=: C T , 1 i n ( C i D i ) TU Dresden 2 Germany A tableau - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• 2. A tableau algorithm for ALC with TBoxes, number restrictions, and inverse roles

Extend ALC-tableau algorithm from first session with ① general TBoxes ② inverse roles ③ number restrictions Goal: Design sound and complete desicion procedures for satisfiability (and subsumption) of DLs which are well-suited for implementation purposes

TU Dresden Germany 1

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes Remember:

• A concept equation is of the form C .

= D for C, D (complex) concepts

• A (general) TBox is a finite set of concept equations
• I satisfies C .

= D iff CI = DI

• I is a model of TBox T = {Ci .

= Di | 1 ≤ i ≤ n} iff I satisfies each concept equation in T Extend ALC tableau algorithm to TBox transform a TBox T = {Ci . = Di | 1 ≤ i ≤ n}, into a single, equivalent concept equation ⊤ . =

⊓

1≤i≤n(¬Ci ⊔ Di) ⊓ (Ci ⊔ ¬Di)

⊓

1≤i≤n(Ci ⇔ Di)

=: CT ,

TU Dresden Germany 2

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes Extend ALC-tableau algorithm with the following rule: →CE: If CT ∈ L(x) Then L(x) → L(x) ∪ {CT } Example: Consider TBox {C . = ∃R.C}. Is C satisfiable w.r.t. this TBox? Tableau algorithm no longer terminates! Reason: The role depth of concepts no longer decreases along paths in a completion tree

TU Dresden Germany 3

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes Regain termination with cycle-detection Blocking: if x and one of its ancestors y are very similar, only extend y:

• x is directly blocked if it has an ancestor y with L(x) ⊆ L(y)
• In this case and if y is the “closest” such node to x, we say that x is blocked by y
• A node is blocked if it is directly blocked or one of its ancestors is blocked

⊕ restrict the application of all rules to nodes which are not blocked Tableau algorithm for ALC w.r.t. TBoxes

TU Dresden Germany 4

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes Lemma: Let T be a general ALC-Tbox and C0 an ALC-concept. Then

• 1. the algorithm terminates when applied to T and C0 and
• 2. the rules can be applied such that they generate a

clash-free and complete completion tree iff C0 is satisfiable w.r.t. T . Corollary: Satisfiability of ALC-concept w.r.t. general TBoxes is decidable and ALC has the finite model property.

TU Dresden Germany 5

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes Proof: 1.(Termination): blackboard

• 2. ⇒ Soundness: for T a complete, clash-free completion tree for C0 and T ,

construct a finite (non-tree) model as follows: ∆I := {x | x is a node in T , x is not blocked} AI := {x ∈ ∆I | A ∈ L(x)} for concept names A RI := {x, y ∈ ∆I2 | x, y ∈ E(R) or x, y′ ∈ E(R) and y blocks y′} for role names R Prove (by induction on the structure of concepts) that, for all x ∈ ∆I, C ∈ sub(C0, T ): C ∈ L(x) implies x ∈ CI. Then, since C0 is in the label of the root node and CT in the label of all nodes, I is indeed a model of C0 and T .

TU Dresden Germany 6

A tableau algorithm for ALC with general TBoxes

• 3. ⇐ (Completeness): use model I of C0 and T to steer the application of the →⊔-rule.

Inductively define a mapping π : nodes of completion tree → ∆I and show that L(x) ⊆ {C | π(x) ∈ CI} (∗) if x, y ∈ E(R), then π(x), π(y) ∈ RI

TU Dresden Germany 7

A tableau algorithm for ALCI with general TBoxes ALCI is the extension of ALC with inverse roles R− in the place of role names: (R−)I := {y, x | x, y ∈ RI}. Motivation: with inverse roles, one can use both has-child and is-child-of has-part and is-part-of and their interaction Example: w.r.t. T = {⊤ . = ∃parent.⊤}, does ∀parent.∀child.Blond ⊑ Blond? Example: T = { C . = ∃R.C ⊤ . = ∀T −.∀S−.∀R−.C} and C0 = ∃R.∃S.∃T.A

TU Dresden Germany 8

A tableau algorithm for ALCI with general TBoxes Modifications necessary to handle inverse roles: ① extend edges E(.) in c-trees to inverse roles, ② call y an R-neighbour of x if either y is an R-successor of x or x is an R− successor of y, ③ substitute “R-successor” in the →∀- and →∃-rule with “R-neighbour” (still create an R-successor in case no R-neighbour exists for an ∃R.C R−-successor in case no R−-neighbour exists for an ∃R−.C). Example: Is A satisfiable w.r.t. {A . = ∃R−.A ⊓ (∀R.(¬A ⊔ ∃S.B))}? Does this suffice? No! Example: A ⊓ ∀R−.¬A ⊓ ∃R.A and T = {A . = X}

TU Dresden Germany 9

A tableau algorithm for ALCI with general TBoxes “subset-blocking” (with L(x) ⊆ L(x′)) no longer suffices: ④ A node x is called directly blocked if it has an ancestor y with L(x) = L(y). Lemma: Let T be a general ALCI-Tbox and C0 an ALCI-concept. Then

• 1. the algorithm terminates when applied to T and C0,
• 2. the rules can be applied such that they generate a

clash-free and complete completion tree iff C0 is satisfiable w.r.t. T .

TU Dresden Germany 10

A tableau algorithm for ALCI with general TBoxes Proof: 1.(Termination): identical to the ALC case.

• 2. ⇒ (Soundness): again, construct a finite (non-tree) model from

a complete, clash-free c-tree T for C0 and T (take into account edges labelled with inverse roles): ∆I := {x | x is a node in T , x is not blocked} AI := {x ∈ ∆I | A ∈ L(x)} for concept names A RI := {x, y ∈ ∆I2 | x, y ∈ E(R), y, x ∈ E(R−) or x, y′ ∈ E(R) and y blocks y′ or y, x′ ∈ E(R−) and x blocks x′} for role names R Again, prove that, for all x ∈ ∆I: C ∈ L(x) implies x ∈ CI.

TU Dresden Germany 11

A tableau algorithm for ALCI with general TBoxes

• 3. ⇐ (Completeness): again, use model I of C0 and T and mapping π to

steer the application of the →⊔-rule. Corollary: Satisfiability of ALCI-concept w.r.t. general TBoxes is decidable and ALCI has the finite model property. It can be shown that pure ALCI-concept satisfiability is PSpace-complete, just like ALC.

TU Dresden Germany 12

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Further add qualifying number restrictions (nr.C) and (nr.C): (nr.C)I := {x ∈ ∆I | #{y | x, y ∈ rI and y ∈ CI} ≥ n} (nr.C)I := {x ∈ ∆I | #{y | x, y ∈ rI and y ∈ CI} ≤ n} ALCQI is ALCI extended with qualifying number restrictions. Observation: ALCQI with general TBoxes looses finite model property: C0 := ¬A, T := {⊤ . = ∃R.A ⊓ (1R−.⊤)} C0 is satisfiable w.r.t. T , but only in infinite models

TU Dresden Germany 13

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Obvious: 2 new rules for tableau algorithm →≥: If (nr.C) ∈ L(x), x is not blocked, and x has less than n R-neighbours yi with C ∈ L(yi) Then create n new R-successor y1, . . . , yn of x with L(yi) := {C} for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n →≤: If (nr.C) ∈ L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, x has n + 1 R-neighbours y0, . . . , yn with C ∈ L(yi), and there are i, j with yj is not an ancestor of yi Then L(yi) → L(yi) ∪ L(yj), make yj’s successors to successors of yi, remove yj from the tree

TU Dresden Germany 14

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Use explicit inequality . = to prevent “yoyo” effect →≥: If (nr.C) ∈ L(x), x is not blocked, and x has less than n R-neighbours yi with C ∈ L(yi) Then create n new R-successor y1, . . . , yn of x with L(yi) := {C} for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n and yi . = yj for all i = j →≤: If (nr.C) ∈ L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, x has n + 1 R-neighbours y0, . . . , yn with C ∈ L(yi), and there are i, j with not yi . = yj and yj is not an ancestor of yi Then L(yi) → L(yi) ∪ L(yj), make yj’s successors to successors of yi, add yi . = z for each z with yj . = z, remove yj from the tree

TU Dresden Germany 15

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Extend definition of a clash to NRs: Additionally, x contains a clash if

• (nr.C) ∈ L(x) and
• x has more than n R-neighbours y0, . . . , yn with yi .

= yj for all i = j. Does this suffice? No: (1R.A) ⊓ (1R.¬A) ⊓ (3R.B) is unsatisfiable, but the algorithm would answer “satisfiable” Reason: if (nR.C) ∈ L(x) and x has an R-neighbour y, we need to know whether x is a C or x is a ¬C.

TU Dresden Germany 16

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Solution: ① use ˙ ¬C as an abbreviation for the NNF of ¬C, ② extend the node labels to cl(C0, T ) := sub(C0, T ) ∪ { ˙ ¬C | C ∈ sub(C0, T )} ② add a third new rule: →choice: If (nR.C) ∈ L(x), x is not indirectly blocked, x has an R-neighbour y with {C, ˙ ¬C} ∩ L(y) = ∅ Then L(y) → L(y) ∪ {D} for some D ∈ {C, ˙ ¬C} Does this suffice? No . . .

TU Dresden Germany 17

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Example: C0 := ¬A ⊓ (∃S.D) D := A ⊓ (1S−.⊤) ⊓ (∃S−.¬A) T := {⊤ . = ∃S.D} z L(z) = {D, A, (≤ 1 S−), (∃S−.¬A), (∃S.D)} y L(y) = {D, A, (≤ 1 S−), (∃S−.¬A), (∃S.D)} x L(x) = {C0, ¬A, (∃S.D)} s s s z would block y but we cannot construct a model from this!

TU Dresden Germany 18

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes Solution: y is directly blocked if there are ancestors x, x′, and y′ of y with

• x is predecessor of y, x′ is predecessor of y′,
• E(x, y) = E(x′, y′),
• L(x) = L(x′), and L(y) = L(y′).

Lemma: Let T be a general ALCQI-Tbox and C0 an ALCQI-concept. Then the

• 1. algorithm terminates when applied to T and C0,
• 2. the rules can be applied such that they generate a clash-free and complete completion

tree iff C0 is satisfiable w.r.t. T . Proof: 1. (Termination): tree is no longer built monotonically, but . = prevents “yoyo” effect

TU Dresden Germany 19

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes

• 2. ⇒ (Soundness): a complete, clash-free T can be “unravelled” into

(infinite tree) model: elements of the model are paths starting from the root

• instead of going to a blocked node, go to its blocking node
• p ∈ AI if A ∈ L(Tail(p))
• roughly speaking, set (p, p|y) ∈ RI if y is an R-successor of Tail(p)

(and similar for inverse roles), taking care of blocked nodes ➾ danger: suppose two successors y, y′ of x are blocked by the same node z: Standard unravelling yields one path [. . . xz] for both nodes [. . . x] might not have enough R-successors for some (nR.C) ∈ L(x) Solution: annotate points in the path with blocked nodes: [. . . x

x z y] = [. . . x x z y′]

TU Dresden Germany 20

A tableau algorithm for ALCQI with general TBoxes

• 2. ⇐ (Completeness): Identical to the proof for ALCI,

but for stricter invariance condition on π: L(x) ⊆ {C | π(x) ∈ CI} (∗) if x, y ∈ E(R), then π(x), π(y) ∈ RI if x . = y, then π(x) = π(y)

TU Dresden Germany 21

Tableau algorithms for ABox consistency Tableau algorithms for ABox consistency either

• use pre-completion (for DLs without inverse roles):

reduce ABox-consistency to (several) satisfiability tests by completing the ABox using all but generating rules (i.e., →⊓, →⊔, →∀) Example: { a, b: R, a: (A ⊓ ∀R.∀S.(¬A ⊔ B)) b, a: S, b: (A ⊓ ∃S.¬B)}

• or work on completion forests (for DLs with inverse roles),

where root nodes can be related Example: { a, b: R, a: (A ⊓ ∀R.∀S.(¬A ⊔ B)) b, a: S, b: (A ⊓ ∃S.(∀S−.∀R−.¬A))}

TU Dresden Germany 22

A tableau algorithm for SHIQ The DL SHIQ extends ALCQI with transitive roles and role hierarchies: transitive roles: certain role names must be interpreted as transitive relations e.g., ancestor, has-part, part-of, etc. role hierarchy: set of implications R ⊑ S, which require RI ⊆ SI e.g., daughter ⊑ child, has-component ⊑ has-part roles in NRs are simple (don’t have transitive subroles) Note: If Trans(S) and R ⊑ S, then SI is a transitive relation containing RI ≡ (R+)I is the smallest transitive relation containing RI

TU Dresden Germany 23

A tableau algorithm for SHIQ Known: SAT(SHIQ) w.r.t. TBoxes is ExpTime-complete FaCT and Racer are highly optimised SHIQ-implementations The tableau algorithm for SHIQ is similar to the one of ALCQI but for transitivity and role hierarchies:

• relational structure of the completion tree is only “skeleton”

(Hasse-Diagram) of the relational structure of the model to be built (transitive edges are left out)

• edges are labelled with sets of role names

e.g., S1, S2 ⊑ R and (1R.⊤) ⊓ (1S1.A) ⊓ (1S2.B)

• if ∀S.C ∈ L(x), R ∈ L(E(x, y), R ⊑ S, and Trans(S),

then ∀R.C ∈ L(x)

TU Dresden Germany 24