Advertisement

Optimization and Evaluation of Reasoning in Probabilistic Description Logic: Towards a Systematic Approach

  • Pavel Klinov
  • Bijan Parsia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5318)

Abstract

This paper describes the first steps towards developing a methodology for testing and evaluating the performance of reasoners for the probabilistic description logic P-\({\ensuremath{\mathcal{SHIQ}}(D)}\). Since it is a new formalism for handling uncertainty in DL ontologies, no such methodology has been proposed. There are no sufficiently large probabilistic ontologies to be used as test suites. In addition, since the reasoning services in P-\({\ensuremath{\mathcal{SHIQ}}(D)}\) are mostly query oriented, there is no single problem (like classification or realization in classical DL) that could be an obvious candidate for benchmarking. All these issues make it hard to evaluate the performance of reasoners, reveal the complexity bottlenecks and assess the value of optimization strategies. This paper addresses these important problems by making the following contributions: First, it describes a probabilistic ontology that has been developed for the real-life domain of breast cancer which poses significant challenges for the state-of-art P-\({\ensuremath{\mathcal{SHIQ}}(D)}\) reasoners. Second, it explains a systematic approach to generating a series of probabilistic reasoning problems that enable evaluation of the reasoning performance and shed light on what makes reasoning in P-\({\ensuremath{\mathcal{SHIQ}}(D)}\) hard in practice. Finally, the paper presents an optimized algorithm for the non-monotonic entailment. Its positive impact on performance is demonstrated using our evaluation methodology.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Risk Exponential Number Default Reasoning Classical Part Reasoning Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Giugno, R., Lukasiewicz, T.: \({P-}\mathcal{SHOQ}{(D)}\): A probabilistic extension of \(\mathcal{SHOQ}\)(D) for probabilistic ontologies in the semantic web. Technical Report Nr. 1843-02-06, Institut fur Informationssysteme, Technische Universitat Wien (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Probabilistic logic programming with conditional constraints. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(3), 289–339 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gail, M.H., Brinton, L.A., Byar, D.P., Corle, D.K., Green, S.B., Shairer, C., Mulvihill, J.J.: Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81(25), 1879–1886 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klinov, P.: Pronto: a non-monotonic probabilistic description logic reasoner. In: Proceeding of the European Semantic Web Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Expressive probabilistic description logics. Artificial Intelligence 172(6-7), 852–883 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehmann, D.: Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15(1), 61–82 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lukasiewicz, T.: Probabilistic default reasoning with conditional constraints. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 35–88 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for very expressive description logics. Journal of the IGPL 8(3) (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komen, S.G.: Breast cancer risk factors table (2007), Retrieved from: http://cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/
  10. 10.
    Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B., Taylor, W.M.: Computational complexity and phase transitions. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 331–337 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Horridge, M., Sirin, E.: Finding all justifications of OWL DL entailments. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 267–280 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bailey, J., Stuckey, P.: Discovery of Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets of Constraints Using Hitting Set Dualization. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Cabeza, D. (eds.) PADL 2004. LNCS, vol. 3350, pp. 174–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Generating hard modal problems for modal decision procedures. In: First Methods for Modalities Workshop (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Klinov
    • 1
  • Bijan Parsia
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations