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

Making Quantification Relevant Again —the Case of Defeasible EL⊥

Defeasible Description Logics (DDLs) extend Description Logics with defeasible concept inclusions. Reasoning in DDLs often employs rational or relevant closure according to the (propositional) KLM postulates. If in DDLs with quantification a defeasible subsumption relationship holds between concepts, this relationship might also hold if these concepts appear in existential restrictions. Such nested defeasible subsumption relationships were not detected by earlier reasoning algorithms—neither for rational nor relevant closure. In this report, we present a new approach for EL ⊥ that alleviates this problem for relevant closure (the strongest form of preferential reasoning currently investigated) by the use of typicality models that extend classical canonical models by domain elements that individually satisfy any amount of consistent defeasible knowledge. We also show that a certain restriction on the domain of the typicality models in this approach yields inference results that correspond to the (weaker) more commonly known rational closure.Abriged versions appeared in the proceedings of DARe and LPNMR 201

Standard and Non-Standard Inferences in the Description Logic FL₀ Using Tree Automata

Although being quite inexpressive, the description logic (DL) FL₀, which provides only conjunction, value restriction and the top concept as concept constructors, has an intractable subsumption problem in the presence of terminologies (TBoxes): subsumption reasoning w.r.t. acyclic FL₀ TBoxes is coNP-complete, and becomes even ExpTime-complete in case general TBoxes are used. In the present paper, we use automata working on infinite trees to solve both standard and non-standard inferences in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes. First, we give an alternative proof of the ExpTime upper bound for subsumption in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes based on the use of looping tree automata. Second, we employ parity tree automata to tackle non-standard inference problems such as computing the least common subsumer and the difference of FL₀ concepts w.r.t. general TBoxes

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

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

Making Quantification Relevant Again —the Case of Defeasible EL⊥

Defeasible Description Logics (DDLs) extend Description Logics with defeasible concept inclusions. Reasoning in DDLs often employs rational or relevant closure according to the (propositional) KLM postulates. If in DDLs with quantification a defeasible subsumption relationship holds between concepts, this relationship might also hold if these concepts appear in existential restrictions. Such nested defeasible subsumption relationships were not detected by earlier reasoning algorithms—neither for rational nor relevant closure. In this report, we present a new approach for EL ⊥ that alleviates this problem for relevant closure (the strongest form of preferential reasoning currently investigated) by the use of typicality models that extend classical canonical models by domain elements that individually satisfy any amount of consistent defeasible knowledge. We also show that a certain restriction on the domain of the typicality models in this approach yields inference results that correspond to the (weaker) more commonly known rational closure.Abriged versions appeared in the proceedings of DARe and LPNMR 201

Making Quantification Relevant Again —the Case of Defeasible EL⊥

Defeasible Description Logics (DDLs) extend Description Logics with defeasible concept inclusions. Reasoning in DDLs often employs rational or relevant closure according to the (propositional) KLM postulates. If in DDLs with quantification a defeasible subsumption relationship holds between concepts, this relationship might also hold if these concepts appear in existential restrictions. Such nested defeasible subsumption relationships were not detected by earlier reasoning algorithms—neither for rational nor relevant closure. In this report, we present a new approach for EL ⊥ that alleviates this problem for relevant closure (the strongest form of preferential reasoning currently investigated) by the use of typicality models that extend classical canonical models by domain elements that individually satisfy any amount of consistent defeasible knowledge. We also show that a certain restriction on the domain of the typicality models in this approach yields inference results that correspond to the (weaker) more commonly known rational closure.Abriged versions appeared in the proceedings of DARe and LPNMR 201

Standard and Non-Standard Inferences in the Description Logic FL₀ Using Tree Automata

Although being quite inexpressive, the description logic (DL) FL₀, which provides only conjunction, value restriction and the top concept as concept constructors, has an intractable subsumption problem in the presence of terminologies (TBoxes): subsumption reasoning w.r.t. acyclic FL₀ TBoxes is coNP-complete, and becomes even ExpTime-complete in case general TBoxes are used. In the present paper, we use automata working on infinite trees to solve both standard and non-standard inferences in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes. First, we give an alternative proof of the ExpTime upper bound for subsumption in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes based on the use of looping tree automata. Second, we employ parity tree automata to tackle non-standard inference problems such as computing the least common subsumer and the difference of FL₀ concepts w.r.t. general TBoxes

Standard and Non-Standard Inferences in the Description Logic FL₀ Using Tree Automata

Although being quite inexpressive, the description logic (DL) FL₀, which provides only conjunction, value restriction and the top concept as concept constructors, has an intractable subsumption problem in the presence of terminologies (TBoxes): subsumption reasoning w.r.t. acyclic FL₀ TBoxes is coNP-complete, and becomes even ExpTime-complete in case general TBoxes are used. In the present paper, we use automata working on infinite trees to solve both standard and non-standard inferences in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes. First, we give an alternative proof of the ExpTime upper bound for subsumption in FL₀ w.r.t. general TBoxes based on the use of looping tree automata. Second, we employ parity tree automata to tackle non-standard inference problems such as computing the least common subsumer and the difference of FL₀ concepts w.r.t. general TBoxes