Authors: Johannes Schmidt, Mohamed Maizia, Victor Lagerkvist, Johannes K. Fichte
Organizations: Jönköping University · Jönköping University, Linköping University · Linköping University
Abstract
The propositional abduction problem is a well-known form of non-monotonic reasoning where we are asked to find an explanation of a given manifestation. Recently, there has been an influx of results asking more refined questions about the solution space rather than only individual solutions. For example, we might be interested in finding two solutions that are sufficiently far from each other (diverse solutions) in the solution space. In this paper we consider a related representation question where we ask if a given set of explanations S can represent any other explanation (that is, whether their symmetric difference is smaller than a given k). We first study this problem from a classical complexity perspective and obtain a complete classification. While only a handful of cases are tractable, the increase in complexity compared to classical abduction is often smaller than expected. We then study the parameterized complexity for several parameters and obtain new tractable and hard cases. Interestingly, a full parameterized complexity classification would require resolving the parameterized complexity of the covering radius problem from coding theory. To the best of our knowledge, no useful relationship between coding theory and non-monotonic reasoning has previously been established, but such connections seemingly become important when asking more complex questions about solution spaces.
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.
Proof assistants based on expressive logics suffer limited automation for proof search, raising the cost of formal verification based on proof assistants. We address this problem by introducing the Abduction Prover for Isabelle/HOL. Given a challenging proof goal, the Abduction Prover constructs a proof script for the goal by identifying useful conjectures using abductive reasoning.
Abduction is a central approach to explain missing entailments from a knowledge base by providing a hypothesis, that would, if added to the knowledge base, make the missing entailment become true. Abduction under repair semantics has recently been investigated in detail, where several desirable properties and optimality criteria were considered, such as signature-restrictions and minimality in size and of introduced conflicts. Naturally, hypotheses that satisfy more than one of these properties or combine a property with an optimality criterion would be even more desirable for applications. So far, such hypotheses have not been investigated in the literature. In the present paper, we consider the ABox abduction problem for hypotheses satisfying more than one property or additional optimality criteria, for EL_bot under brave and AR semantics. Our main observation is that often requiring additional properties for hypotheses does not lead to an increase of complexity.