Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Grigoris Antoniou

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

29 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

29

AIJ Journal 2024 Journal Article

Revision operators with compact representations

  • Pavlos Peppas
  • Mary-Anne Williams
  • Grigoris Antoniou

Despite the great theoretical advancements in the area of Belief Revision, there has been limited success in terms of implementations. One of the hurdles in implementing revision operators is that their specification (let alone their computation), requires substantial resources. On the other hand, implementing a specific revision operator, like Dalal's operator, would be of limited use. In this paper we generalise Dalal's construction, defining a whole family of concrete revision operators, called Parametrised Difference revision operators or PD operators for short. This family is wide enough to cover a wide range of different applications, and at the same time it is easy to represent. In addition to its semantic definition, we characterise the family of PD operators axiomatically (including a characterisation specifically for Dalal's operator), we prove its' compliance with Parikh's relevance-sensitive postulate (P), we study its computational complexity, and discuss its benefits for belief revision implementations.

AIIM Journal 2021 Journal Article

A Decision Tree-Initialised Neuro-fuzzy Approach for Clinical Decision Support

  • Tianhua Chen
  • Changjing Shang
  • Pan Su
  • Elpida Keravnou-Papailiou
  • Yitian Zhao
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Qiang Shen

Apart from the need for superior accuracy, healthcare applications of intelligent systems also demand the deployment of interpretable machine learning models which allow clinicians to interrogate and validate extracted medical knowledge. Fuzzy rule-based models are generally considered interpretable that are able to reflect the associations between medical conditions and associated symptoms, through the use of linguistic if-then statements. Systems built on top of fuzzy sets are of particular appealing to medical applications since they enable the tolerance of vague and imprecise concepts that are often embedded in medical entities such as symptom description and test results. They facilitate an approximate reasoning framework which mimics human reasoning and supports the linguistic delivery of medical expertise often expressed in statements such as ‘weight low’ or ‘glucose level high’ while describing symptoms. This paper proposes an approach by performing data-driven learning of accurate and interpretable fuzzy rule bases for clinical decision support. The approach starts with the generation of a crisp rule base through a decision tree learning mechanism, capable of capturing simple rule structures. The crisp rule base is then transformed into a fuzzy rule base, which forms the input to the framework of adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), thereby further optimising the parameters of both rule antecedents and consequents. Experimental studies on popular medical data benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed work is able to learn compact rule bases involving simple rule antecedents, with statistically better or comparable performance to those achieved by state-of-the-art fuzzy classifiers.

KER Journal 2018 Journal Article

A survey of large-scale reasoning on the Web of data

  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Sotiris Batsakis
  • Raghava Mutharaju
  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Guilin Qi
  • Ilias Tachmazidis
  • Jacopo Urbani
  • Zhangquan Zhou

Abstract As more and more data is being generated by sensor networks, social media and organizations, the Web interlinking this wealth of information becomes more complex. This is particularly true for the so-called Web of Data, in which data is semantically enriched and interlinked using ontologies. In this large and uncoordinated environment, reasoning can be used to check the consistency of the data and of associated ontologies, or to infer logical consequences which, in turn, can be used to obtain new insights from the data. However, reasoning approaches need to be scalable in order to enable reasoning over the entire Web of Data. To address this problem, several high-performance reasoning systems, which mainly implement distributed or parallel algorithms, have been proposed in the last few years. These systems differ significantly; for instance in terms of reasoning expressivity, computational properties such as completeness, or reasoning objectives. In order to provide a first complete overview of the field, this paper reports a systematic review of such scalable reasoning approaches over various ontological languages, reporting details about the methods and over the conducted experiments. We highlight the shortcomings of these approaches and discuss some of the open problems related to performing scalable reasoning.

AAAI Conference 2015 Conference Paper

Exploiting Parallelism for Hard Problems in Abstract Argumentation

  • Federico Cerutti
  • Ilias Tachmazidis
  • Mauro Vallati
  • Sotirios Batsakis
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
  • Grigoris Antoniou

Abstract argumentation framework (AF) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and enumeration problems associated to AFs are missing, thus limiting the efficacy of argumentation-based approaches in real domains. In this paper, we present an algorithm for enumerating the preferred extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks which exploits parallel computation. To this purpose, the SCC-recursive semantics definition schema is adopted, where extensions are defined at the level of specific sub-frameworks. The algorithm shows significant performance improvements in large frameworks, in terms of number of solutions found and speedup.

AIJ Journal 2013 Journal Article

Minimal change: Relevance and recovery revisited

  • Márcio M. Ribeiro
  • Renata Wassermann
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Grigoris Antoniou

The operation of contraction (referring to the removal of knowledge from a knowledge base) has been extensively studied in the research field of belief change, and different postulates (e. g. , the AGM postulates with recovery, or relevance) have been proposed, as well as several constructions (e. g. , partial meet) that allow the definition of contraction operators satisfying said postulates. Most of the related work has focused on classical logics, i. e. , logics that satisfy certain intuitive assumptions; in such logics, several nice properties and equivalences related to the above postulates and constructions have been shown to hold. Unfortunately, previous work has shown that the postulatesʼ applicability and the related results generally fail for non-classical logics. Motivated by the fact that non-classical logics (like Description Logics or Horn logic) are increasingly being used in various applications, we study contraction for all monotonic logics, classical or not. In particular, we identify several sufficient conditions for the various postulates to be applicable, and show that, in practice, relevance is a more suitable (i. e. , applicable) minimality criterion than recovery for non-classical logics. In addition, we revisit some important related results from the classical belief change literature and study conditions sufficient for them to hold for non-classical logics; the corresponding results for classical logics emerge as corollaries of our more general results. Our work is another step towards the aim of exploiting the rich belief change literature for addressing the evolution problem in a larger class of logics.

KER Journal 2013 Journal Article

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

  • Fouad Zablith
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Mathieu d'Aquin
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Haridimos Kondylakis
  • Enrico Motta
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • Marta Sabou

Abstract Ontology evolution aims at maintaining an ontology up to date with respect to changes in the domain that it models or novel requirements of information systems that it enables. The recent industrial adoption of Semantic Web techniques, which rely on ontologies, has led to the increased importance of the ontology evolution research. Typical approaches to ontology evolution are designed as multiple-stage processes combining techniques from a variety of fields (e.g., natural language processing and reasoning). However, the few existing surveys on this topic lack an in-depth analysis of the various stages of the ontology evolution process. This survey extends the literature by adopting a process-centric view of ontology evolution. Accordingly, we first provide an overall process model synthesized from an overview of the existing models in the literature. Then we survey the major approaches to each of the steps in this process and conclude on future challenges for techniques aiming to solve that particular stage.

LPAR Conference 2012 Conference Paper

Forgetting for Defeasible Logic

  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Thomas Eiter
  • Kewen Wang 0001

Abstract The concept of forgetting has received significant interest in artificial intelligence recently. Informally, given a knowledge base, we may wish to forget about (or discard) some redundant parts (such as atoms, predicates, concepts, etc) but still preserve the consequences for certain forms of reasoning. In nonmonotonic reasoning, so far forgetting has been studied only in the context of extension based approaches, mainly answer-set programming. In this paper forgetting is studied in the context of defeasible logic, which is a simple, efficient and sceptical nonmonotonic reasoning approach.

ECAI Conference 2012 Conference Paper

Large-scale Parallel Stratified Defeasible Reasoning

  • Ilias Tachmazidis
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Spyros Kotoulas
  • Thomas Leo McCluskey

We are recently experiencing an unprecedented explosion of available data coming from the Web, sensors readings, scientific databases, government authorities and more. Such datasets could benefit from the introduction of rule sets encoding commonly accepted rules or facts, application- or domain-specific rules, commonsense knowledge etc. This raises the question of whether, how, and to what extent knowledge representation methods are capable of handling huge amounts of data for these applications. In this paper, we consider inconsistency-tolerant reasoning in the form of defeasible logic, and analyze how parallelization, using the MapReduce framework, can be used to reason with defeasible rules over huge datasets. We extend previous work by dealing with predicates of arbitrary arity, under the assumption of stratification. Moving from unary to multi-arity predicates is a decisive step towards practical applications, e. g. reasoning with linked open (RDF) data. Our experimental results demonstrate that defeasible reasoning with millions of data is performant, and has the potential to scale to billions of facts.

KR Conference 2012 Short Paper

Towards Parallel Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Billions of Facts

  • Ilias Tachmazidis
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Spyros Kotoulas

which encode commonsense, practical knowledge that humans possess and would allow the system to automatically reach useful conclusions based on the provided data and infer new and useful knowledge based on the data. For example, in ((Urbani et al. 2009)) for 78, 8 million statements crawled from the Web, the number of inferred conclusions (RDFS closure) consists of 1, 5 billion triples. In this paper, we consider nonmonotonic rule sets ((Antoniou and van Harmelen 2008), (Maluszynski and Szalas 2010)). Such rule sets provide additional benefits because they are more suitable for encoding commonsense knowledge and reasoning. In addition, nonmonotonic rules avoid triviality of inference, which could easily occur when lowquality raw data is fed to the system; the latter is common in this setting, given the interconnection of data from different sources, over which the data engineer has no control. The main challenge rising in such a setting is the feasibility of reasoning over such large volumes of data. One of the most promising methods to address this problem is by using massively parallel reasoning processes that would handle reasoning by using several computers in the cloud, assigning each of them a part of the parallel computation. In the last two of years, there has been significant progress in parallel reasoning e. g., in ((Oren et al. 2009)), ((Urbani et al. 2009)), ((Kotoulas, Oren, and van Harmelen 2010)), ((Goodman et al. 2011))), scaling reasoning up to 100 billion triples ((Urbani et al. 2010)). Nevertheless, current approaches have been restricted to monotonic reasoning, namely RDFS and OWL-horst, or have not been evaluated for scalability ((Mutharaju, Maier, and Hitzler 2010)). However, in many application scenarios, one needs to deal with poor quality data (e. g., involving inconsistency or incompleteness), which could easily lead to reasoning triviality when considering rules based on monotonic formalisms; this problem can be managed with nonmonotonic rules and nonmonotonic reasoning. We study the problem of reasoning over huge datasets equipped with nonmonotonic (defeasible) rules using massively parallel (cloud) computational techniques. Following previous works, we adopt the MapReduce framework ((Dean and Ghemawat 2004)), suited for parallel processing of huge datasets. A restricted form of defeasible logic is studied: singleargument defeasible logic. A MapReduce algorithm is pre- We are witnessing an explosion of available data from the Web, government authorities, scientific databases, sensors and more. Such datasets could benefit from the introduction of rule sets encoding commonly accepted rules or facts, application- or domain-specific rules, commonsense knowledge etc. This raises the question of whether, how, and to what extent knowledge representation methods are capable of handling the vast amounts of data for these applications. In this paper, we consider nonmonotonic reasoning, which has traditionally focused on rich knowledge structures. In particular, we consider defeasible logic, and analyze how parallelization, using the MapReduce framework, can be used to reason with defeasible rules over huge data sets. Our experimental results demonstrate that defeasible reasoning with billions of data is performant, and has the potential to scale to trillions of facts. 1 Grigoris Antoniou Institute of Computer Science, FORTH University of Huddersfield, UK antoniou@ics. forth. gr

IJCAI Conference 2011 Conference Paper

Reasoning and Proofing Services for Semantic Web Agents

  • Kalliopi Kravari
  • Konstantinos Papatheodorou
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Nick Bassiliades

The Semantic Web aims to offer an interoperable environment that will allow users to safely delegate complex actions to intelligent agents. Much work has been done for agents' interoperability; especially in the areas of ontology-based metadata and rule-based reasoning. Nevertheless, the SW proof layer has been neglected so far, although it is vital for agents and humans to understand how a result came about, in order to increase the trust in the interchanged information. This paper focuses on the implementation of third party SW reasoning and proofing services wrapped as agents in a multi-agent framework. This way, agents can exchange and justify their arguments without the need to conform to a common rule paradigm. Via external reasoning and proofing services, the receiving agent can grasp the semantics of the received rule set and check the validity of the inferred results.

ECAI Conference 2010 Conference Paper

Implementing Simple Modular ERDF ontologies

  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
  • Anastasia Analyti
  • Grigoris Antoniou

The Extended Resource Description Framework has been proposed to equip RDF graphs with weak and strong negation, as well as derivation rules, increasing the expressiveness of ordinary RDF graphs. In parallel, the Modular Web framework enables collaborative and controlled reasoning in the Semantic Web. In this paper we show how to use the Modular Web Framework to capture the modular semantics for ERDF graphs, supporting local semantics and different points of view, local closed-world and open-world assumptions, and scoped negation-as-failure.

ECAI Conference 2008 Conference Paper

A Formal Approach for RDF/S Ontology Evolution

  • George Konstantinidis 0001
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Vassilis Christophides

In this paper, we consider the problem of ontology evolution in the face of a change operation. We devise a general-purpose algorithm for determining the effects and side-effects of a requested elementary or complex change operation. Our work is inspired by belief revision principles (i. e. , validity, success and minimal change) and allows us to handle any change operation in a provably rational and consistent manner. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach overcoming the limitations of existing solutions, which deal with each change operation on a per-case basis. Additionally, we rely on our general change handling algorithm to implement specialized versions of it, one per desired change operation, in order to compute the equivalent set of effects and side-effects. This work was partially supported by the EU projects CASPAR (FP6-2005-IST-033572) and KP-LAB (FP6-2004-IST-27490).

KR Conference 2008 Conference Paper

A Principled Framework for Modular Web Rule Bases and Its Semantics

  • Anastasia Analyti
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Carlos Viegas Damasio

We present a principled framework for modular web rule bases, called MWeb. According to this framework, each predicate defined in a rule base is characterized by its defining reasoning mode, scope, and exporting rule base list. Each predicate used in a rule base is characterized by its requesting reasoning mode and importing rule base list. For valid MWeb modular rule bases S, the MWebAS and MWebWFS semantics of each rule base s in S w. r. t. S are defined, model-theoretically. These semantics extend the answer set semantics (AS) and the well-founded semantics with explicit negation (WFSX) on ELPs, respectively, keeping all of their semantical and computational characteristics. Our framework supports: (i) local semantics and different points of view, (ii) local closed-world and open-world assumptions, (iii) scoped negation-as-failure, (iv)restricted propagation of local inconsistencies, and (v)monotonicity of reasoning, for "fully shared" predicates.

ECAI Conference 2008 Conference Paper

Computability and Complexity Issues of Extended RDF

  • Anastasia Analyti
  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
  • Gerd Wagner 0001

ERDF stable model semantics is a recently proposed semantics for ERDF ontologies and a faithful extension of RDFS semantics on RDF graphs. Unfortunately, ERDF stable model semantics is in general undecidable. In this paper, we elaborate on the computability and complexity issues of the ERDF stable model semantics.

KER Journal 2008 Journal Article

Ontology change: classification and survey

  • Giorgos Flouris
  • DIMITRIS MANAKANATAS
  • Haridimos Kondylakis
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • Grigoris Antoniou

Abstract Ontologies play a key role in the advent of the Semantic Web. An important problem when dealing with ontologies is the modification of an existing ontology in response to a certain need for change. This problem is a complex and multifaceted one, because it can take several different forms and includes several related subproblems, like heterogeneity resolution or keeping track of ontology versions. As a result, it is being addressed by several different, but closely related and often overlapping research disciplines. Unfortunately, the boundaries of each such discipline are not clear, as the same term is often used with different meanings in the relevant literature, creating a certain amount of confusion. The purpose of this paper is to identify the exact relationships between these research areas and to determine the boundaries of each field, by performing a broad review of the relevant literature.

NMR Workshop 2004 Conference Paper

Generalizing the AGM postulates: preliminary results and applications

  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • Grigoris Antoniou

One of the crucial actions any reasoning system must undertake is the updating of its Knowledge Base (KB). This problem is usually referred to as the problem of belief change. The AGM approach, introduced in (Alchourron, Gärdenfors, and Makinson 1985), is the dominating paradigm in the area but it makes some non-elementary assumptions about the logic at hand which disallow its direct application in some classes of logics. In this paper, we drop all such assumptions and determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for a logic to support AGMcompliant operators. Our approach is directly applicable to a much broader class of logics. We apply our results to establish connections between the problem of updating in Description Logics (DLs) and the AGM postulates. Finally, we investigate why belief base operators cannot satisfy the AGM postulates in standard logics.

NMR Workshop 2002 Conference Paper

Defeasible logic with dynamic priorities

  • Grigoris Antoniou

Defeasible logic is a nonmonotonic reasoning approach based on rules and priorities. Its design supports efficient implementation, and it shows promise to be successfully deployed in applications. So far only static priorities have been used, provided by an external superiority relation. In this paper we show how dynamic priorities can be integrated, where priority information is obtained from the deductive process itself. Dynamic priorities have been studied for other related reasoning systems, such as default logic and argumentation. We define a proof theory, study its formal properties, and provide an argumentation semantics.

KER Journal 1998 Journal Article

A tutorial on default reasoning

  • Grigoris Antoniou

Default reasoning is concerned with making inferences in cases where the information at hand is incomplete. In such cases it is necessary to make plausible assumptions, which in default reasoning are based on default rules. This paper gives an introduction to the field. It discusses in depth one particular approach, default logic, including properties, semantics and computational models. It also gives an overview of other ideas and approaches.

AAAI Conference 1997 Conference Paper

A Comparison of Two Approaches to Splitting Default Theories

  • Grigoris Antoniou

Default logic is computationally expensive. One of the most promising ways of easing this problem and developing powerful implementations is to split a default theory into smaller parts and compute extensions in a modular, “local” way. This paper compares two recent approaches, Turner’s splitting and Cholewinski’s stratification. It shows that the approaches are closely related - in fact the former can be viewed as a special case of the latter.

KER Journal 1997 Journal Article

Logical methods for computational intelligence

  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Neil V. Murray

Over the past years, two main approaches to computational intelligence have emerged: the symbolic and the non-symbolic approach. The perhaps most prominent methods of the symbolic approach are based on logic. Logical methods exhibit a series of desirable properties: [bull ] Transparent representation of meaning [bull ] Precise understanding of the meaning of statements (semantics). [bull ] Sound reasoning methods. [bull ] Explanation capabilities. A special session on logical methods for computational intelligence was held at the 3rd Joint Conference on Information Sciences. The field of computational logic is so broad that it is impossible to review the main developments in an article. Therefore, in the following we will restrict attention to two areas that turned out to be the focus of the special session: automated reasoning, and reasoning with incomplete and changing information.

AAAI Conference 1994 Conference Paper

Soundness and Completeness of a Logic Programming Approach to Default Logic

  • Grigoris Antoniou

We present a method of representing some classes of default theories as normal logic programs. The main point is that the standard semantics (i. e. SLDNF-resolution) computes answer substitutions that correspond exactly to the extensions of the represented default theory. We explain the steps of constructing a logic program LogProg(P, D) from a given default theory (P, D), and present the proof ideas of the soundness and completeness results for the approach.

LPAR Conference 1993 Conference Paper

Computing Extensions of Default Logic - Preliminary Report

  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Elmar Langetepe
  • Volker Sperschneider

Abstract We present an operational process model for default logic that allows calculation of the extensions of a theory, and give a prototypical Prolog implementation. Then we present an improved approach for realizing the process model in logic programming making direct use of Prolog's deductive power. In particular, we give a translation of finite default theories T into logic programs P(T) such that P(T) computes exactly the extensions of T.

CSL Conference 1990 Conference Paper

On the Verification of Modules

  • Grigoris Antoniou
  • Volker Sperschneider

Abstract We present a module concept with algebraic interface and imperative implementation. It is shown that under some natural conditions, module correctness may be uniformly expressed in Hoare logic as a partial correctness assertion.

v2026.09.13