Logic-based approaches to AI have the advantage that their behavior can in principle be explained to a user. If, for instance, a Description Logic reasoner derives a consequence that triggers some action of the overall system, then one can explain such an entailment by presenting a proof of the consequence in an appropriate calculus. How comprehensible such a proof is depends not only on the employed calculus, but also on the properties of the particular proof, such as its overall size, its depth, the complexity of the employed sentences and proof steps, etc. For this reason, we want to determine the complexity of generating proofs that are below a certain threshold w.r.t. a given measure of proof quality. Rather than investigating this problem for a fixed proof calculus and a fixed measure, we aim for general results that hold for wide classes of calculi and measures. In previous work, we first restricted the attention to a setting where proof size is used to measure the quality of a proof. We then extended the approach to a more general setting, but important measures such as proof depth were not covered. In the present paper, we provide results for a class of measures called recursive, which yields lower complexities and also encompasses proof depth. In addition, we close some gaps left open in our previous work, thus providing a comprehensive picture of the complexity landscape.

Logic-based approaches to AI have the advantage that their behaviour can in principle be explained by providing their users with proofs for the derived consequences. However, if such proofs get very large, then it may be hard to understand a consequence even if the individual derivation steps are easy to comprehend. This motivates our interest in finding small proofs for Description Logic (DL) entailments. Instead of concentrating on a specific DL and proof calculus for this DL, we introduce a general framework in which proofs are represented as labeled, directed hypergraphs, where each hyperedge corresponds to a single sound derivation step. On the theoretical side, we investigate the complexity of deciding whether a certain consequence has a proof of size at most n along the following orthogonal dimensions: (i) the underlying proof system is polynomial or exponential; (ii) proofs may or may not reuse already derived consequences; and (iii) the number n is represented in unary or binary. We have determined the exact worst-case complexity of this decision problem for all but one of the possible combinations of these options. On the practical side, we have developed and implemented an approach for generating proofs for expressive DLs based on a non-standard reasoning task called forgetting. We have evaluated this approach on a set of realistic ontologies and compared the obtained proofs with proofs generated by the DL reasoner ELK, finding that forgetting-based proofs are often better w.r.t. different measures of proof complexity.

Uniform interpolation and forgetting describe the task of projecting a given ontology into a user-specified vocabulary, that is, of computing a new ontology that only uses names from a specified set of names, while preserving all logical entailments that can be expressed with those names. This is useful for ontology analysis, ontology reuse and privacy. Lethe is a tool for performing uniform interpolation on ontologies in expressive description logics, and it can be used from the command line, using a graphical interface, and as a Java library. It furthermore implements methods for computing logical difference and performing abduction using uniform interpolation. We present the tool together with an evaluation on a varied corpus of realistic ontologies.

No abstract

No abstract