Sebastian Rudolph’s research while affiliated with Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz and other places

The KLM approach to defeasible reasoning introduces a weakened form of implication into classical logic. This allows one to incorporate exceptions to general rules into a logical system, and for old conclusions to be withdrawn upon learning new contradictory information. Standpoint logics are a group of logics, introduced to the field of Knowledge Representation in the last 5 years, which allow for multiple viewpoints to be integrated into the same ontology, even when certain viewpoints may hold contradicting beliefs. In this paper, we aim to integrate standpoints into KLM propositional logic in a restricted setting. We introduce the logical system of Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logic (DRSL) and define its syntax and semantics. Specifically, we integrate ranked interpretations and standpoint structures, which provide the semantics for propositional KLM and propositional standpoint logic respectively, in order to introduce ranked standpoint structures for DRSL. Moreover, we extend the non-monotonic entailment relation of rational closure from the propositional KLM case to the DRSL case. The main contribution of this paper is to characterize rational closure for DRSL both algorithmically and semantically, showing that rational closure can be characterized through a single representative ranked standpoint structure. Finally, we conclude that the semantic and algorithmic characterizations of rational closure are equivalent, and that entailment-checking for DRSL under rational closure is in the same complexity class as entailment-checking for propositional KLM.

Standpoint logic is a recently proposed modal logic framework that is well-suited for multiperspective reasoning and ontology integration. For this reason, combinations of standpoint logic with description logics (DLs) are of special interest. Prior work has shown that it is possible to add standpoints to numerous decidable fragments of first-order logics - including very expressive DLs up to SROIQbs - while preserving their reasoning complexity, so long as standpoint modalities are limited to the axiom level. A more expressive tighter modal integration, where standpoint modalities are also allowed to occur in concept expressions, has so far only been investigated for the much less expressive DL EL+. In this paper, we push this line of research showing that the DL SHIQ allows for a tight modal integration with standpoints without compromising its ExpTime reasoning complexity. The core insight toward this result is that any satisfiable knowledge base admits a model with only polynomially many worlds, an argument which requires a rather elaborate model-theoretic construction. This allows us to establish a polynomial equisatisfiable translation into plain SHIQ which, beyond showing the theoretical result, enables us to use highly optimised OWL reasoners to provide practical reasoning support for ontology languages extended by standpoint modelling. We complement our findings with the observation that our techniques would fail upon adding the modelling feature of nominals to the underlying DL.

Extensive research in the field of ontology-based query answering has led to the identification of numerous fragments of existential rules (also known as tuple-generating dependencies) that exhibit decidable answering of atomic and conjunctive queries. Motivated by the increased theoretical and practical interest in navigational queries, this paper considers the question for which of these fragments decidability of querying extends to regular path queries (RPQs). In fact, decidability of RPQs has recently been shown to generally hold for the comprehensive family of all fragments that come with the guarantee of universal models being reasonably well-shaped (that is, being of finite cliquewidth). Yet, for the second major family of fragments, known as finite unification sets (short: fus), which are based on first-order-rewritability, corresponding results have been largely elusive so far. We complete the picture by showing that RPQ answering over arbitrary fus rulesets is undecidable. On the positive side, we establish that the problem is decidable for the prominent fus subclass of sticky rulesets, with the caveat that a very mild extension of the RPQ formalism turns the problem undecidable again.

Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) is an approach to creating a conceptual hierarchy in which a \textit{concept lattice} is generated from a \textit{formal context}. That is, a triple consisting of a set of objects, G, a set of attributes, M, and an incidence relation I on $G \times M$. A \textit{concept} is then modelled as a pair consisting of a set of objects (the \textit{extent}), and a set of shared attributes (the \textit{intent}). Implications in FCA describe how one set of attributes follows from another. The semantics of these implications closely resemble that of logical consequence in classical logic. In that sense, it describes a monotonic conditional. The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, we introduce a non-monotonic conditional between sets of attributes, which assumes a preference over the set of objects. We show that this conditional gives rise to a consequence relation that is consistent with the postulates for non-monotonicty proposed by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor (commonly referred to as the KLM postulates). We argue that our contribution establishes a strong characterisation of non-monotonicity in FCA. Typical concepts represent concepts where the intent aligns with expectations from the extent, allowing for an exception-tolerant view of concepts. To this end, we show that the set of all typical concepts is a meet semi-lattice of the original concept lattice. This notion of typical concepts is a further introduction of KLM-style typicality into FCA, and is foundational towards developing an algebraic structure representing a concept lattice of prototypical concepts.

The KLM approach to defeasible reasoning introduces a weakened form of implication into classical logic. This allows one to incorporate exceptions to general rules into a logical system, and for old conclusions to be withdrawn upon learning new contradictory information. Standpoint logics are a group of logics, introduced to the field of Knowledge Representation in the last 5 years, which allow for multiple viewpoints to be integrated into the same ontology, even when certain viewpoints may hold contradicting beliefs. In this paper, we aim to integrate standpoints into KLM propositional logic in a restricted setting. We introduce the logical system of Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logic (DRSL) and define its syntax and semantics. Specifically, we integrate ranked interpretations and standpoint structures, which provide the semantics for propositional KLM and propositional standpoint logic respectively, in order to introduce ranked standpoint structures for DRSL. Moreover, we extend the non-monotonic entailment relation of rational closure from the propositional KLM case to the DRSL case. The main contribution of this paper is to characterize rational closure for DRSL both algorithmically and semantically, showing that rational closure can be characterized through a single representative ranked standpoint structure. Finally, we conclude that the semantic and algorithmic characterizations of rational closure are equivalent, and that entailment-checking for DRSL under rational closure is in the same complexity class as entailment-checking for propositional KLM.

Ontologies often lack explicit disjointness declarations between classes, despite their usefulness for sophisticated reasoning and consistency checking in Knowledge Graphs. In this study, we explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to enrich ontologies by identifying and asserting class disjointness axioms. Our approach aims at leveraging the implicit knowledge embedded in LLMs, using prompt engineering to elicit this knowledge for classifying ontological disjointness. We validate our methodology on the DBpedia ontology, focusing on open-source LLMs. Our findings suggest that LLMs, when guided by effective prompt strategies, can reliably identify disjoint class relationships, thus streamlining the process of ontology completion without extensive manual input. For comprehensive disjointness enrichment, we propose a process that takes logical relationships between disjointness and subclass statements into account in order to maintain satisfiability and reduce the number of calls to the LLM. This work provides a foundation for future applications of LLMs in automated ontology enhancement and offers insights into optimizing LLM performance through strategic prompt design. Our code is publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/n28div/llm-disjointness.

Extensive research in the field of ontology-based query answering has led to the identification of numerous fragments of existential rules (also known as tuple-generating dependencies) that exhibit decidable answering of atomic and conjunctive queries. Motivated by the increased theoretical and practical interest in navigational queries, this paper considers the question for which of these fragments decidability of querying extends to regular path queries (RPQs). In fact, decidability of RPQs has recently been shown to generally hold for the comprehensive family of all fragments that come with the guarantee of universal models being reasonably well-shaped (that is, being of finite cliquewidth). Yet, for the second major family of fragments, known as finite unification sets (short: fus), which are based on first-order-rewritability, corresponding results have been largely elusive so far. We complete the picture by showing that RPQ answering over arbitrary fus rulesets is undecidable. On the positive side, we establish that the problem is decidable for the prominent fus subclass of sticky rulesets, with the caveat that a very mild extension of the RPQ formalism turns the problem undecidable again.

It is commonly known that the conjunctive query entailment problem for certain extensions of (the well-known ontology language) ALC is computationally harder than their knowledge base satisfiability problem while for others the complexities coincide, both under the standard and the finite-model semantics. We expose a uniform principle behind this divide by identifying a wide class of (finitely) locally-forward description logics, for which we prove that (finite) query entailment problem can be solved by a reduction to exponentially many calls of the (finite) knowledge base satisfiability problem. Consequently, our algorithm yields tight ExpTime upper bounds for locally-forward logics with ExpTime-complete knowledge base satisfiability problem, including logics between ALC and µALCHbregQ (and more), as well as ALCSCC with global cardinality constraints, for which the complexity of querying remained open. Moreover, to make our technique applicable in future research, we provide easy-to-check sufficient conditions for a logic to be locally-forward based several versions of the on model-theoretic notion of unravellings. Together with existing results, this provides a nearly complete classification of the “benign” vs. “malign” primitive modelling features extending ALC, missing out only the Self operator. We then show a rather counter-intuitive result, namely that the conjunctive entailment problem for ALCSelf is exponentially harder than for ALC. This places the seemingly innocuous Self operator among the “malign” modelling features, like inverses, transitivity or nominals.

This paper establishes alternative characterizations of very expressive classes of existential rule sets with decidable query entailment. We consider the notable class of greedy bounded-treewidth sets ($\textbf{gbts}$) and a new, generalized variant, called weakly gbts ($\textbf{wgbts}$). Revisiting and building on the notion of derivation graphs, we define (weakly) cycle-free derivation graph sets ($\mathbf {(w)cdgs}$) and employ elaborate proof-theoretic arguments to obtain that $\textbf{gbts}$ and $\textbf{cdgs}$ coincide, as do $\textbf{wgbts}$ and $\textbf{wcdgs}$. These novel characterizations advance our analytic proof-theoretic understanding of existential rules and will likely be instrumental in practice.