Description Logic (DL) ontologies and non-monotonic rules are two prominent Knowledge Representation (KR) formalisms with complementary features that are essential for various applications. Nonmonotonic Description Logic (DL) programs combine these formalisms thus providing support for rule-based reasoning on top of DL ontologies using a well-defined query interface represented by so-called DL-atoms. Unfortunately, interaction of the rules and the ontology may incur inconsistencies such that a DL-program lacks answer sets (i.e., models), and thus yields no information. This issue is addressed by recently defined repair answer sets, for computing which an effective practical algorithm was proposed for DL-Lite A ontologies that reduces a repair computation to constraint matching based on so-called support sets. However, the algorithm exploits particular features of DL-Lite A and can not be readily applied to repairing DL-programs over other prominent DLs like EL. compared to DL-Lite A , in EL support sets may neither be small nor only few support sets might exist, and completeness of the algorithm may need to be given up when the support information is bounded. We thus provide an approach for computing repairs for DL-programs over EL ontologies based on partial (incomplete) support families. The latter are constructed using datalog query rewriting techniques as well as ontology approximation based on logical difference between EL-terminologies. We show how the maximal size and number of support sets for a given DL-atom can be estimated by analyzing the properties of a support hypergraph, which characterizes a relevant set of TBox axioms needed for query derivation. We present a declarative implementation of the repair approach and experimentally evaluate it on a set of benchmark problems; the promising results witness practical feasibility of our repair approach.

When dealing with incomplete data in statistical learning, or incomplete observations in probabilistic inference, one needs to distinguish the fact that a certain event is observed from the fact that the observed event has happened. Since the modeling and computational complexities entailed by maintaining this proper distinction are often prohibitive, one asks for conditions under which it can be safely ignored. Such conditions are given by the missing at random (mar) and coarsened at random (car) assumptions. In this paper we provide an in-depth analysis of several questions relating to mar/car assumptions. Main purpose of our study is to provide criteria by which one may evaluate whether a car assumption is reasonable for a particular data collecting or observational process. This question is complicated by the fact that several distinct versions of mar/car assumptions exist. We therefore first provide an overview over these different versions, in which we highlight the distinction between distributional and coarsening variable induced versions. We show that distributional versions are less restrictive and sufficient for most applications. We then address from two different perspectives the question of when the mar/car assumption is warranted. First we provide a static analysis that characterizes the admissibility of the car assumption in terms of the support structure of the joint probability distribution of complete data and incomplete observations. Here we obtain an equivalence characterization that improves and extends a recent result by Grunwald and Halpern. We then turn to a procedural analysis that characterizes the admissibility of the car assumption in terms of procedural models for the actual data (or observation) generating process. The main result of this analysis is that the stronger coarsened completely at random (ccar) condition is arguably the most reasonable assumption, as it alone corresponds to data coarsening procedures that satisfy a natural robustness property.

When dealing with incomplete data in statistical learning, or incomplete observations in probabilistic inference, one needs to distinguish the fact that a certain event is observed from the fact that the observed event has happened. Since the modeling and computational complexities entailed by maintaining this proper distinction are often prohibitive, one asks for conditions under which it can be safely ignored. Such conditions are given by the missing at random (mar) and coarsened at random (car) assumptions. In this paper we provide an in-depth analysis of several questions relating to mar/car assumptions. Main purpose of our study is to provide criteria by which one may evaluate whether a car assumption is reasonable for a particular data collecting or observational process. This question is complicated by the fact that several distinct versions of mar/car assumptions exist. We therefore first provide an overview over these different versions, in which we highlight the distinction between distributional and coarsening variable induced versions. We show that distributional versions are less restrictive and sufficient for most applications. We then address from two different perspectives the question of when the mar/car assumption is warranted. First we provide a ''static'' analysis that characterizes the admissibility of the car assumption in terms of the support structure of the joint probability distribution of complete data and incomplete observations. Here we obtain an equivalence characterization that improves and extends a recent result by Grunwald and Halpern. We then turn to a ''procedural'' analysis that characterizes the admissibility of the car assumption in terms of procedural models for the actual data (or observation) generating process. The main result of this analysis is that the stronger coarsened completely at random (ccar) condition is arguably the most reasonable assumption, as it alone corresponds to data coarsening procedures that satisfy a natural robustness property.