Towards Better Response Times and Higher-Quality Queries in Interactive Knowledge Base Debugging

8 Sep 2016  ·  Patrick Rodler ·

Many AI applications rely on knowledge encoded in a locigal knowledge base (KB). The most essential benefit of such logical KBs is the opportunity to perform automatic reasoning which however requires a KB to meet some minimal quality criteria such as consistency. Without adequate tool assistance, the task of resolving such violated quality criteria in a KB can be extremely hard, especially when the problematic KB is large and complex. To this end, interactive KB debuggers have been introduced which ask a user queries whether certain statements must or must not hold in the intended domain. The given answers help to gradually restrict the search space for KB repairs. Existing interactive debuggers often rely on a pool-based strategy for query computation. A pool of query candidates is precomputed, from which the best candidate according to some query quality criterion is selected to be shown to the user. This often leads to the generation of many unnecessary query candidates and thus to a high number of expensive calls to logical reasoning services. We tackle this issue by an in-depth mathematical analysis of diverse real-valued active learning query selection measures in order to determine qualitative criteria that make a query favorable. These criteria are the key to devising efficient heuristic query search methods. The proposed methods enable for the first time a completely reasoner-free query generation for interactive KB debugging while at the same time guaranteeing optimality conditions, e.g. minimal cardinality or best understandability for the user, of the generated query that existing methods cannot realize. Further, we study different relations between active learning measures. The obtained picture gives a hint about which measures are more favorable in which situation or which measures always lead to the same outcomes, based on given types of queries.

PDF Abstract

Datasets


  Add Datasets introduced or used in this paper

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here