Advertisement

On the Expressive Power of Description Logics with Cardinality Constraints on Finite and Infinite Sets

  • Franz Baader
  • Filippo De BortoliEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11715)

Abstract

In recent work we have extended the description logic (DL) \(\mathcal {ALC\!Q}\) by means of more expressive number restrictions using numerical and set constraints stated in the quantifier-free fragment of Boolean Algebra with Presburger Arithmetic (QFBAPA). It has been shown that reasoning in the resulting DL, called \(\mathcal {ALCSCC}\), is PSpace-complete without a TBox and ExpTime-complete w.r.t. a general TBox. The semantics of \(\mathcal {ALCSCC}\) is defined in terms of finitely branching interpretations, that is, interpretations where every element has only finitely many role successors. This condition was needed since QFBAPA considers only finite sets. In this paper, we first introduce a variant of \(\mathcal {ALCSCC}\), called \(\mathcal {ALCSCC} ^\infty \), in which we lift this requirement (inexpressible in first-order logic) and show that the complexity results for \(\mathcal {ALCSCC}\) mentioned above are preserved. Nevertheless, like \(\mathcal {ALCSCC}\), \(\mathcal {ALCSCC} ^\infty \) is not a fragment of first-order logic. The main contribution of this paper is to give a characterization of the first-order fragment of \(\mathcal {ALCSCC} ^\infty \). The most important tool used in the proof of this result is a notion of bisimulation that characterizes this fragment.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Ulrike Baumann for helpful discussions regarding QFBAPA\(^\infty \). We should also like to point out that we have learned about the results regarding QFBAPA\(_\infty \) in [10] only a couple of days before the submission of the final version of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F.: Description logic terminology. In: [4], pp. 485–495 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F.: A new description logic with set constraints and cardinality constraints on role successors. In: Dixon, C., Finger, M. (eds.) FroCoS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10483, pp. 43–59. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66167-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F.: Expressive cardinality constraints on \(\cal{ALCSCC}\) concepts. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2019), pp. 1123–1131. ACM (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Bortoli, F.: Integrating reasoning services for description logics with cardinality constraints with numerical optimization techniques. EMCL Master’s thesis, Chair for Automata Theory, Faculty of Computer Science, TU Dresden (2019). https://tu-dresden.de/inf/lat/theses#DeBo-Mas-19
  6. 6.
    Eisenbrand, F., Shmonin, G.: Carathéodory bounds for integer cones. Oper. Res. Lett. 34(5), 564–568 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finger, M., De Bona, G.: Algorithms for deciding counting quantifiers over unary predicates. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2017), pp. 3878–3884. AAAI Press (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoehndorf, R., Schofield, P.N., Gkoutos, G.V.: The role of ontologies in biological and biomedical research: a functional perspective. Brief. Bioinform. 16(6), 1069–1080 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollunder, B., Baader, F.: Qualifying number restrictions in concept languages. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 335–346 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuncak, V., Piskac, R., Suter, P.: Ordered sets in the calculus of data structures. In: Dawar, A., Veith, H. (eds.) CSL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6247, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15205-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuncak, V., Rinard, M.: Towards efficient satisfiability checking for Boolean algebra with Presburger arithmetic. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 215–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtonina, N., de Rijke, M.: Expressiveness of concept expressions in first-order description logics. Artif. Intell. 107(2), 303–333 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lutz, C., Piro, R., Wolter, F.: Description logic TBoxes: model-theoretic characterizations and rewritability. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), IJCAI/AAAI, pp. 983–988 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: On the complexity of integer programming. J. ACM 28(4), 765–768 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pratt-Hartmann, I.: On the computational complexity of the numerically definite syllogistic and related logics. Bull. Symb. Logic 14(1), 1–28 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schild, K. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1991), pp. 466–471 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt-Schauß, M., Smolka, G.: Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artif. Intell. 48(1), 1–26 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tobies, S.: A PSpace algorithm for graded modal logic. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) CADE 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1632, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48660-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tobies, S.: Complexity results and practical algorithms for logics in knowledge representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany (2001). http://tu-dresden.de/inf/lat/theses/#Tobies-PhD-2001
  20. 20.
    van Benthem, J.: Modal Logic and Classical Logic. Bibliopolis, Napoli (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theoretical Computer ScienceTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations