Tom Friese

Christian Alrabbaa, Stefan Borgwardt, Tom Friese et al.

When working with description logic ontologies, understanding entailments derived by a description logic reasoner is not always straightforward. So far, the standard ontology editor Protégé offers two services to help: (black-box) justifications for OWL 2 DL ontologies, and (glass-box) proofs for lightweight OWL EL ontologies, where the latter exploits the proof facilities of reasoner ELK. Since justifications are often insufficient in explaining inferences, there is thus only little tool support for explaining inferences in more expressive DLs. In this paper, we introduce EVEE-LIBS, a Java library for computing proofs for DLs up to ALCH, and EVEE-PROTEGE, a collection of Protégé plugins for displaying those proofs in Protégé. We also give a short glimpse of the latest version of EVONNE, a more advanced standalone application for displaying and interacting with proofs computed with EVEE-LIBS.

Marcos Cramer, Tom Friese

ASPIC-style structured argumentation frameworks provide a formal basis for reasoning in artificial intelligence by combining internal argument structure with abstract argumentation semantics. A key challenge in these frameworks is ensuring compliance with five critical rationality postulates: closure, direct consistency, indirect consistency, non-interference, and crash-resistance. Recent approaches, including ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ and Deductive ASPIC$-$, have made significant progress but fall short of meeting all postulates simultaneously under a credulous semantics (e.g. preferred) in the presence of undercuts. This paper introduces Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$, a novel framework that integrates gen-rebuttals from ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ with the Joint Support Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (JSBAFs) of Deductive ASPIC$-$, incorporating preferences. We show that Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ satisfies all five rationality postulates under a version of preferred semantics. This work opens new avenues for further research on robust and logically sound structured argumentation systems.

Christian Alrabbaa, Stefan Borgwardt, Tom Friese et al.

Understanding logical entailments derived by a description logic reasoner is not always straight-forward for ontology users. For this reason, various methods for explaining entailments using justifications and proofs have been developed and implemented as plug-ins for the ontology editor Protégé. However, when the user expects a missing consequence to hold, it is equally important to explain why it does not follow from the ontology. In this paper, we describe a new version of $\rm E{\scriptsize VEE}$, a Protégé plugin that now also provides explanations for missing consequences, via existing and new techniques based on abduction and counterexamples.