Hannes Strass

Lucía Gómez Álvarez, Sebastian Rudolph, Hannes Strass

The tractability of the lightweight description logic EL has allowed for the construction of large and widely used ontologies that support semantic interoperability. However, comprehensive domains with a broad user base are often at odds with strong axiomatisations otherwise useful for inferencing, since these are usually context-dependent and subject to diverging perspectives. In this paper we introduce Standpoint EL, a multi-modal extension of EL that allows for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse, possibly conflicting standpoints (or contexts), which can be hierarchically organised and put in relation to each other. We establish that Standpoint EL still exhibits EL's favourable PTime standard reasoning, whereas introducing additional features like empty standpoints, rigid roles, and nominals makes standard reasoning tasks intractable.

Lucía Gómez Álvarez, Sebastian Rudolph, Hannes Strass

The importance of taking individual, potentially conflicting perspectives into account when dealing with knowledge has been widely recognised. Many existing ontology management approaches fully merge knowledge perspectives, which may require weakening in order to maintain consistency; others represent the distinct views in an entirely detached way. As an alternative, we propose Standpoint Logic, a simple, yet versatile multi-modal logic "add-on" for existing KR languages intended for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse, possibly conflicting standpoints, which can be hierarchically organised, combined and put in relation to each other. Starting from the generic framework of First-Order Standpoint Logic (FOSL), we subsequently focus our attention on the fragment of sentential formulas, for which we provide a polytime translation into the standpoint-free version. This result yields decidability and favourable complexities for a variety of highly expressive decidable fragments of first-order logic. Using some elaborate encoding tricks, we then establish a similar translation for the very expressive description logic SROIQb_s underlying the OWL 2 DL ontology language. By virtue of this result, existing highly optimised OWL reasoners can be used to provide practical reasoning support for ontology languages extended by standpoint modelling.

Lucía Gómez Álvarez, Sebastian Rudolph, Hannes Strass

Standpoint EL is a multi-modal extension of the popular description logic EL that allows for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse standpoints or perspectives. Advantageously, its satisfiability problem has recently been shown to be in PTime, making it a promising framework for large-scale knowledge integration. In this paper, we show that we can further push the expressivity of this formalism, arriving at an extended logic, called Standpoint EL+, which allows for axiom negation, role chain axioms, self-loops, and other features, while maintaining tractability. This is achieved by designing a satisfiability-checking deduction calculus, which at the same time addresses the need for practical algorithms. We demonstrate the feasibility of our calculus by presenting a prototypical Datalog implementation of its deduction rules.

Florian Emmrich, Lucía Gómez Álvarez, Hannes Strass

We present a tool for modelling and reasoning with knowledge from various diverse (and possibly conflicting) viewpoints. The theoretical underpinnings are provided by enhancing base logics by standpoints according to a recently introduced formalism that we also recall. The tool works by translating the standpoint-enhanced version of the description logic SROIQ to its plain (i.e. classical) version. Existing reasoners can then be directly used to provide automated support for reasoning about diverse standpoints.

Pascal Kettmann, Hannes Strass, Jesse Heyninck et al.

In logic programming, negation can be interpreted in various ways. Probably best known is the concept of "negation as failure", where "$\mathit{not}\, p$" is true if we have no evidence for $p$. On the other hand, strong negation requires that we have evidence for $p$ being false. Defining semantics for logic programs containing both kinds of negation is a challenging task, and this becomes even more challenging when combining this with other extensions of logic programming, e.g. fuzziness. In this work, we use the framework of approximating fixpoint theory to formulate well-behaved semantics for fuzzy logic programs containing both "by-failure" and strong negation. We show that this framework generalizes several existing semantics as well as giving rise to a host of new semantics.

Piotr Gorczyca, Hannes Strass

Standpoint logics offer unified modal logic-based formalisms for representing multiple heterogeneous viewpoints. At the same time, many non-monotonic reasoning frameworks can be naturally captured using modal logics, in particular using the modal logic S4F. In this work, we propose a novel formalism called S4F Standpoint Logic, which generalises both S4F and standpoint propositional logic and is therefore capable of expressing multi-viewpoint, non-monotonic semantic commitments. We define its syntax and semantics and analyze its computational complexity, obtaining the result that S4F Standpoint Logic is not computationally harder than its constituent logics, whether in monotonic or non-monotonic form. We also outline mechanisms for credulous and sceptical acceptance and illustrate the framework with an example.

Piotr Gorczyca, Dörthe Arndt, Martin Diller et al.

We propose the Riskman ontology and shapes for representing and analysing information about risk management for medical devices. Risk management is concerned with taking necessary precautions to ensure that a medical device does not cause harms for users or the environment. To date, risk management documentation is submitted to notified bodies (for certification) in the form of semi-structured natural language text. We propose to use terms from the Riskman ontology to provide a formal, logical underpinning for risk management documentation, and to use the included SHACL constraints to check whether the provided data is in accordance with the requirements of the two relevant norms, i.e. ISO 14971 and VDE Spec 90025.

Gerhard Brewka, Jörg Pührer, Hannes Strass et al.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

Sarah Alice Gaggl, Juan Carlos Nieves, Hannes Strass

This volume contains the papers presented at Arg-LPNMR 2016: First International Workshop on Argumentation in Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning held on July 8-10, 2016 in New York City, NY.

Thomas Linsbichler, Jörg Pührer, Hannes Strass

Realizability for knowledge representation formalisms studies the following question: given a semantics and a set of interpretations, is there a knowledge base whose semantics coincides exactly with the given interpretation set? We introduce a general framework for analyzing realizability in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and various of its subclasses. In particular, the framework applies to Dung argumentation frameworks, SETAFs by Nielsen and Parsons, and bipolar ADFs. We present a uniform characterization method for the admissible, complete, preferred and model/stable semantics. We employ this method to devise an algorithm that decides realizability for the mentioned formalisms and semantics; moreover the algorithm allows for constructing a desired knowledge base whenever one exists. The algorithm is built in a modular way and thus easily extensible to new formalisms and semantics. We have also implemented our approach in answer set programming, and used the implementation to obtain several novel results on the relative expressiveness of the abovementioned formalisms.

Jianmin Ji, Hannes Strass

The logic of knowledge and justified assumptions, also known as logic of grounded knowledge (GK), was proposed by Lin and Shoham as a general logic for nonmonotonic reasoning. To date, it has been used to embed in it default logic (propositional case), autoepistemic logic, Turner's logic of universal causation, and general logic programming under stable model semantics. Besides showing the generality of GK as a logic for nonmonotonic reasoning, these embeddings shed light on the relationships among these other logics. In this paper, for the first time, we show how the logic of GK can be embedded into disjunctive logic programming in a polynomial but non-modular translation with new variables. The result can then be used to compute the extension/expansion semantics of default logic, autoepistemic logic and Turner's logic of universal causation by disjunctive ASP solvers such as claspD(-2), DLV, GNT and cmodels.

Hannes Strass

We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional signature using only atoms from that signature. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness.

Ringo Baumann, Wolfgang Dvorák, Thomas Linsbichler et al.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the most studied formalisms in AI. In this work, we introduce a certain subclass of AFs which we call compact. Given an extension-based semantics, the corresponding compact AFs are characterized by the feature that each argument of the AF occurs in at least one extension. This not only guarantees a certain notion of fairness; compact AFs are thus also minimal in the sense that no argument can be removed without changing the outcome. We address the following questions in the paper: (1) How are the classes of compact AFs related for different semantics? (2) Under which circumstances can AFs be transformed into equivalent compact ones? (3) Finally, we show that compact AFs are indeed a non-trivial subclass, since the verification problem remains coNP-hard for certain semantics.

Stefan Ellmauthaler, Hannes Strass

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a powerful generalisation of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. In this paper we present an answer set programming based software system, called DIAMOND (DIAlectical MOdels eNcoDing). It translates ADFs into answer set programs whose stable models correspond to models of the ADF with respect to several semantics (i.e. admissible, complete, stable, grounded).