ABox Abduction for Inconsistent Knowledge Bases under Repair Semantics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01341v1
• Date: Sat, 02 May 2026 09:25:08 GMT
• Title: ABox Abduction for Inconsistent Knowledge Bases under Repair Semantics
• Abstract summary: The ABox abduction problem asks for possible extensions of a knowledge base (KB) with a non-entailed fact.<n>This problem has many applications, ranging from diagnosis to explainability and repair.<n>We define suitable notions of abduction in this setting and propose criteria that guide abduction towards "useful" hypotheses.
• Score: 6.124773188525718
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Knowing When to Quit: Diagnosing and Training LLMs to Abort Futile Reasoning [109.33717747526583]
  Large language models generate computationally expensive yet semantically void reasoning on beyond-capability tasks.<n>We introduce textbfCaRL (textbfCapability-textbfaligned textbfReinforcement textbfL) to align behavior with capability boundaries.<n>Experiments demonstrate a substantial reduction in futile reasoning while preserving performance across task difficulties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T09:30:33Z)
• Repair Before Veto: Repair-Augmented Constraint Learning for Contextual Decisions [6.016090674751934]
  We introduce Repair-Augmented Constraint Learning (RACL), a contextual decision framework that lifts known repair operators into the semantics.<n>A candidate is accepted when an affordable repair makes it feasible and preferred enough; otherwise the system returns a structured rejection credit and, when applicable, a repair plan.<n>Across controlled and DB1B-derived benchmarks, RACL recovers the intended credit and repair structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T14:38:04Z)
• Distinguishable Deletion: Unifying Knowledge Erasure and Refusal for Large Language Model Unlearning [58.725080160369494]
  Distinguishable Deletion ($mathrmD2$) is a paradigm that restricts the response distribution in the latent representation rather than specific tokens.<n>We introduce an energy index that quantifies the presence of knowledge and the separation between unlearned and retained content.<n>Experiments demonstrate that EUA significantly outperforms previous methods, indicating the superiority of $mathrmD2$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-16T03:15:35Z)
• Why Thinking Hurts? Diagnosing and Rectifying the Reasoning Shift in Foundation Recommender Models [44.74420486421283]
  We propose a training-free Inference-Time Subspace Alignment framework.<n>By compressing reasoning chains and applying bias-subtracted contrastive decoding, our approach mitigates ungrounded textual drift.<n>Experiments show this effectively calibrates inference, allowing foundation models to leverage reasoning without sacrificing ID-grounded accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T16:38:21Z)
• Understanding the Logic of Direct Preference Alignment through Logic [54.272600416107146]
  We propose a novel formalism for characterizing preference losses for single model and reference model based approaches.<n>We show how this formal view of preference learning sheds new light on both the size and structure of the DPA loss landscape.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T16:23:13Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Exploiting Uncertainty for Querying Inconsistent Description Logics Knowledge Bases [0.3277163122167433]
  We exploit an existing probabilistic semantics called DISPONTE to overcome this problem.<n>We implement our approach in the reasoners TRILL and BUNDLE and empirically tested the validity of our proposal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T13:50:46Z)
• Connection-minimal Abduction in EL via Translation to FOL -- Technical Report [12.90382979353427]
  We show how to compute a class of connection-minimal hypotheses in a sound and complete way. Our technique is based on a translation to first-order logic, and constructs hypotheses based on prime implicates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-17T15:50:27Z)
• Robustness and Accuracy Could Be Reconcilable by (Proper) Definition [109.62614226793833]
  The trade-off between robustness and accuracy has been widely studied in the adversarial literature. We find that it may stem from the improperly defined robust error, which imposes an inductive bias of local invariance. By definition, SCORE facilitates the reconciliation between robustness and accuracy, while still handling the worst-case uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T10:36:09Z)
• Signature-Based Abduction with Fresh Individuals and Complex Concepts for Description Logics (Extended Version) [12.107259467873092]
  ABox abduction aims at computing a hypothesis that, when added to the knowledge base, is sufficient to entail the observation. In signature-based ABox abduction, the hypothesis is further required to use only names from a given set. It is possible that hypotheses for a given observation only exist if we admit the use of fresh individuals and/or complex concepts built from the given signature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-01T14:55:46Z)
• Faithful Embeddings for Knowledge Base Queries [97.5904298152163]
  deductive closure of an ideal knowledge base (KB) contains exactly the logical queries that the KB can answer. In practice KBs are both incomplete and over-specified, failing to answer some queries that have real-world answers. We show that inserting this new QE module into a neural question-answering system leads to substantial improvements over the state-of-the-art.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-07T19:25:16Z)
• Correcting Knowledge Base Assertions [26.420502742339053]
  The usefulness and usability of knowledge bases (KBs) is often limited by quality issues. One common issue is the presence of erroneous assertions, often caused by lexical or semantic confusion. We study the problem of correcting such assertions, and present a general correction framework which combines lexical matching, semantic embedding, soft constraint mining and semantic consistency checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-19T23:03:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.