Tableau-Based Reasoning

  • Ralf MöllerEmail author
  • Volker Haarslev
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


Tableau-based methods for satisfiability checking build the backbone of major contemporary ontology reasoning sytems. The main idea of tableau-based methods for satisfiability checking is to systematically construct a representation for a model of the input formulae. If all representations that are considered by the procedure turn out to contain an obvious contradiction, a model representation cannot be found and it is concluded that the set of formulae is unsatisfiable.

In this chapter, tableau-based reasoning methods are formally introduced. We start with a nondeterministic basic version which subsequently will be extended with optimization techniques in order to demonstrate how practical systems can be built. We also demonstrate how computed tableau structures can be exploited for other inference problems in an ontology reasoning system.


Description Logic Global Constraint Rule Application Concept Description Atomic Concept 
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.



We would like to thank Sebastian Wandelt and Michael Wessel for comments on a draft of this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Franz Baader, Martin Buchheit, and Bernhard Hollunder. Cardinality restrictions on concepts. Artificial Intelligence, 88(1–2):195–213, 1996.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franz Baader, Enrico Franconi, Bernhard Hollunder, Bernhard Nebel, and Hans-Jürgen Profitlich. An empirical analysis of optimization techniques for terminological representation systems or: Making KRIS get a move on. Applied Artificial Intelligence. Special Issue on Knowledge Base Management, 4: 109–132, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91), pages 452–457, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franz Baader, Ralf Küsters, and Frank Wolter. Extensions to description logics. In [2], pages 219–261. 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franz Baader and Werner Nutt. Basic description logics. In [2], pages 43–95. 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franz Baader and Ulrike Sattler. An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica, 69:5–40, 2001.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin Buchheit, Francesco M. Donini, and Andrea Schaerf. Decidable reasoning in terminological knowledge representation systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:109–138, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. W. Freeman. Improvements to Propositional Satisfiability Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Haarslev and R. Möller. Practical reasoning in racer with a concrete domain for linear inequations. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-2002), Toulouse, France, April 19-21, pages 91–98, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Haarslev, R. Möller, and M. Wessel. The description logic alcnhr+ extended with concrete domains. Technical Report FBI-HH-M-290/00, University of Hamburg, Computer Science Department, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. Expressive abox reasoning with number restrictions, role hierarchies, and transitively closed roles. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pages 273–284. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. High performance reasoning with very large knowledge bases: A practical case study. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pages 161–168, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernhard Hollunder and Franz Baader. Qualifying number restrictions in concept languages. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pages 335–346, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ian Horrocks. Optimisation techniques for expressive description logics. Technical Report UMCS-97-2-1, University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ian Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’98), pages 636–647, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ian Horrocks. Implementation and optimization techniques. In [2], pages 306–346. 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ian Horrocks, Oliver Kutz, and Ulrike Sattler. The even more irresistible \(\mathcal {S}\mathcal {R}\mathcal {O}\mathcal {I}\mathcal {Q}\). In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 57–67. AAAI Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ian Horrocks and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Optimizing description logic subsumption. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):267–293, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for \(\mathcal {S}\mathcal {H}\mathcal {O}\mathcal {I}\mathcal {Q}\). In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448–453, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Reasoning with individuals for the description logic \(\mathcal {S}\mathcal {H}\mathcal {I}\mathcal {Q}\). In David McAllester, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE 2000), volume 1831 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 482–496. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ian Horrocks and Stephan Tobies. Reasoning with axioms: Theory and practice. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pages 285–296, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alexander. K. Hudek and Grant Weddell. Binary absorption in tableaux-based reasoning for description logics. In Proc. of the 2006 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2006). CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings,, 2006.
  24. 24.
    C. Lutz. PSpace reasoning with the description logic \(\mathcal {A}\mathcal {L}\mathcal {C}\mathcal {F}(\mathcal {D})\). Logic Journal of the IGPL, 10(5):535–568, 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Lutz and M. Milicic. A tableau algorithm for description logics with concrete domains and general tboxes. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2006. To appear.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ralf Möller and Volker Haarslev. Description logic systems. In [2], pages 282–305. 2003.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ulrike Sattler. A concept language extended with different kinds of transitive roles. In Günter Görz and Steffen Hölldobler, editors, Proc. of the 20th German Annual Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (KI’96), volume 1137 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 333–345. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andrea Schaerf. Reasoning with individuals in concept languages. In Proc. of the 3rd Conf. of the Ital. Assoc. for Artificial Intelligence (AIIA’93), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manfred Schmidt-Schauß and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stephan Tobies. The complexity of reasoning with cardinality restrictions and nominals in expressive description logics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 12:199–217, 2000.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dmitry Tsarkov and Ian Horrocks. Efficient reasoning with range and domain constraints. In Proc. of the 2004 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2004), pages 41–50, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dmitry Tsarkov, Ian Horrocks, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. Optimizing terminological reasoning for expressive description logics. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 39(3):277–316, 2007.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations