BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Franz Baader

Franz Baader contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

The Unification Type of an Equational Theory May Depend on the Instantiation Preorder: From Results for Single Theories to Results for Classes of Theories

The unification type of an equational theory is defined using a preorder on substitutions, called the instantiation preorder, whose scope is either restricted to the variables occurring in the unification problem, or unrestricted such that all variables are considered. It has been known for more than three decades that the unification type of an equational theory may vary, depending on which instantiation preorder is used. More precisely, it was shown in 1991 that the theory ACUI of an associative, commutative, and idempotent binary function symbol with a unit is unitary w.r.t. the restricted instantiation preorder, but not unitary w.r.t. the unrestricted one. In 2016 this result was strengthened by showing that the unrestricted type of this theory also cannot be finitary. In the conference version of this article, we considerably improved on this result by proving that ACUI is infinitary w.r.t. the unrestricted instantiation preorder, thus precluding type zero. We also showed that, w.r.t. this preorder, the unification type of ACU (where idempotency is removed from the axioms) and of AC (where additionally the unit is removed) is infinitary, though it is respectively unitary and finitary in the restricted case. In the other direction, we proved (using the example of unification in the description logic EL) that the unification type may actually improve from type zero to infinitary when switching from the restricted instantiation preorder to the unrestricted one. In the present article, we not only determine the unrestricted unification type of considerably more equational theories, but we also prove general results for whole classes of theories. In particular, we show that theories that are regular and finite, regular and locally finite, or regular, monoidal, and satisfy an additional condition are Noetherian, and thus cannot have unrestricted unification type zero.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Evonne: Interactive Proof Visualization for Description Logics (System Description) -- Extended Version

Explanations for description logic (DL) entailments provide important support for the maintenance of large ontologies. The "justifications" usually employed for this purpose in ontology editors pinpoint the parts of the ontology responsible for a given entailment. Proofs for entailments make the intermediate reasoning steps explicit, and thus explain how a consequence can actually be derived. We present an interactive system for exploring description logic proofs, called Evonne, which visualizes proofs of consequences for ontologies written in expressive DLs. We describe the methods used for computing those proofs, together with a feature called signature-based proof condensation. Moreover, we evaluate the quality of generated proofs using real ontologies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Finding Good Proofs for Description Logic Entailments Using Recursive Quality Measures (Extended Technical Report)

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Finding Small Proofs for Description Logic Entailments: Theory and Practice (Extended Technical Report)

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Satisfiability and Query Answering in Description Logics with Global and Local Cardinality Constraints

We introduce and investigate the expressive description logic (DL) ALCSCC++, in which the global and local cardinality constraints introduced in previous papers can be mixed. On the one hand, we prove that this does not increase the complexity of satisfiability checking and other standard inference problems. On the other hand, the satisfiability problem becomes undecidable if inverse roles are added to the languages. In addition, even without inverse roles, conjunctive query entailment in this DL turns out to be undecidable. We prove that decidability of querying can be regained if global and local constraints are not mixed and the global constraints are appropriately restricted. The latter result is based on a locally-acyclic model construction, and it reduces query entailment to ABox consistency in the restricted setting, i.e., to ABox consistency w.r.t. restricted cardinality constraints in ALCSCC, for which we can show an ExpTime upper bound.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access