1 / 27

Tableau Algorithm

Tableau Algorithm. Presentation Outline. Description Logics Reasoning Tasks Structural Subsumption Tableau Algorithm Examples Q & A. DL Basics. Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable) E.g., Person , Doctor , HappyParent

tivona
Télécharger la présentation

Tableau Algorithm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tableau Algorithm

  2. Presentation Outline • Description Logics • Reasoning Tasks • Structural Subsumption • Tableau Algorithm • Examples • Q & A

  3. DL Basics • Concepts (unary predicates/formulae with one free variable) • E.g., Person, Doctor, HappyParent • Roles (binary predicates/formulae with two free variables) • E.g., hasChild, loves, hasBrother,hasDaughter • Individuals (constants) • E.g., John, Mary, Italy • Operators (for forming concepts and roles) restricted so that: • Satisfiability/subsumption is decidable and, if possible, of low complexity

  4. DL Semantics Interpretation function I Interpretation domain I IndividualsiI2I John Mary ConceptsCIµI Lawyer Doctor Vehicle RolesrIµI£I hasChild owns (Lawyer u Doctor)

  5. DL Knowledge Base • A TBox is a set of “schema” axioms (sentences), e.g.: {Doctor v Person, HappyParent´Person u8hasChild.(Doctor t 9hasChild.Doctor)} • An ABox is a set of “data” axioms (ground facts), e.g.: {John:HappyParent, John hasChild Mary} • A Knowledge Base (KB) is just a TBox plus an ABox

  6. Example of TBox Woman ≡ PersonFemale Man ≡ Person ¬Woman Mother ≡ Woman hasChild.Person Father ≡ Man hasChild.Person Parent ≡ Father Mother Grandmother ≡ Mother hasChild.Parent MotherWithManyChildren ≡ Mother  3 hasChild MotherWithoutDaughter ≡ Mother hasChild.¬Woman Wife ≡ Woman hasHusband.Man

  7. Example of ABox MotherWithoutDaughter(mary) Father(peter) hasChild(mary, peter) hasChild(peter, harry) hasChild(mary, paul)

  8. Reasoning Tasks • Whether a TBox description is satisfiable (i.e., non-contradictory) • Whether one description subsumes another one in a TBox - organize the concepts of a terminology into a hierarchy according to their generality • Find out whether the set of assertions in a ABox is consistent (has a model) • Whether the assertions in the ABox entail that a particular individual is an instance of a given concept description • A concept description can also be conceived as a query - retrieve the individuals that satisfy the query.

  9. Types of Reasoning • The simplest form of reasoning involves computing the subsumption relation between two concept expressions, i.e., verifying whether one expression always denotes a subset of the objects denoted by another expression. • Parent is a specialization of Person, i.e., Person subsumes Parent A B

  10. Types of Reasoning • A more complex reasoning task consists in checking whether a certain assertion is logically implied by a knowledge base. • For example, Bill is an instance of Parent

  11. Structural Subsumption • Normalize descriptions • Compare syntactical structure of normal forms • Normal form of C: A1 ⊓ …⊓ Am ⊓ ∀R1.C1⊓…⊓∀Rn.Cn • Normal form of D: B1 ⊓ …⊓ Bk ⊓ ∀S1.D1⊓…⊓∀Sl.Dl • C ⊑ D iff: • For all i, 1 <= i <= k, there exists j, 1<=j<=m, such that Bi=Aj • For all i, 1 <= i <= l, there exists j, 1<=j<=n, such that Si=Rj and Ci⊑ Dj

  12. Structural Subsumption • C ≡ Person PersonhasChild.(Lawyer Doctor Rockstar) • D ≡PersonhasChild.DoctorhasChild.Lawyer • C ⊑ D? Yes • C: PersonPersonhasChild.LawyerhasChild.DoctorhasChild.Rockstar • D: PersonhasChild.DoctorhasChild.Lawyer

  13. Structural Subsumption • What if we introduce disjunction • C: A ⊔ (B ⊓ E) • D: A ⊔ E • C ⊑ D? • Cannot be handled with structural subsumption • Solution: Tableau

  14. Tableau Algorithm • Instead of directly testing subsumption of concept descriptions, these algorithms use negation to reduce subsumption to (un)satisfiability of concept descriptions. • Steps • Check unsatisfiability of the concept (C ⊑ D -> C ⊓ ¬D) • Check whether you can construct an instance b of this concept • Try to build a tree like model of the input concept • Concept in Negation Normal Form • Decomposition using Tableau rules • Stop when clash occurs or no more rules are applicable • If each branch in tableau contains a clash, the concept is inconsistent

  15. Negation Normal Form • Rewrite Description such that only atomic roles and concepts are negated • Rewrite Rules • ¬(C ⊓ D) -> ¬C⊔ ¬D • ¬(C ⊔ D) -> ¬C⊓ ¬D • ∀R.C -> ∃R.¬C • ∃R.C -> ∀R. ¬C Example ¬∃R.A⊓ ∃R.B ⊓ ¬ (A ⊓ B) ⊓ ¬∀R.(A ⊔ B) ∀R.¬A ⊓ ∃R.B ⊓ (¬A ⊔ ¬ B)⊓ ∃R. ¬ (A ⊔ B) then (¬A ⊓ ¬ B)

  16. Transformation rules ⊓-rule Condition: A contains (C1 ⊓ C2)(x), but not both C1(x) and C2(x) Action: A’ = A ∪ {C1(x), C2(x)} T={Mother ≡ Female ⊓ ∃hasChild.Person} A={Mother(Anna)} Is ¬(∃hasChild.Person ⊓ ¬∃hasParent.Person)(Anna) satisfiable? Expand A w.r.t. T Mother(Anna)  (Female ⊓ ∃hasChild.Person)(Anna)  A’ = A ∪ {Female(Anna), (∃hasChild.Person)(Anna)} (¬∃hasChild.Person ⊓ ¬∃hasParent.Person)(Anna)  A’ = A ∪ {¬∃hasChild.Person)(Anna), ¬∃hasParent.Person)(Anna)}

  17. Transformation rules ⊔-rule Condition: A contains (C1 ⊔ C2)(x), but neither C1(x) or C2(x) Action: A’ = A ∪ {C1(x)} and A’’ = A ∪ {C2(x)} T={Parent≡∃hasChild.Female⊔∃hasChild.Male, Person≡Male⊔Female, Mother≡Parent ⊓Female} A={Mother(Anna)} Is ¬∃hasChild.Person(Anna) satisfiable? Expand A w.r.t. T A = {Mother(Anna)}  A’ = A ∪ {Parent(Anna), Female(Anna)} Parent(Anna)  (∃hasChild.Female⊔∃hasChild.Male)(Anna)  (∃hasChild.Female)(Anna) or (∃hasChild.Male)(Anna) Both are in contradiction with ¬∃hasChild.Person, not satisfiable.

  18. Transformation rules ∃-rule Condition: A contains (∃R.C)(x), but there is no z such that both C(z) and R(x,z) are in A Action: A’ = A ∪ {C(z), R(x,z)} T={Parent≡∃hasChild.Female⊔∃hasChild.Male, Person≡Male⊔Female, Mother≡Parent⊓Female} A={Mother(Anna), hasChild(Anna,Bob), ¬Female(Bob)} Is ¬∃hasChild.Person(Anna) satisfiable? Expand A w.r.t. T Mother(Anna)  Parent(Anna)  (∃hasChild.Female⊔∃hasChild.Male)(Anna) take (∃hasChild.Male)(Anna) hasChild(Anna,Bob), Male(Bob) …

  19. Transformation rules ∀-rule Condition: A contains (∀R.C)(x) and R(x,z), but not C(z) Action: A’ = A ∪ {C(z)} T={DaughterParent≡∀hasChild.Female, Male⊓Female⊑⊥} A={hasChild(Anna,Bob), ¬Female(Bob)} Is DaughterParent(Anna) satisfiable? Expand A w.r.t. T DaughterParent(x)  ∀hasChild.Female(x)  Given that hasChild(Anna,Bob)A’ = A ∪ {Female(Bob)} but this in contradiction with ¬Female(Bob)

  20. Examples • Example 1 • DL knowledge base • vegan ≐ person ⊓ ∀eats.plant • vegetarian ≐ person ⊓ ∀eats.(plants ⊔ dairy) • Query: vegan ⊑ vegetarian • Example 2 • Query: vegetarian ⋢ vegan

  21. Example-1 • DL knowledge base • vegan ≐ person ⊓ ∀eats.plant • vegetarian ≐ person ⊓ ∀eats.(plants ⊔ dairy) • Query: vegan ⊑ vegetarian • Convert to • vegan ⊓ ¬vegetarian is unsatisfiable

  22. Example-1 • Unfold and normalisevegan ⊓ ¬vegetarian • A0 =( person ⊓ ∀eats.plant⊓ (¬person ⊔ ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy))(x) • Apply ⊓-rule and add to C0: • A1 = A0 U {person(x), ∀eats.plant(x), (¬person ⊔ ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy))(x)}

  23. Example-1 • Apply ⊔-rule to ¬person ⊔ ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy): • A1 = {person(x), ∀eats.plant(x), (¬person ⊔ ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy))(x)} • Add ¬person to A1: Clash • Go back and add ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy) to A1 • A2= A1 U {∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy) (x)} • Apply ∃-rule to ∃eats.(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy): • A3= A2 U {(¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy) (y), eats(x,y)} • Apply ∀-rule to ∀eats.plant (x) in A1 and eats(x, y) in A3 • Add plant(y) to A3

  24. Example-1 • Apply ⊓-rule to ¬plant ⊓ ¬dairy in A3 • Add {¬plant(y), ¬dairy(y)} to A3: Clash • Conclusion • Both applications of the ⊔-rule have lead to clashes • So vegan ⊓ ¬vegetarian is unsatisfiable • So vegan ⊑ vegetarian

  25. Example-2 • Query: vegetarian ⋢ vegan • Convert to • vegetarian ⊓ ¬ vegan is satisfiable • Unfold and normalisevegetarian ⊓ ¬ vegan • person ⊓ ∀eats.(plant ⊔ dairy) ⊓ (¬ person ⊔ ∃eats. ¬ plant) • A0 = {person ⊓ ∀eats.(plant ⊔ dairy) ⊓ (¬ person ⊔ ∃eats. ¬ plant)} (x)

  26. Example-2 • Apply ⊓-rule and add to A0: • A1= A0 U {person(x), ∀eats.(plant ⊔ dairy) (x),(¬person ⊔ ∃eats.¬plant) (x)} • Apply ⊔-rule to ¬person ⊔ ∃eats.¬ plant: • Add ¬person (x) to A1: Clash • Go back and add ∃eats.¬plant to A1 • Apply ∃-rule to ∃eats.¬ plant: • A2 = A1 U{¬plant(y), eats(x,y)}

  27. Example-2 • Apply ∀-rule to ∀eats.(plant ⊔ dairy) in A1 A2 = A1 U {(plant ⊔ dairy)(y)} • Apply ⊔-rule to plant ⊔ dairy in A2 • Add plant (y) to A2: Clash • Go back and add dairy(y) to A2 • Conclusion • No more rules are applicable • So vegetarian ⊓ ¬ vegan is satisfiable • So vegetarian ⋢ vegan

More Related