<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Default Logics for Plausible Reasoning with Controversial Axioms</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Thomas Scharrenbach</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Claudia d'Amato</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Nicola Fanizzi</string-name>
          <email>fanizzig@di.uniba.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Rolf Grutter</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Bettina Waldvogel</string-name>
          <email>bettina.waldvogelg@wsl.ch</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Abraham Bernstein</string-name>
          <email>fbernsteing@i</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL Birmensdorf</institution>
          ,
          <country country="CH">Switzerland</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Universita degli Studi di Bari Bari</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>University of Zurich, Department of Informatics Zurich</institution>
          ,
          <country country="CH">Switzerland</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Using a variant of Lehmann's Default Logics and Probabilistic Description Logics we recently presented a framework that invalidates those unwanted inferences that cause concept unsatis ability without the need to remove explicitly stated axioms. The solutions of this methods were shown to outperform classical ontology repair w.r.t. the number of inferences invalidated. However, con icts may still exist in the knowledge base and can make reasoning ambiguous. Furthermore, solutions with a minimal number of inferences invalidated do not necessarily minimize the number of con icts. In this paper we provide an overview over nding solutions that have a minimal number of con icts while invalidating as few inferences as possible. Speci cally, we propose to evaluate solutions w.r.t. the quantity of information they convey by recurring to the notion of entropy and discuss a possible approach towards computing the entropy w.r.t. an ABox.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        In the Semantic Web, knowledge is represented by ontologies expressed in the
Web Ontology Language OWL. The current standard, OWL2 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], de nes di
erent pro les all of which have some Description Logics as a rough syntactic
variant. These Description Logics (DL) are decidable fragments of rst-order logics
where knowledge is explicitly expressed in axioms and assertions. DL knowledge
bases have well-de ned model-theoretic semantics. They allow to express
knowledge on di erent levels of expressivity and enable to infer new conclusions from
existing knowledge.
      </p>
      <p>When ontologies evolve or one ontology is mapped to another, contradictions
may be introduced that cause the knowledge base as a whole to be
inconsistent. Yet, for an inconsistent knowledge base any conclusion|even meaningless
ones|becomes trivially true. One cause of inconsistency is given by assertions
of concepts that are inferred to be unsatis able. Hence, it is desirable to prevent
concepts from being inferred unsatis able. A knowledge base can become
inconsistent for other reasons, but we propose to start o with con ict-free
conceptualizations and apply a method that never infers any concept to be unsatis able.</p>
      <p>
        In the Semantic Web, agents interacting with an ontology assume that both
the query and the answer are expressible in OWL2. Furthermore, the answer
should have meaningful semantics but not infer con icts. We therefore demand
any formalism allowing for plausible reasoning on controversial information to
ful ll the following properties:
1. Permanence: The formalism for knowledge representation is not changed.
2. Coherency: No concept is inferred to be unsatis able
3. Autonomy: The procedure shall work automatically.
4. Originality: The original information should be kept.
5. Conservation: As little inferred information as possible shall be lost.
We presented a method for solving unsatis able concepts [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] using a
combination of Lehmann's Default Logics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] and Lukasiewicz' Probabilistic Description
Logics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. Instead of removing (explicit) axioms, we propose to invalidate those
inferences that cause concepts to be inferred unsatis able [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. While it is
possible to reason with all information provided, we may still produce contradicting
inferences. In this paper we show that minimizing the number of inferences
invalidated does not necessarily minimize the number of those con icts. For nding
optimal solutions we propose to evaluate these w.r.t. their information content
which requires the de nition of the entropy of a solution. We discuss a possible
approach towards computing the entropy w.r.t. an ABox and give an outlook on
future work.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Procedure</title>
      <p>
        For each unsatis able concept U of an ontology, its justi cations JUk v? [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], i.e.
the minimal sets of axioms explaining the con ict, are determined in a rst
step. Each of these justi cations is split up into two sets : one that contains all
aalxlioomthserwahxiicohmcsoonftatihnatthveeruynjsuasttiis caabtiloenc,oncUkevp?t, [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]Uk.vA?ftearnwdarodnse, tthheatrocootnutnasinast
justi cations are determined, which are those justi cations that do not depend
on any other justi cation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        According to the partition scheme of Lehmann's Default Logics, the axioms
of the root justi cations are put into partitions U0; : : : ; UN and a separate TBox
T such that all concepts in T [Un are satis able for n = 0; : : : N . Thanks to the
splitting, we do not have to perform additional satis ability checks for computing
the partition. The resulting Default TBox is a family of (classical) TBoxes:
DT = (T [ U0; : : : ; T [ UN ). For such a Default TBox we may either use the
inference methods provided by Probabilistic Description Logics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] or stick to
classical reasoning on the single partitions, separately. Either approach de nes a
deductive closure of the Default TBox as a set of OWL2 axioms, but we prefer the
latter approach to change the formalism for reasoning only as little as possible.
      </p>
      <p>
        Instead of putting all axioms of the root unsat justi cations into the
partitions, we showed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] that we indeed have to put only two axioms of each root
unsat justi cation into the partitions|one of each Ukv? and one of each Ukv?|
while we may put the remaining axioms into T . While potentially invalidating
less inferences, however, nding partitions may become non-deterministic.
      </p>
      <p>We propose to approximate an optimal solution by a (stochastic) search
process: On the one hand, the number of possible solutions is exponential in the
number of axioms in the justi cations. On the other hand, once the justi
cations are known, nding a single valid solution can be performed e ciently,
because the complexity of the approach is dominated by the complexity of nding
justi cations|a task which has to be performed anyhow.
3</p>
      <p>Minimizing Con icts by Minimizing the Entropy
By invalidating the inferences of the kind DT j= U v ? we ignore the con icts
during reasoning. Yet, inferences such as the co-occurrence of DT j= A and
DT j= :A are still possible but not desired. Hence, a performance measure that
assesses the quality of a solution must not only take into account the number
of inferences invalidated but, even more important, the number of con icts still
remaining.</p>
      <p>Assume the simple TBox T = fB v A; C v B; C v :A; g which has two
Default TBoxes as potential solutions:</p>
      <p>DT 0 with T 0 = fC v Bg; U00 = fB v Ag; U10 = fC v :Ag
DT 1 with T 1 = fC v :Ag; U01 = fB v Ag; U11 = fC v Bg
In contrast to the latter, the rst Default TBox DT 0 preserves the inference
C v A. Yet, in the presence of an ABox that infers the assertion C(i), the
assertion A(i) as well as its complement :A(i) can be inferred. The second
Default TBox DT 1, in contrast, infers only :A(i). It is preferred over DT 0,
because it contains fewer con icts than DT 1.</p>
      <p>
        Con icts potentially reduce the information content of a knowledge base. For
minimizing the number of con icts as well as the number of inferences invalidated
we are currently investigating qualitative measures based on the entropy of a
possible solution. As opposed to methods based on the structure of an ontology
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], we propose that an entropy-measure should take into account the ambiguity
of di erent ABoxes.
      </p>
      <p>
        In information theory, the entropy measures the average information content
of a random variable we are missing when the value of the random variable is not
known [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. If we know the probability mass function p of the random variable X,
we may explicitly denote the entropy by H(X) = PnN=0 p(xn) log p(xn). In case
p(xn) = 0, then p(xn) log p(xn) = 0. We propose to approximate the probability
mass function pA for the axioms B v A 2 DT by counting assertions for the
concept (:B tA) found by the instance retrieval service of the reasoning process:
pA(B v A) = P
      </p>
      <p>jfx 2 AI
DvC2DT jfy 2 AI
j T ; A j= (:B t A)(x)gj
j T ; A j= (:D t C)(y)gj</p>
      <p>The entropy of a Default TBox DT measures the information content of its
axioms w.r.t. an ABox A: H(DT ; A) = PBvA2(DT ) pA(B v A) log pA(B v A).
For the Default TBoxes in the example above, we obtain an entropy of
H(DT 0) = log(1=3) and H(DT 1) = log(1=2) which would make us choose
DT 1 rather than DT 0. Our current hypothesis is that a Default TBox with
minimal entropy also minimizes the number of explicit con icts w.r.t. an ABox. A
prototype implementation is available 4.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>We recently introduced a framework that never infers any concept to be
unsatisable while keeping all originally provided information. This allows plausible
reasoning on ontologies that possibly contain controversial information|as it is the
case for mapped or dynamic ontologies. Finding solutions is non-deterministic
and requires optimization techniques that, in turn, require a performance
measure for evaluating the quality of possible solutions.</p>
      <p>While reasoning ignores con icts, they are still present in the knowledge base
and may lead to sub-optimal results. It was shown that solutions invalidating a
minimal number of inferences do not necessarily minimize the number of
conicts still present. For minimizing these we proposed to use an entropy-based
performance measure. We provided a de nition for the entropy of a solution
w.r.t an ABox which is currently being further investigated.
4 http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/scharren/owl-defaults/</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hitzler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Krotzsch,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Parsia</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Patel-Schneider</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.F.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Rudolph</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>S.:</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer</article-title>
          .
          <source>W3C Recommendation</source>
          ,
          <source>W3C</source>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scharrenbach</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Grutter, R.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Waldvogel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bernstein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Structure Preserving TBox Repair using Defaults</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 23rd Intl. Workshop on Description Logics</source>
          . (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lehmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Another perspective on default reasoning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Ann. Math. Artif. Intell</source>
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <year>1995</year>
          )
          <volume>61</volume>
          {
          <fpage>82</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lukasiewicz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Expressive probabilistic description logics</article-title>
          .
          <source>Art. Intell</source>
          .
          <volume>172</volume>
          (
          <issue>6-7</issue>
          ) (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <volume>852</volume>
          {
          <fpage>883</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scharrenbach</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>d'Amato</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fanizzi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Grutter, R.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Waldvogel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bernstein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Unsupervised con ict-free ontology evolution without removing axioms</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 4th International Workshop on Ontology Dynamics (IWOD-2010)</source>
          . (to appear).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schlobach</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cornet</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R.:
          <article-title>Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. of IJCAI</source>
          <year>2003</year>
          .
          <article-title>(</article-title>
          <year>2003</year>
          )
          <volume>355</volume>
          {
          <fpage>362</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalyanpur</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Parsia</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sirin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Debugging unsatis able classes in owl ontologies</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Web Semantics</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ) (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
          <volume>268</volume>
          {
          <fpage>293</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Doran</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tamma</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Payne</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Palmisano</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An entropy inspired measure for evaluating ontology modularization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. of KCAP2009</source>
          . (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
          <volume>73</volume>
          {
          <fpage>80</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shannon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A mathematical theory of communication</article-title>
          .
          <source>Bell System Technical Journal 27</source>
          <volume>379</volume>
          {
          <issue>423</issue>
          ,
          <issue>623</issue>
          {
          <fpage>656</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>