Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Benjamin Zarrieß

dblp:132/5788 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
5as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 5 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 4 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
5 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 92% Learning theory · 8%
Theoretical computer science
4 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 40% Computational complexity · 32% Logic in computer science · 28%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
description logic
0.632018
Complexity of Projection with Stochastic Actions in a Probabilistic Description Logic · KR 2018
Most Specific Generalizations w.r.t. General EL-TBoxes · IJCAI 2013
Verification of Knowledge-Based Programs over Description Logic Actions · IJCAI 2015
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › description logic
probabilistic description logic
0.312018
Complexity of Projection with Stochastic Actions in a Probabilistic Description Logic · KR 2018
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
situation calculus
0.212016
Decidable Verification of Golog Programs over Non-Local Effect Actions · AAAI 2016
Logic in computer science
semantics
0.222014
Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs · AAAI 2014
Most Specific Generalizations w.r.t. General EL-TBoxes · IJCAI 2013
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
golog
0.212014
Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs · AAAI 2014
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change
reasoning about actions
0.212014
Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs · AAAI 2014
Automated reasoning and model checking
temporal logic verification
0.212014
Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs · AAAI 2014
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.212013
Most Specific Generalizations w.r.t. General EL-TBoxes · IJCAI 2013
Logic in computer science › knowledge representation and reasoning › description logic
description logic semantics
0.012013
Most Specific Generalizations w.r.t. General EL-TBoxes · IJCAI 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

stochastic actions · 0.7computational complexity analysis · 0.7verification · 0.4generalization · 0.3two-variable fragment of first-order logic · 0.2CTL* model checking · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Efficient TBox Reasoning with Value Restrictions using the ℱℒ0wer Reasoner
abstract
Abstract The inexpressive Description Logic (DL) ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ , which has conjunction and value restriction as its only concept constructors, had fallen into disrepute when it turned out that reasoning in ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ w.r.t. general TBoxes is ExpTime-complete, that is, as hard as in the considerably more expressive logic ${\cal A}{\cal L}{\cal C}$ . In this paper, we rehabilitate ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ by presenting a dedicated subsumption algorithm for ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ , which is much simpler than the tableau-based algorithms employed by highly optimized DL reasoners. Our experiments show that the performance of our novel algorithm, as prototypically implemented in our ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ wer reasoner, compares very well with that of the highly optimized reasoners. ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ wer can also deal with ontologies written in the extension ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_ \bot }$ of ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ with the top and the bottom concept by employing a polynomial-time reduction, shown in this paper, which eliminates top and bottom. We also investigate the complexity of reasoning in DLs related to the Horn-fragments of ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_0}$ and ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_ \bot }$ .
Franz Baader, Patrick Koopmann, Friedrich Michel, Anni-Yasmin Turhan, Benjamin Zarrieß
Theory Pract. Log. Program.5
2018 Complexity of Projection with Stochastic Actions in a Probabilistic Description Logic
Benjamin Zarrieß
KR1
2016 Decidable Verification of Golog Programs over Non-Local Effect Actions
abstract
The Golog action programming language is a powerful means to express high-level behaviours in terms of programs over actions defined in a Situation Calculus theory. In particular for physical systems, verifying that the program satisfies certain desired temporal properties is often crucial, but undecidable in general, the latter being due to the language's high expressiveness in terms of first-order quantification, range of action effects, and program constructs. So far, approaches to achieve decidability involved restrictions where action effects either had to be context-free (i.e. not depend on the current state), local (i.e. only affect objects mentioned in the action's parameters), or at least bounded (i.e. only affect a finite number of objects). In this paper, we introduce two new, more general classes of action theories that allow for context-sensitive, non-local, unbounded effects, i.e. actions that may affect an unbounded number of possibly unnamed objects in a state-dependent fashion. We contribute to the further exploration of the boundary between decidability and undecidability for Golog, showing that for our new classes of action theories in the two-variable fragment of first-order logic, verification of CTL* properties of programs over ground actions is decidable.
Benjamin Zarrieß, Jens Claßen
AAAI1
2015 Verification of Knowledge-Based Programs over Description Logic Actions
Benjamin Zarrieß, Jens Claßen
IJCAI1
2014 Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs
abstract
The action programming language GOLOG has been found useful for the control of autonomous agents such as mobile robots. In scenarios like these, tasks are often open-ended so that the respective control programs are non-terminating. Before deploying such programs on a robot, it is often desirable to verify that they meet certain requirements. For this purpose, Claßen and Lakemeyer recently introduced algorithms for the verification of temporal properties of GOLOG programs. However, given the expressiveness of GOLOG, their verification procedures are not guaranteed to terminate. In this paper, we show how decidability can be obtained by suitably restricting the underlying base logic, the effect axioms for primitive actions, and the use of actions within GOLOG programs. Moreover, we show that dropping any of these restrictions immediately leads to undecidability of the verification problem.
Jens Claßen, Martin Liebenberg, Gerhard Lakemeyer, Benjamin Zarrieß
AAAI4
2014 Verifying CTL* Properties of GOLOG Programs over Local-Effect Actions
abstract
GOLOG is a high-level action programming language for controlling autonomous agents such as mobile robots. It is defined on top of a logic-based action theory expressed in the Situation Calculus. Before a program is deployed onto an actual robot and executed in the physical world, it is desirable, if not crucial, to verify that it meets certain requirements (typically expressed through temporal formulas) and thus indeed exhibits the desired behaviour. However, due to the high (first-order) expressiveness of the language, the corresponding verification problem is in general undecidable. In this paper, we extend earlier results to identify a large, non-trivial fragment of the formalism where verification is decidable. In particular, we consider properties expressed in a first-order variant of the branching-time temporal logic CTL*. Decidability is obtained by (1) resorting to the decidable first-order fragment C2as underlying base logic, (2) using a fragment of GOLOG with ground actions only, and (3) requiring the action theory to only admit local effects.
Benjamin Zarrieß, Jens Claßen
ECAI1
2013 Most Specific Generalizations w.r.t. General EL-TBoxes
Benjamin Zarrieß, Anni-Yasmin Turhan
IJCAI1