We introduce the notion of contrastive ABox explanations to answer questions of the type “Why is a an instance of C, but b is not?”. While there are various approaches for explaining positive entailments (why is C(a) entailed by the knowledge base) as well as missing entailments (why is C(b) not entailed) in isolation, contrastive explanations consider both at the same time, which allows them to focus on the relevant commonalities and differences between a and b. We develop an appropriate notion of contrastive explanations for the special case of ABox reasoning with description logic ontologies, and analyze the computational complexity for different variants under different optimality criteria, considering lightweight as well as more expressive description logics. We implemented a first method for computing one variant of contrastive explanations, and evaluated it on generated problems for realistic knowledge bases.

Given a knowledge base (KB) with a non-entailed fact, the ABox abduction problem asks for possible extensions of the KB that would entail this fact. This problem has many applications, ranging from diagnosis to explainability and repair. ABox abduction has been well-investigated for consistent KBs and classical semantics, but little is known for the case of inconsistent KBs, which can be caused by erroneous data. In this paper we define suitable notions of abduction in this setting and propose criteria that guide abduction towards useful hypotheses. To regain meaningful reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies, we use well-established repair semantics. We provide a comprehensive landscape of the complexity of ABox abduction under repair semantics, treating different variants of the abduction problem for the light-weight description logics DL-Lite and EL_bot.

Abstract Standard Description Logics (DLs) can encode quantitative aspects of an application domain through either number restrictions , which constrain the number of individuals that are in a certain relationship with an individual, or concrete domains , which can be used to assign concrete values to individuals using so-called features. These two mechanisms have been extended towards very expressive DLs, for which reasoning nevertheless remains decidable. Number restrictions have been generalized to more powerful comparisons of sets of role successors in $$\mathcal {ALCSCC}$$ ALCSCC , while the comparison of feature values of different individuals in $$\mathcal {ALC} (\mathfrak {D})$$ ALC ( D ) has been studied in the context of $$\omega $$ ω -admissible concrete domains $$\mathfrak {D}$$ D . In this paper, we combine both formalisms and investigate the complexity of reasoning in the thus obtained DL $$\mathcal {ALCOSCC}(\mathfrak {D})$$ ALCOSCC ( D ) , which additionally includes the ability to refer to specific individuals by name. We show that, in spite of its high expressivity, the consistency problem for this DL is ExpTime -complete, assuming that the constraint satisfaction problem of $$\mathfrak {D}$$ D is also decidable in exponential time. It is thus not higher than the complexity of the basic DL $$\mathcal {ALC}$$ ALC . At the same time, we show that many natural extensions to this DL, including a tighter integration of the concrete domain and number restrictions, lead to undecidability.

We introduce ontology-mediated planning, in which planning problems are combined with an ontology. Our formalism differs from existing ones in that we focus on a strong separation of the formalisms for describing planning problems and ontologies, which are only losely coupled by an interface. Moreover, we present a black-box algorithm that supports the full expressive power of OWL DL. This goes beyond what existing approaches combining automated planning with ontologies can do, which only support limited description logics such as DL-Lite and description logics that are Horn. Our main algorithm relies on rewritings of the ontology-mediated planning specifications into PDDL, so that existing planning systems can be used to solve them. The algorithm relies on justifications, which allows for a generic approach that is independent of the expressivity of the ontology language. However, dedicated optimizations for computing justifications need to be implemented to enable an efficient rewriting procedure. We evaluated our implementation on benchmark sets from several domains. The evaluation shows that our procedure works in practice and that tailoring the reasoning procedure has significant impact on the performance.

Coalition Logic (CL) is a well-known formalism for reasoning about the strategic abilities of groups of agents in multi-agent systems. Coalition Logic with Common Knowledge (CLC) extends CL with operators from epistic logics, and thus with the ability to model the individual and common knowledge of agents. We have formalized the syntax and semantics of both logics in the interactive theorem prover Lean 4, and used it to prove soundness and completeness of its axiomatization. Our formalization uses the type class system to generalize over different aspects of CLC, thus allowing us to reuse some of to prove properties in related logics such as CL and CLK (CL with individual knowledge).

One of the advantages of formalizing domain knowledge in OWL ontologies is that one can use reasoning systems to infer implicit information automatically. However, it is not always straightforward to understand why certain entailments are inferred, and others are not. The popular ontology editor Protégé offers two explanation services to deal with this issue: justifications for OWL 2 DL ontologies, and proofs generated by the reasoner ELK for lightweight OWL 2 EL ontologies. Since justifications are often insufficient for explaining inferences, there is thus only little tool support for more comprehensive explanations in expressive ontology languages, and there is no tool support at all to explain why something was not derived. In this paper, we present Evee, a Java library and a collection of plug-ins for Protégé that offers advanced explanation services for both inferred and missing entailments. Evee explains inferred entailments using proofs in description logics up to ALCH. Missing entailments can be explained using counterexamples and abduction. We evaluated the effectiveness and the interface design of our plug-ins with description logic experts, ontology engineers, and students in two user studies. In these experiments, we were able to not only validate the tool but also gather feedback and insights to improve the existing designs.

We present a method for extracting general modules for ontologies formulated in the description logic ALC. A module for an ontology is an ideally substantially smaller ontology that preserves all entailments for a user-specified set of terms. As such, it has applications such as ontology reuse and ontology analysis. Different from classical modules, general modules may use axioms not explicitly present in the input ontology, which allows for additional conciseness. So far, general modules have only been investigated for lightweight description logics. We present the first work that considers the more expressive description logic ALC. In particular, our contribution is a new method based on uniform interpolation supported by some new theoretical results. Our evaluation indicates that our general modules are often smaller than classical modules and uniform interpolants computed by the state-of-the-art, and compared with uniform interpolants, can be computed in significantly shorter time. Moreover, our method can be used for, and in fact, improves the computation of uniform interpolants and classical modules.

Abstract OWL is a powerful language to formalize terminologies in an ontology. Its main strength lies in its foundation on description logics, allowing systems to automatically deduce implicit information through logical reasoning. However, since ontologies are often complex, understanding the outcome of the reasoning process is not always straightforward. Unlike already existing tools for exploring ontologies, our visualization tool Evonne is tailored towards explaining logical consequences. In addition, it supports the debugging of unwanted consequences and allows for an interactive comparison of the impact of removing statements from the ontology. Our visual approach combines (1) specialized views for the explanation of logical consequences and the structure of the ontology, (2) employing multiple layout modes for iteratively exploring explanations, (3) detailed explanations of specific reasoning steps, (4) cross‐view highlighting and colour coding of the visualization components, (5) features for dealing with visual complexity and (6) comparison and exploration of possible fixes to the ontology. We evaluated Evonne in a qualitative study with 16 experts in logics, and their positive feedback confirms the value of our concepts for explaining reasoning and debugging ontologies.

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 ${\cal F}{{\cal L}_ \bot }$ .

Abstract Logic-based approaches to AI have the advantage that their behavior can in principle be explained to a user. If, for instance, a Description Logic reasoner derives a consequence that triggers some action of the overall system, then one can explain such an entailment by presenting a proof of the consequence in an appropriate calculus. How comprehensible such a proof is depends not only on the employed calculus, but also on the properties of the particular proof, such as its overall size, its depth, the complexity of the employed sentences and proof steps, etc. For this reason, we want to determine the complexity of generating proofs that are below a certain threshold w.r.t. a given measure of proof quality. Rather than investigating this problem for a fixed proof calculus and a fixed measure, we aim for general results that hold for wide classes of calculi and measures. In previous work, we first restricted the attention to a setting where proof size is used to measure the quality of a proof. We then extended the approach to a more general setting, but important measures such as proof depth were not covered. In the present paper, we provide results for a class of measures called recursive, which yields lower complexities and also encompasses proof depth. In addition, we close some gaps left open in our previous work, thus providing a comprehensive picture of the complexity landscape.

Abstract The application of automated reasoning approaches to Description Logic (DL) ontologies may produce certain consequences that either are deemed to be wrong or should be hidden for privacy reasons. The question is then how to repair the ontology such that the unwanted consequences can no longer be deduced. An optimal repair is one where the least amount of other consequences is removed. Most of the previous approaches to ontology repair are of a syntactic nature in that they remove or weaken the axioms explicitly present in the ontology, and thus cannot achieve semantic optimality. In previous work, we have addressed the problem of computing optimal repairs of (quantified) ABoxes, where the unwanted consequences are described by concept assertions of the lightweight DL $$\mathcal {EL}$$ EL . In the present paper, we improve on the results achieved so far in two ways. First, we allow for the presence of terminological knowledge in the form of an $$\mathcal {EL}$$ EL TBox. This TBox is assumed to be static in the sense that it cannot be changed in the repair process. Second, the construction of optimal repairs described in our previous work is best case exponential. We introduce an optimized construction that is exponential only in the worst case. First experimental results indicate that this reduces the size of the computed optimal repairs considerably.

Given a knowledge base and an observation as a set of facts, ABox abduction aims at computing a hypothesis that, when added to the knowledge base, is sufficient to entail the observation. In signature-based ABox abduction, the hypothesis is further required to use only names from a given set. This form of abduction has applications such as diagnosis, KB repair, or explaning missing entailments. It is possible that hypotheses for a given observation only exist if we admit the use of fresh individuals and/or complex concepts built from the given signature, something most approaches for ABox abduction so far do not allow or only allow with restrictions. In this paper, we investigate the computational complexity of this form of abduction---allowing either fresh individuals, complex concepts, or both---for various description logics, and give size bounds on the hypotheses if they exist.

Abstract Probabilistic model checking (PMC) is a well-established method for the quantitative analysis of state based operational models such as Markov decision processes. Description logics (DLs) provide a well-suited formalism to describe and reason about knowledge and are used as basis for the web ontology language (OWL). We investigate how such knowledge described by DLs can be integrated into the PMC process, introducingontology-mediatedPMC. Specifically, we proposeontologized programsas a formalism that links ontologies to behaviors specified by probabilistic guarded commands, the de-facto standard input formalism for PMC tools such as Prism. Through DL reasoning, inconsistent states in the modeled system can be detected. We present three ways to resolve these inconsistencies, leading to different Markov decision process semantics. We analyze the computational complexity of checking whether an ontologized program is consistent under these semantics. Further, we present and implement a technique for the quantitative analysis of ontologized programs relying on standard DL reasoning and PMC tools. This way, we enable the application of PMC techniques to analyze knowledge-intensive systems.We evaluate our approach and implementation on amulti-server systemcase study,where different DL ontologies are used to provide specifications of different server platforms and situations the system is executed in.

In deductive module extraction, we determine a small subset of an ontology for a given vocabulary that preserves all logical entailments that can be expressed in that vocabulary. While in the literature stronger module notions have been discussed, we argue that for applications in ontology analysis and ontology reuse, deductive modules, which are decidable and potentially smaller, are often sufficient. We present methods based on uniform interpolation for extracting different variants of deductive modules, satisfying properties such as completeness, minimality and robustness under replacements, the latter being particularly relevant for ontology reuse. An evaluation of our implementation shows that the modules computed by our method are often significantly smaller than those computed by existing methods.

Signature-based abduction aims at building hypotheses over a specified set of names, the signature, that explain an observation relative to some background knowledge. This type of abduction is useful for tasks such as diagnosis, where the vocab- ulary used for observed symptoms differs from the vocabulary expected to explain those symptoms. We present the first complete method solving signature-based abduction for observations expressed in the expressive description logic ALC, which can include TBox and ABox axioms. The method is guaranteed to compute a finite and complete set of hypotheses, and is evaluated on a set of realistic knowledge bases.

Logic-based approaches to AI have the advantage that their behaviour can in principle be explained by providing their users with proofs for the derived consequences. However, if such proofs get very large, then it may be hard to understand a consequence even if the individual derivation steps are easy to comprehend. This motivates our interest in finding small proofs for Description Logic (DL) entailments. Instead of concentrating on a specific DL and proof calculus for this DL, we introduce a general framework in which proofs are represented as labeled, directed hypergraphs, where each hyperedge corresponds to a single sound derivation step. On the theoretical side, we investigate the complexity of deciding whether a certain consequence has a proof of size at most n along the following orthogonal dimensions: (i) the underlying proof system is polynomial or exponential; (ii) proofs may or may not reuse already derived consequences; and (iii) the number n is represented in unary or binary. We have determined the exact worst-case complexity of this decision problem for all but one of the possible combinations of these options. On the practical side, we have developed and implemented an approach for generating proofs for expressive DLs based on a non-standard reasoning task called forgetting. We have evaluated this approach on a set of realistic ontologies and compared the obtained proofs with proofs generated by the DL reasoner ELK, finding that forgetting-based proofs are often better w.r.t. different measures of proof complexity.

In contrast to qualitative linear temporal logics, which can be used to state that some property will eventually be satisfied, metric temporal logics allow us to formulate constraints on how long it may take until the property is satisfied. While most of the work on combining description logics (DLs) with temporal logics has concentrated on qualitative temporal logics, there is a growing interest in extending this work to the quantitative case. In this article, we complement existing results on the combination of DLs with metric temporal logics by introducing interval-rigid concept and role names. Elements included in an interval-rigid concept or role name are required to stay in it for some specified amount of time. We investigate several combinations of (metric) temporal logics with A ℒ C by either allowing temporal operators only on the level of axioms or also applying them to concepts. In contrast to most existing work on the topic, we consider a timeline based on the integers and also allow assertional axioms. We show that the worst-case complexity does not increase beyond the previously known bound of 2-E xp S pace and investigate in detail how this complexity can be reduced by restricting the temporal logic and the occurrences of interval-rigid names.

Ontology-based access to large data-sets has recently gained a lot of attention. To access data efficiently, one approach is to rewrite the ontology into Datalog, and then use powerful Datalog engines to compute implicit entailments. Existing rewriting techniques support Description Logics (DLs) from ELH to Horn-SHIQ. We go one step further and present one such data-independent rewriting technique for Horn-SRIQ⊓, the extension of Horn-SHIQ that supports role chain axioms, an expressive feature prominently used in many real-world ontologies. We evaluated our rewriting technique on a large known corpus of ontologies. Our experiments show that the resulting rewritings are of moderate size, and that our approach is more efficient than state-of-the-art DL reasoners when reasoning with data-intensive ontologies.

We investigate ontology-based query answering for data that are both temporal and probabilistic, which might occur in contexts such as stream reasoning or situation recognition with uncertain data. We present a framework that allows to represent temporal probabilistic data, and introduce a query language with which complex temporal and probabilistic patterns can be described. Specifically, this language combines conjunctive queries with operators from linear time logic as well as probability operators. We analyse the complexities of evaluating queries in this language in various settings. While in some cases, combining the temporal and the probabilistic dimension in such a way comes at the cost of increased complexity, we also determine cases for which this increase can be avoided.

In this paper, we present an algorithm and a tool for computing minimal, equivalent EL concepts wrt. a given ontology. Our tool can provide valuable support in manual development of ontologies and improve the quality of ontologies automatically generated by processes such as uniform interpolation, ontology learning, rewriting ontologies into simpler DLs, abduction and knowledge revision. Deciding whether there exist equivalent EL concepts of size less than k is known to be an NP-complete problem. We propose a minimisation algorithm that achieves reasonable computational performance also for larger ontologies and complex concepts. We evaluate our tool on several bio-medical ontologies with promising results.

Uniform interpolation and the dual task of forgetting restrict the ontology to a specified subset of concept and role names. This makes them useful tools for ontology analysis, ontology evolution and information hiding. Most previous research focused on uniform interpolation of TBoxes. However, especially for applications in privacy and information hiding, it is essential that uniform interpolation methods can deal with ABoxes as well. We present the first method that can compute uniform interpolants of any ALC ontology with ABoxes. ABoxes bring their own challenges when computing uniform interpolants, possibly requiring disjunctive statements or nominals in the resulting ABox. Our method can compute representations of uniform interpolants in ALCO. An evaluation on realistic ontologies shows that these uniform interpolants can be practically computed, and can often even be presented in pure ALC.