Pinpointing in the Description Logic \(\mathcal {EL}^+\)

  • Franz Baader
  • Rafael Peñaloza
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4667)

Abstract

Axiom pinpointing has been introduced in description logics (DLs) to help the user understand the reasons why consequences hold by computing minimal subsets of the knowledge base that have the consequence in question. Until now, the pinpointing approach has only been applied to the DL \(\mathcal {ALC}\) and some of its extensions. This paper considers axiom pinpointing in the less expressive DL \(\mathcal {EL}^+\), for which subsumption can be decided in polynomial time. More precisely, we consider an extension of the pinpointing problem where the knowledge base is divided into a static part, which is always present, and a refutable part, of which subsets are taken. We describe an extension of the subsumption algorithm for \(\mathcal {EL}^+\) that can be used to compute all minimal subsets of (the refutable part of) a given TBox that imply a certain subsumption relationship. The worst-case complexity of this algorithm turns out to be exponential. This is not surprising since we can show that a given TBox may have exponentially many such minimal subsets. However, we can also show that the problem is not even output polynomial, i.e., unless P=NP, there cannot be an algorithm computing all such minimal sets that is polynomial in the size of its input and output. In addition, we show that finding out whether there is such a minimal subset within a given cardinality bound is an NP-complete problem. In contrast to these negative results, we also show that one such minimal subset can be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we provide some encouraging experimental results regarding the performance of a practical algorithm that computes one (small, but not necessarily minimal) subset that has a given subsumption relation as consequence.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the EL envelope. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI 2005. Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh (UK), pp. 364–369. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. J. of Automated Reasoning 14, 149–180 (1995)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: CEL—a polynomial-time reasoner for life science ontologies. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 287–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Is tractable reasoning in extensions of the description logic \( \mathcal{EL}\) useful in practice. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Special Issue on Method for Modality on M4M (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader, F., Penaloza, R.: Axiom pinpointing in general tableaux. LTCS-Report LTCS-07-01, Germany (2006), See http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/reports.html
  7. 7.
    Bailey, J., Stuckey, P.J.: Discovery of minimal unsatisfiable subsets of constraints using hitting set dualization. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Cabeza, D. (eds.) Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. LNCS, vol. 3350, pp. 174–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt, S.: Polynomial time reasoning in a description logic with existential restrictions, GCI axioms, and—what else? In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) ECAI 2004. Proc. of the 16th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 298–302 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davydov, G., Davydova, I., Büning, H.K.: An efficient algorithm for the minimal unsatisfiability problem for a subclass of CNF. Ann. of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 23(3–4), 229–245 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dowling, W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming 1(3), 267–284 (1984)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related problems. Technical Report CD-TR 91/16, Christian Doppler Labor für Expertensysteme, TU-Wien (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related problems. SIAM J. Comput. 24(6), 1278–1304 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability — A guide to NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollunder, B.: Hybrid inferences in KL-ONE-based knowledge representation systems. In: Proc. of the German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38–47. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, D.S., Yannakakis, M., Papadimitriou, C.H.: On generating all maximal independent sets. Inf. Process. Lett. (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kavvadias, D.J., Sideri, M., Stavropoulos, E.C.: Generating all maximal models of a Boolean expression. Inf. Process. Lett. (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liffiton, M.H., Sakallah, K.A.: On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 173–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R., Pan, J.Z.: Finding maximally satisfiable terminologies for the description logic \(\mathcal{{ALC}}\). In: AAAI 2006. Proc. of the 21st Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Ellis, A., Hagino, T. (eds.) WWW 2005. Proc. of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 633–640. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rector, A., Horrocks, I.: Experience building a large, re-usable medical ontology using a description logic with transitivity and concept inclusions. In: AAAI 1997. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontological Engineering, AAAI Spring Symposium, Stanford, CA, AAAI Press (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) IJCAI 2003. Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 355–362. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmidt-Schauß, M., Smolka, G.: Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence 48(1), 1–26 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spackman, K.A., Campbell, K.E., Cote, R.A.: SNOMED RT: A reference terminology for health care. J. of the American Medical Informatics Association (Fall Symposium Supplement), 640–644 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Gene Ontology Consortium. Gene Ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics, 25, 25–29 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: Practical implementations and other applications. In: DATE 2003. Proc. of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 10880–10885. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz Baader
    • 1
  • Rafael Peñaloza
    • 2
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
    • 1
  1. 1.Theoretical Computer Science, TU DresdenGermany
  2. 2.Intelligent Systems, University of LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations