KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 85–90 | Cite as

Decidability and Complexity of Fuzzy Description Logics

Research Project

Abstract

Fuzzy description logics (FDLs) have been introduced to represent concepts for which membership cannot be determined in a precise way, i.e., where instead of providing a strict border between being a member and not being a member, it is more appropriate to model a gradual change from membership to non-membership. First approaches for reasoning in FDLs where based either on a reduction to reasoning in classical description logics (DLs) or on adaptations of reasoning approaches for DLs to the fuzzy case. However, it turned out that these approaches in general do not work if expressive terminological axioms, called general concept inclusions (GCIs), are available in the FDL. The goal of this project was a comprehensive study of the border between decidability and undecidability for FDLs with GCIs, as well as determining the exact complexity of the decidable logics. As a result, we have provided an almost complete classification of the decidability and complexity of FDLs with GCIs.

Keywords

Knowledge representation and reasoning Vagueness Fuzzy Description Logics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This report describes the outcome of the project Reasoning in Fuzzy Description Logics with General Concept Inclusion Axioms (FuzzyDL) funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) grant BA 1122/17-1. We are indebted to Felix Distel, Marco Cerami, Theofilos Mailis, and Anni-Yasmin Turhan for many discussions and contributions.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader F (1996) Using automata theory for characterizing the semantics of terminological cycles. Ann Math Artif Intell 18(2):175–219MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2015) On the decidability status of fuzzy ALC with general concept inclusions. J Philos Logic 44(2):117–146MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2005) Pushing the EL envelope. In L. P. Kaelbling and A. Saffiotti, editors, Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI), pp 364–369. Professional Book CenterGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (2007) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader F, Hladik J, Peñaloza R (2008) Automata can show PSPACE results for description logics. Inf Comput 206(9–10):1045–1056MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader F, Peñaloza R (2011) Are fuzzy description logics with general concept inclusion axioms decidable? In IEEE Int. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp 1735–1742. IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baader F, Peñaloza R (2011) On the undecidability of fuzzy description logics with GCIs and product t-norm. In: Tinelli C., and Sofronie-Stokkermans V (eds), Frontiers of Comb. Syst. (FroCoS), volume 6989 of LNCS, pp 55–70. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bienvenu M, Ortiz M (2015) Ontology-mediated query answering with data-tractable description logics. In: Faber W, Paschke A (eds) Reasoning web, volume 9203 of LNCS, pp 218–307. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bobillo F, Bou F, Straccia U (2011) On the failure of the finite model property in some fuzzy description logics. Fuzzy Set Syst 172(1):1–12MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bobillo F, Delgado M, Gómez-Romero J (2009) Crisp representations and reasoning for fuzzy ontologies. Int J Uncertain Fuzz. 17(4):501–530MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bobillo F, Delgado M, Gómez-Romero J (2013) Reasoning in fuzzy OWL 2 with DeLorean. In: Bobillo F, da Costa PCG, d’Amato C, Fanizzi N, Laskey K, Laskey K, Lukasiewicz, Nickles M, Pool M (eds) Uncertainty reasoning for the semantic Web II, volume 7123 of LNCS, pp 119–138. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bobillo F, Straccia U (2011) Fuzzy ontology representation using OWL 2. Int J Appr Reas 52(7):1073–1094MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bobillo F, Straccia U (2013) Finite fuzzy description logics and crisp representations. In: Bobillo F, da Costa PCG, d’Amato C, Fanizzi N, Laskey K, Laskey K, Lukasiewicz T, Nickles M, Pool M (eds) Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web II, volume 7123 of LNCS, pp 99–118. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bobillo F, Straccia U (2016) The fuzzy ontology reasoner fuzzyDL. Knowl-Based Syst 95:12–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borgwardt S (2014) Fuzzy description logics with general concept inclusions. PhD thesis, Technische Universität DresdenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borgwardt S, Cerami M, Peñaloza R (2015) The complexity of subsumption in fuzzy EL. In: Yang Q, Wooldridge M (eds) Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI), pp 2812–2818. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Borgwardt S, Distel F, Peñaloza R (2012) How fuzzy is my fuzzy description logic? In: Gramlich B, Miller D, Sattler U (eds) Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR), volume 7364 of LNAI, pp 82–96. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borgwardt S, Distel F, Peñaloza R (2014) Decidable Gödel description logics without the finitely-valued model property. In: Baral C, De Giacomo G, Eiter T (eds) Princ. of Knowl. Repr. and Reas. (KR), pp 228–237. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borgwardt S, Distel F, Peñaloza R (2015) The limits of decidability in fuzzy description logics with general concept inclusions. Artif Intell 218:23–55MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borgwardt S, Leyva Galano JA, Peñaloza R (2014) The fuzzy description logic G-\({FL_0}\) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borgwardt S, Mailis T, Peñaloza R, Turhan A-Y (2016) Answering fuzzy conjunctive queries over finitely valued fuzzy ontologies. J Data Sem 5(2):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R. Algorithms for reasoning in very expressive description logics under infinitely valued Gödel semantics. Int J Appr Reas SubmittedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borgwardt S, Penaloza R (2011) Description logics over lattices with multi-valued ontologies. In: Walsh T (ed) Int Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2012) A tableau algorithm for fuzzy description logics over residuated De Morgan lattices. In: Krötzsch M, Straccia U (eds) Web Reas. and Rule Syst. (RR), volume 7497 of LNCS, pp 9–24. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2012) Undecidability of fuzzy description logics. In: Brewka G, Eiter T, McIlraith SA (eds) Princ. of Knowl. Repr. and Reas. (KR), pp 232–242. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2013) The complexity of lattice-based fuzzy description logics. J Data Sem 2(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2013) Positive subsumption in fuzzy EL with general t-norms. In: Rossi F (ed) Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI), pp 789–795. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2014) Consistency reasoning in lattice-based fuzzy description logics. Int J Appr Reas 55(9):1917–1938MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2014) Finite lattices do not make reasoning in ALCOI harder. In: Bobillo F, Carvalho RN, da Costa PCG, d’Amato C, Fanizzi N, Laskey KB, Laskey KJ, T. Lukasiewicz, M. Nickles, and M. Pool, editors, Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web III, volume 8816 of LNAI, pp 122–141. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2015) Reasoning in expressive description logics under infinitely valued Gödel semantics. In: Lutz C, Ranise S (eds) Frontiers of Comb. Syst. (FroCoS), volume 9322 of LNAI, pp 49–65. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2016) Reasoning in fuzzy description logics using automata. Fuzzy Set Syst 298:22–43MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calvanese D, Eiter T, Ortiz M (2009) Regular path queries in expressive description logics with nominals. In C. Boutilier, editor, Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI), pp 714–720. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cerami M, Straccia U (2011) On the undecidability of fuzzy description logics with GCIs with Łukasiewicz t-norm. CoRR, abs/1107.4212v3, 2011Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cerami M, Straccia U (2013) On the (un)decidability of fuzzy description logics under Łukasiewicz t-norm. Inf Sci 227:1–21CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dasiopoulou S, Kompatsiaris I, Strintzis MG (2009) Applying fuzzy DLs in the extraction of image semantics. J. Data Sem., XIV:105–132Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    T. Di Noia, M. Mongiello, and U. Straccia. Fuzzy description logics for component selection in software design. In: Bianculli D, Calinescu R, Rumpe B (eds) SEFM’15 Workshops, Selected Papers, volume 9509 of LNCS, pp. 228–239. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Díaz-Rodríguez N, Cadahía O, Cuéllar M, Lilius J, Calvo-Flores M (2014) Handling real-world context awareness, uncertainty and vagueness in real-time human activity tracking and recognition with a fuzzy ontology-based hybrid method. Sensors 14(20):18131–18171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hájek P (1998) Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic, volume 4 of Trends in logic. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hájek P (2005) Making fuzzy description logic more general. Fuzzy Set Syst 154(1):1–15MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hollunder B (1996) Consistency checking reduced to satisfiability of concepts in terminological systems. Ann Math Artif Intell 18(2–4):133–157MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Horrocks I, Kutz O, Sattler U (2006) The even more irresistible SROIQ. In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty C (eds) Princ. of Knowl. Repr. and Reas. (KR), pp 57–67. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Horrocks I, Sattler U (2004) Decidability of SHIQ with complex role inclusion axioms. Artif Intell 160(1–2):79–104CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mailis T, Peñaloza R, Turhan AY (2014) Conjunctive query answering in finitely-valued fuzzy description logics. In: Kontchakov R, Mugnier ML (eds) Web Reas. and Rule Syst. (RR), volume 8741 of LNCS, pp 124–139. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mailis T, Stoilos G, Simou N, Stamou GB, Kollias S (2012) Tractable reasoning with vague knowledge using fuzzy \({EL^{++}}\). J Intell Inf Syst 39(2):399–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mailis T, Turhan AY (2014) Employing \({DL-Lite}_R\)-reasoners for fuzzy query answering. In: Supnithi T, Yamaguchi T, Pan JZ, Wuwongse V, Buranarach M (eds) Joint Int. Semantic Technology Conf. (JIST), volume 8943 of LNCS, pp 63–78. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Merz D, Peñaloza R, Turhan AY (2014) Reasoning in ALC with fuzzy concrete domains. In: Lutz C, Thielscher M (eds) German Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (KI), volume 8736 of LNAI, pp 171–182. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ortiz M, Šimkus M (2012) Reasoning and query answering in description logics. In: Eiter T, Krennwallner T (eds) Reasoning Web, volume 7487 of LNCS, pp 1–53. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pan JZ, Stamou GB, Stoilos G, Thomas E (2007) Expressive querying over fuzzy DL-Lite ontologies. In: Calvanese D, Franconi E, Haarslev V, Lembo D, Motik B, Turhan AY, Tessaris S (eds) Workshop on description logics (DL), volume 250 of CEUR-WS, pp 427–434Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schild K (1991) A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In: Mylopoulos J, Reiter R (eds) Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI), pp 466–471. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stoilos G, Simou N, Stamou G, Kollias S (2006) Uncertainty and the semantic web. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stoilos G, Stamou GB (2014) Reasoning with fuzzy extensions of OWL and OWL 2. Knowl Inf Syst 40(1):205–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Straccia U (1998) A fuzzy description logic. In: Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp 594–599Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Straccia U (2001) Reasoning within fuzzy description logics. J Artif Intell Res 14:137–166MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Straccia U (2004) Uncertainty in description logics: a lattice-based approach. In: Inf. Process. and Manag. of Uncertainty in Knowl.-Based Syst. (IPMU), pp 251–258Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Straccia U (2005) Description logics with fuzzy concrete domains. In: Bacchus F, Jaakola T (eds) Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI), pp 559–567. AUAI PressGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Straccia U (2006) Answering vague queries in fuzzy DL-Lite. In: Inf. Process. and Manag. of Uncertainty in Knowl.-Based Syst. (IPMU), pp 2238–2245. Éditions EDKGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Straccia U (2014) On the top-k retrieval problem for ontology-based access to databases. In: Pivert O, Awomir Zadrozny S (eds) Flexible approaches in data, information and knowledge management, volume 497 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp 95–114. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Straccia U, Mucci M (2015) pFOIL-DL: learning (fuzzy) EL concept descriptions from crisp OWL data using a probabilistic ensemble estimation. In: Wainwright RL, Corchado JM, Bechini A, Hong J (eds) Symp. on Applied Computing (SAC), pp 345–352. ACMGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tobies S (2000) The complexity of reasoning with cardinality restrictions and nominals in expressive description logics. J Artif Intell Res 12:199–217MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tresp CB, Molitor R (1998) A description logic for vague knowledge. In: Prade H (ed) Eur. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp 361–365. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tsatsou D, Dasiopoulou S, Kompatsiaris I, Mezaris V (2014) LiFR: a lightweight fuzzy DL reasoner. In: Presutti V, Blomqvist E, Troncy R, Sack H, Papadakis I, Tordal A (eds) ESWC Satellite Events, volume 8798 of LNCS, pp 263–267. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz Baader
    • 1
  • Stefan Borgwardt
    • 1
  • Rafael Peñaloza
    • 2
  1. 1.Theoretical Computer ScienceTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.KRDB Research CentreFU Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations