Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1401.4604

Completeness Guarantees for Incomplete Ontology Reasoners: Theory and Practice

Bernardo Cuenca Grau·Boris Motik·Giorgos Stoilos·Ian Horrocks
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To achieve scalability of query answering, the developers of Semantic Web applications are often forced to use incomplete OWL 2 reasoners, which fail to derive all answers for at least one query, ontology, and data set. The lack of completeness guarantees, however, may be unacceptable for applications in areas such as health care and defence, where missing answers can adversely affect the applications functionality. Furthermore, even if an application can tolerate some level of incompleteness, it is often advantageous to estimate how many and what kind of answers are being lost. In this paper, we present a novel logic-based framework that allows one to check whether a reasoner is complete for a given query Q and ontology T---that is, whether the reasoner is guaranteed to compute all answers to Q w.r.t. T and an arbitrary data set A. Since ontologies and typical queries are often fixed at application design time, our approach allows application developers to check whether a reasoner known to be incomplete in general is actually complete for the kinds of input relevant for the application. We also present a technique that, given a query Q, an ontology T, and reasoners R_1 and R_2 that satisfy certain assumptions, can be used to determine whether, for each data set A, reasoner R_1 computes more answers to Q w.r.t. T and A than reasoner R_2. This allows application developers to select the reasoner that provides the highest degree of completeness for Q and T that is compatible with the applications scalability requirements. Our results thus provide a theoretical and practical foundation for the design of future ontology-based information systems that maximise scalability while minimising or even eliminating incompleteness of query answers.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.LO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Boris Motik, Giorgos Stoilos, Ian Horrocks. 2014-01-18. Completeness Guarantees for Incomplete Ontology Reasoners: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3470

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗