The main effort of the research in knowledge representation is providing theories and systems for expressing structured knowledge and for accessing and reasoning with it in a principled way. Description Logics are considered the most important knowledge representation formalism unifying and giving a logical basis to the well known traditions of Frame-based systems, Semantic Networks and KL-ONE-like languages, Object-Oriented representations, Semantic data models, and Type systems.
Description logics are a powerful tool for describing ontological knowledge bases. That is, they give a factual account of the world in terms of individuals, concepts and relations. In the presence of uncertainty, such factual accounts are not feasible, and a subjective or epistemic approach is required. Aleatoric description logic models uncertainty in the world as aleatoric events, by the roll of the dice, where an agent has subjective beliefs about the bias of these dice. This provides a subjective Bayesian description logic, where propositions and relations are assigned probabilities according to what a rational agent would bet, given a configuration of possible individuals and dice. Aleatoric description logic is shown to generalise the description logic ALC, and can be seen to describe a probability space of interpretations of a restriction of ALC where all roles are functions. Several computational problems are considered and model-checking and consistency checking algorithms are presented. Finally, aleatoric description logic is shown to be able to model learning, where agents are able to condition their beliefs on the bias of dice according to observations.
In this paper, we address the problem of handling inconsistent data in Temporal Description Logic (TDL) knowledge bases. Considering the data part of the knowledge base as the source of inconsistency over time, we propose an ABox repair approach. This is the first work handling the repair in TDL Knowledge bases. To do so, our goal is twofold: 1) detect temporal inconsistencies and 2) propose a data temporal reparation. For the inconsistency detection, we propose a reduction approach from TDL to DL which allows to provide a tight NP-complete upper bound for TDL concept satisfiability and to use highly optimised DL reasoners that can bring precise explanation (the set of inconsistent data assertions). Thereafter, from the obtained explanation, we propose a method for automatically computing the best repair in the temporal setting based on the allowed rigid predicates and the time order of assertions.
In the context of verification of data-aware processes (DAPs), a formal approach based on satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) has been considered to verify parameterised safety properties of so-called artifact-centric systems. This approach requires a combination of model-theoretic notions and algorithmic techniques based on backward reachability. We introduce here a variant of one of the most investigated models in this spectrum, namely simple artifact systems (SASs), where, instead of managing a database, we operate over a description logic (DL) ontology expressed in (a slight extension of) RDFS. This DL, enjoying suitable model-theoretic properties, allows us to define DL-based SASs to which backward reachability can still be applied, leading to decidability in PSPACE of the corresponding safety problems.
In the search for knowledge graph embeddings that could capture ontological knowledge, geometric models of existential rules have been recently introduced. It has been shown that convex geometric regions capture the so-called quasi-chained rules. Attributed description logics (DL) have been defined to bridge the gap between DL languages and knowledge graphs, whose facts often come with various kinds of annotations that may need to be taken into account for reasoning. In particular, temporally attributed DLs are enriched by specific attributes whose semantics allows for some temporal reasoning. Considering that geometric models and (temporally) attributed DLs are promising tools designed for knowledge graphs, this paper investigates their compatibility, focusing on the attributed version of a Horn dialect of the DL-Lite family. We first adapt the definition of geometric models to attributed DLs and show that every satisfiable ontology has a convex geometric model. Our second contribution is a study of the impact of temporal attributes. We show that a temporally attributed DL may not have a convex geometric model in general but we can recover geometric satisfiability by imposing some restrictions on the use of the temporal attributes.
We present a unified approach to (both finite and unrestricted) worst-case optimal entailment of (unions of) conjunctive queries (U)CQs in the wide class of "locally-forward" description logics. The main technique that we employ is a generalisation of Lutz's spoiler technique, originally developed for CQ entailment in ALCHQ. Our result closes numerous gaps present in the literature, most notably implying ExpTime-completeness of (U)CQ-querying for any superlogic of ALC contained in ALCHbregQ, and, as we believe, is abstract enough to be employed as a black-box in many new scenarios.
This paper introduces a differentiable semantic reasoner, where rules are presented as a relevant set of graph transformations. These rules can be written manually or inferred by a set of facts and goals presented as a training set. While the internal representation uses embeddings in a latent space, each rule can be expressed as a set of predicates conforming to a subset of Description Logic.
Lehmann and Magidor's rational closure is acknowledged as a landmark in the field of non-monotonic logics and it has also been re-formulated in the context of Description Logics (DLs). We show here how to model a rational form of entailment for expressive DLs, such as SROIQ, providing a novel reasoning procedure that compiles a non-monotone DL knowledge base into a description logic program (dl-program).
Ontologies formalise how the concepts from a given domain are interrelated. Despite their clear potential as a backbone for explainable AI, existing ontologies tend to be highly incomplete, which acts as a significant barrier to their more widespread adoption. To mitigate this issue, we present a mechanism to infer plausible missing knowledge, which relies on reasoning by analogy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that studies analogical reasoning within the setting of description logic ontologies. After showing that the standard formalisation of analogical proportion has important limitations in this setting, we introduce an alternative semantics based on bijective mappings between sets of features. We then analyse the properties of analogies under the proposed semantics, and show among others how it enables two plausible inference patterns: rule translation and rule extrapolation.
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 explaining 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 support or only support 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.
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.