Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byHeath Bart Modified over 4 years ago

1
Modal Logic with Variable Modalities & its Applications to Querying Knowledge Bases Evgeny Zolin The University of Manchester zolin@cs.man.ac.uk

2
2/17 Talk Outline Part 1. Logic with variable modalities –Standard modal logic –Variable modalities: Syntax & Semantics Expressivity & Complexity Part 2. Querying KBs using ML –Answering unary queries –Answering boolean queries –50% + 25% + 10%

3
3/17 Standard Modal Logic (Multi-)modal language: –propositional variables: p 0, p 1, … –boolean connectives: ?, ! –modal operators (“modalities”): ¤ 1, …, ¤ m Modal formulas: Other connectives are definable:

4
4/17 Kripke Semantics Frame: F = h W, R 1, …, R m i, where R i µ W £ W Model: M = h F, i, where a valuation ( p i ) µ W A formula is true at a point e of a model M : M, e ² Validity of a formula at a point e of a frame F : F, e ² iff M, e ² for any model M based on F F ² iff F, e ² for all points e in the frame F

5
5/17 Expressive power Typical questions: – What property of frames does a modal formula express? – Which properties of frames are modally expressible? etc. Typical answers: p ◊ p ! xRx (reflexivity) ◊ p ◊◊ p ! xRy yRz xRz (transitivity) ¤ ( ¤ p p ) ¤ p ! transitivity no infinite ascending chains Only relational first- or second-order properties…

6
6/17 Introducing Variable Modalities The language is extended in two ways: Modal formulas: The dual variable modalities are defined as: propositional variables: p 0, p 1, … variable modalities: ¡ 0, ¡ 1, … propositional constants: A 1,…, A n constant modalities: ¤ 1,…, ¤ m

7
7/17 Semantics for Variable Modalities Frame: F = h W ; V 1,…, V n ; R 1,…, R m i, V i µ W, R i µ W £ W Model: M = h F, ; S 0, S 1,… i, ( p i ) µ W ; S i µ W £ W A formula is true at a point e of a model M : M, e ² Validity of a formula at a point e of a frame F : F, e ² iff M, e ² for any model M based on F In other words: is true at e for any interpretation of propositional variables p i and variable modalities ¡ i

8
8/17 What can we express now? Ex.1: Formula ¤ p ! ¡ p. Frame for it: F = h W, R i. Thus, “ R is a universal relation” is expressible! Ex.2: Formula p ! ¡ p. Frame for it: F = h W i. Ex.3: Question: complexity of reasoning for the new language?

9
9/17 Complexity and further examples Theorem. Satisfiability is PSPACE- complete. Just because the minimal logic K’ coincides with K. Ex.4: “Any element from A is reflexive” Ex.5: Ex.6: “All elements in A are visible from the point e ”

10
10/17 Part 2. Querying KBs using ML Task 1: Find all individuals a such that KB ² a : C, i.e. answer the query q ( x ) Ã x : C over a given KB. Solution: KB ² a : C, KB [ { a : : C } is unsatisfiable Task 2: Find all individuals a such that KB ² aRa, i.e. answer the query q ( x ) Ã xRx over a given KB. Solution a: KB ² aRa, KB ² a : 9 R.{ a } Recall that q ( x ) (reflexivity) is expressed by p ! ◊ p Solution b: KB ² aRa, KB ² a :( : P t 9 R. P ) ( P fresh)

11
11/17 Answering unary queries Task 3: Answer the query q ( x ) over a KB: q ( x ) Ã 9 y ( xRy xSy y : A ) This q ( x ) is expressed by a modal formula: ¤ R p ! § S ( p Æ A ) (where p is a variable, A a constant) Solution: KB ² q ( a ), KB ² a : :8 R. P t 9 S.( P u A ) Idea: Given q ( x ), find a corresponding modal formula , and replace each p i with P i (fresh concept names), ¤ i with 8 R i and ¡ i with 8 S i (fresh role names). The resulting concept C will answer your query! x R y S A

12
12/17 50%+25%+10%, for unary queries Definition. q ( x ) locally corresponds to : if for any frame F and its point e, Definition. A query q ( x ) is answered by a concept C : q ( x ) ¼ C, if for any KB and a, KB ² q ( a ), KB ² a : C Theorem (50%) Theorem (25%) If then for any F and e, Theorem (10%) If (and no ¡ in ), then for finitely branching frames:

13
13/17 Answering boolean queries Task 1. How to check whether KB ² Reflexive( R ) ? Solution 1: check KB [ { : aRa } for unsatisfiability ( a fresh), where : aRa is a shortcut for a : :9 R.{ a } Solution 2: KB ² a : : P t 9 R. P ( a, P are fresh) Task 2. How to check whether KB ² Transitive( R ) ? Solution: KB ² a : :9 R. P t 9 R. 9 R. P ( a, P are fresh) Task 3. How to check whether KB ² R v S ? Solution: KB ² a : :9 R. P t 9 S. P ( a, P are fresh) And so on: R 1 ± R 2 v R 3 ± R 4 ± R 5 ; Commute( R, S ); … Recall that “global” reflexivity is expressed by p ! ◊ p Recall that transitivity is expressed by ◊ p ! ◊◊ p Recall that role inclusion is expressed by ◊ R p ! ◊ S p

14
14/17 50%+25%+10%, for boolean queries Definition. q globally corresponds to : if for any frame F, we have: Definition. A concept C answers a boolean query q : q ¼ C, if for any KB, KB ² q, KB ² a : C ( a – fresh) Theorem (50%) Theorem (25%) If then for any F, Theorem (10%) If then for any finite frame F,

15
15/17 Mary Likes All Cats Task: KB ² “Mary likes all cats” Mary (individual), Likes (role), Cat (concept) Solution 1: KB ² Cat v 9 Likes —.{Mary} Need to introduce inverse roles and nominals… Solution 2: KB ² Mary: 8: Likes. : Cat Need to introduce role complement (ExpTime) Recall: Solution 3: KB ² Mary: :8 Likes. P t 8 S.( : Cat t P )

16
16/17 Modal validity vs. entailment from a KB Validity of a modal formula ≈ closed world assumption Example: F = h W, R i, where W = { a, b, c, d }, R = { h a, b i, h a, c i, h c, d i }. F, b ² : ◊ > ( b has no R -successors) F, c ² ◊ p ! □ p ( R is functional at the point c ) Entailment from a KB ≈ open world assumption KB= h T, A i, TBox T is empty, Abox A = { aRb, aRc, cRd } a c b d

17
17/17 Conclusions and outlook New modal language, more expressive, but the same complexity Its expressive power can be used for querying KBs Questions left open: Whether the remaining 15% holds? –I–In particular, any negative results? “Genuinely” cyclic queries? Automatic correspondence: given q ( x ), how to build ? –E–Extension to Sahlqvist & Kracht theorem, etc. Thank you!

Similar presentations

OK

Logical Agents Chapter 7. Why Do We Need Logic? Problem-solving agents were very inflexible: hard code every possible state. Search is almost always exponential.

Logical Agents Chapter 7. Why Do We Need Logic? Problem-solving agents were very inflexible: hard code every possible state. Search is almost always exponential.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google