeting its Promise in Natural Language Processing? A Structured Review

Advocates for Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence (NeSy) assert that combining deep learning with symbolic reasoning will lead to stronger AI than either paradigm on its own. As successful as deep learning has been, it is generally accepted that even our best deep learning systems are not very good at abstract reasoning. And since reasoning is inextricably linked to language, it makes intuitive sense that Natural Language Processing (NLP), would be a particularly well-suited candidate for NeSy. We conduct a structured review of studies implementing NeSy for NLP, with the aim of answering the question of whether NeSy is indeed meeting its promises: reasoning, out-of-distribution generalization, interpretability, learning and reasoning from small data, and transferability to new domains. We examine the impact of knowledge representation, such as rules and semantic networks, language structure and relational structure, and whether implicit or explicit reasoning contributes to higher promise scores. We find that systems where logic is compiled into the neural network lead to the most NeSy goals being satisfied, while other factors such as knowledge representation, or type of neural architecture do not exhibit a clear correlation with goals being met. We find many discrepancies in how reasoning is defined, specifically in relation to human level reasoning, which impact decisions about model architectures and drive conclusions which are not always consistent across studies. Hence we advocate for a more methodical approach to the application of theories of human reasoning as well as the development of appropriate benchmarks, which we hope can lead to a better understanding of progress in the field. We make our data and code available on github for further analysis.Comment: Surve

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison

Synergies between machine learning and reasoning - An introduction by the Kay R. Amel group

This paper proposes a tentative and original survey of meeting points between Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) and Machine Learning (ML), two areas which have been developed quite separately in the last four decades. First, some common concerns are identified and discussed such as the types of representation used, the roles of knowledge and data, the lack or the excess of information, or the need for explanations and causal understanding. Then, the survey is organised in seven sections covering most of the territory where KRR and ML meet. We start with a section dealing with prototypical approaches from the literature on learning and reasoning: Inductive Logic Programming, Statistical Relational Learning, and Neurosymbolic AI, where ideas from rule-based reasoning are combined with ML. Then we focus on the use of various forms of background knowledge in learning, ranging from additional regularisation terms in loss functions, to the problem of aligning symbolic and vector space representations, or the use of knowledge graphs for learning. Then, the next section describes how KRR notions may benefit to learning tasks. For instance, constraints can be used as in declarative data mining for influencing the learned patterns; or semantic features are exploited in low-shot learning to compensate for the lack of data; or yet we can take advantage of analogies for learning purposes. Conversely, another section investigates how ML methods may serve KRR goals. For instance, one may learn special kinds of rules such as default rules, fuzzy rules or threshold rules, or special types of information such as constraints, or preferences. The section also covers formal concept analysis and rough sets-based methods. Yet another section reviews various interactions between Automated Reasoning and ML, such as the use of ML methods in SAT solving to make reasoning faster. Then a section deals with works related to model accountability, including explainability and interpretability, fairness and robustness. Finally, a section covers works on handling imperfect or incomplete data, including the problem of learning from uncertain or coarse data, the use of belief functions for regression, a revision-based view of the EM algorithm, the use of possibility theory in statistics, or the learning of imprecise models. This paper thus aims at a better mutual understanding of research in KRR and ML, and how they can cooperate. The paper is completed by an abundant bibliography