Yasir Mahmood

Anselm Haak, Patrick Koopmann, Yasir Mahmood et al.

Given a knowledge base (KB) with a non-entailed fact, the ABox abduction problem asks for possible extensions of the KB that would entail this fact. This problem has many applications, ranging from diagnosis to explainability and repair. ABox abduction has been well-investigated for consistent KBs and classical semantics, but little is known for the case of inconsistent KBs, which can be caused by erroneous data. In this paper we define suitable notions of abduction in this setting and propose criteria that guide abduction towards "useful" hypotheses. To regain meaningful reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies, we use well-established repair semantics. We provide a comprehensive landscape of the complexity of ABox abduction under repair semantics, treating different variants of the abduction problem for the light-weight description logics DL-Lite and EL_bot.

Leonie Nora Sieger, Stefan Heindorf, Yasir Mahmood et al.

Knowledge bases are widely used for information management, enabling high-impact applications such as web search, question answering, and natural language processing. They also serve as the backbone for automatic decision systems, e.g., for medical diagnostics and credit scoring. As stakeholders affected by these decisions would like to understand their situation and verify how fair the decisions are, a number of explanation approaches have been proposed. An intrinsically transparent way to do classification is by using concepts in description logics. However, these concepts can become long and difficult to fathom for non-experts, even when verbalized. One solution is to employ counterfactuals to answer the question, ``How must feature values be changed to obtain a different classification?'' By focusing on the minimal feature changes, the explanations are short, human-friendly, and provide a clear path of action regarding the change in prediction. While previous work investigated counterfactuals for tabular data, in this paper, we transfer the notion of counterfactuals to knowledge bases and the description logic $\mathcal{ELH}$. Our approach starts by generating counterfactual candidates from concepts, followed by selecting the candidates requiring the fewest feature changes as counterfactuals. When multiple counterfactuals exist, we rank them based on the likeliness of their feature combinations. We evaluate our method by conducting a user survey to determine which counterfactual candidates participants prefer for explanation.

Yasir Mahmood, Markus Hecher, Johanna Groven et al.

Structural measures of graphs, such as treewidth, are central tools in computational complexity resulting in efficient algorithms when exploiting the parameter. It is even known that modern SAT solvers work efficiently on instances of small treewidth. Since these solvers are widely applied, research interests in compact encodings into (Q)SAT for solving and to understand encoding limitations. Even more general is the graph parameter clique-width, which unlike treewidth can be small for dense graphs. Although algorithms are available for clique-width, little is known about encodings. We initiate the quest to understand encoding capabilities with clique-width by considering abstract argumentation, which is a robust framework for reasoning with conflicting arguments. It is based on directed graphs and asks for computationally challenging properties, making it a natural candidate to study computational properties. We design novel reductions from argumentation problems to (Q)SAT. Our reductions linearly preserve the clique-width, resulting in directed decomposition-guided (DDG) reductions. We establish novel results for all argumentation semantics, including counting. Notably, the overhead caused by our DDG reductions cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions.

Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, Yasir Mahmood et al.

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with \emph{acceptance conditions} on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for \emph{rejecting} an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

Yasir Mahmood, Arnab Sharma, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo et al.

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, Yasir Mahmood et al.

Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics is defined by the notion of extensions, which are sets of arguments that satisfy particular relationship conditions in the AF. Usually, standard reasoning in argumentation do not reveal how far apart extensions are. We introduce a quantitative notion of diversity of extensions based on the symmetric difference and provide a systematic complexity classification. Intuitively, diversity captures whether extensions of a framework (accepted viewpoints) differ only marginally or represent fundamentally incompatible sets of arguments. We study whether an AF admits k-diverse extensions, admits k-diverse extensions covering specific arguments, and to compute the largest k for which an AF admits k-diverse extensions. We outline a prototype and provide an evaluation for computing diversity levels.

Patrick Koopmann, Yasir Mahmood, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo et al.

We introduce the notion of contrastive ABox explanations to answer questions of the type "Why is a an instance of C, but b is not?". While there are various approaches for explaining positive entailments (why is C(a) entailed by the knowledge base) as well as missing entailments (why is C(b) not entailed) in isolation, contrastive explanations consider both at the same time, which allows them to focus on the relevant commonalities and differences between a and b. We develop an appropriate notion of contrastive explanations for the special case of ABox reasoning with description logic ontologies, and analyze the computational complexity for different variants under different optimality criteria, considering lightweight as well as more expressive description logics. We implemented a first method for computing one variant of contrastive explanations, and evaluated it on generated problems for realistic knowledge bases.

Yasir Mahmood, Jonni Virtema, Timon Barlag et al.

The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, we contribute to this domain by establishing a new connection when integrity constraints (ICs) include denial constraints and local-as-view tuple-generating dependencies. It turns out that SET-based Argumentation Frameworks (SETAFs), an extension of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) allowing collective attacks, are needed. It is known that subset-maximal repairs under denial constraints correspond to the naive extensions, which also coincide with the preferred and stable extensions in the resulting SETAFs. Our main findings establish that repairs under the considered fragment of tuple-generating dependencies correspond to the preferred extensions. Moreover, for these dependencies, additional preprocessing allows computing a unique extension that is stable and naive. Allowing both types of constraints breaks this relationship, and even the pre-processing does not help as only preferred semantics captures these repairs. Finally, while it is known that functional dependencies do not require set-based attacks, we prove the same regarding inclusion dependencies. Thus, one can translate inconsistent databases under these restricted classes of ICs to plain AFs with attacks only between arguments.

Omar Elharrouss, Yasir Mahmood, Yassine Bechqito et al.

Loss functions are at the heart of deep learning, shaping how models learn and perform across diverse tasks. They are used to quantify the difference between predicted outputs and ground truth labels, guiding the optimization process to minimize errors. Selecting the right loss function is critical, as it directly impacts model convergence, generalization, and overall performance across various applications, from computer vision to time series forecasting. This paper presents a comprehensive review of loss functions, covering fundamental metrics like Mean Squared Error and Cross-Entropy to advanced functions such as Adversarial and Diffusion losses. We explore their mathematical foundations, impact on model training, and strategic selection for various applications, including computer vision (Discriminative and generative), tabular data prediction, and time series forecasting. For each of these categories, we discuss the most used loss functions in the recent advancements of deep learning techniques. Also, this review explore the historical evolution, computational efficiency, and ongoing challenges in loss function design, underlining the need for more adaptive and robust solutions. Emphasis is placed on complex scenarios involving multi-modal data, class imbalances, and real-world constraints. Finally, we identify key future directions, advocating for loss functions that enhance interpretability, scalability, and generalization, leading to more effective and resilient deep learning models.

Louis Mozart Kamdem Teyou, Luke Friedrichs, N'Dah Jean Kouagou et al.

Concept learning exploits background knowledge in the form of description logic axioms to learn explainable classification models from knowledge bases. Despite recent breakthroughs in neuro-symbolic concept learning, most approaches still cannot be deployed on real-world knowledge bases. This is due to their use of description logic reasoners, which are not robust against inconsistencies nor erroneous data. We address this challenge by presenting a novel neural reasoner dubbed EBR. Our reasoner relies on embeddings to approximate the results of a symbolic reasoner. We show that EBR solely requires retrieving instances for atomic concepts and existential restrictions to retrieve or approximate the set of instances of any concept in the description logic $\mathcal{SHOIQ}$. In our experiments, we compare EBR with state-of-the-art reasoners. Our results suggest that EBR is robust against missing and erroneous data in contrast to existing reasoners.

Yasir Mahmood, Arne Meier, Johannes Schmidt

Logic-based argumentation is a well-established formalism modelling nonmonotonic reasoning. It has been playing a major role in AI for decades, now. Informally, a set of formulas is the support for a given claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. In such a case, the pair of the support and the claim together is called an argument. In this paper, we study the propositional variants of the following three computational tasks studied in argumentation: ARG (exists a support for a given claim with respect to a given set of formulas), ARG-Check (is a given set a support for a given claim), and ARG-Rel (similarly as ARG plus requiring an additionally given formula to be contained in the support). ARG-Check is complete for the complexity class DP, and the other two problems are known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (Parson et al., J. Log. Comput., 2003) and, accordingly, are highly intractable. Analyzing the reason for this intractability, we perform a two-dimensional classification: first, we consider all possible propositional fragments of the problem within Schaefer's framework (STOC 1978), and then study different parameterizations for each of the fragment. We identify a list of reasonable structural parameters (size of the claim, support, knowledge-base) that are connected to the aforementioned decision problems. Eventually, we thoroughly draw a fine border of parameterized intractability for each of the problems showing where the problems are fixed-parameter tractable and when this exactly stops. Surprisingly, several cases are of very high intractability (paraNP and beyond).

Yasir Mahmood, Nazri Kama, Azri Azmi et al.

Software effort estimation accuracy is a key factor in effective planning, controlling and to deliver a successful software project within budget and schedule. The overestimation and underestimation both are the key challenges for future software development, henceforth there is a continuous need for accuracy in software effort estimation (SEE). The researchers and practitioners are striving to identify which machine learning estimation technique gives more accurate results based on evaluation measures, datasets and the other relevant attributes. The authors of related research are generally not aware of previously published results of machine learning effort estimation techniques. The main aim of this study is to assist the researchers to know which machine learning technique yields the promising effort estimation accuracy prediction in the software development. In this paper, the performance of the machine learning ensemble technique is investigated with the solo technique based on two most commonly used accuracy evaluation metrics. We used the systematic literature review methodology proposed by Kitchenham and Charters. This includes searching for the most relevant papers, applying quality assessment criteria, extracting data and drawing results. We have evaluated a state-of-the-art accuracy performance of 28 selected studies (14 ensemble, 14 solo) using Mean Magnitude of Relative Error (MMRE) and PRED (25) as a set of reliable accuracy metrics for performance evaluation of accuracy among two techniques to report the research questions stated in this study. We found that machine learning techniques are the most frequently implemented in the construction of ensemble effort estimation (EEE) techniques. The results of this study revealed that the EEE techniques usually yield a promising estimation accuracy than the solo techniques.