Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In the Head of the Beholder: Comparing Different Proof Representations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13752))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Ontologies provide the logical underpinning for the Semantic Web, but their consequences can sometimes be surprising and must be explained to users. A promising kind of explanations are proofs generated via automated reasoning. We report about a series of studies with the purpose of exploring how to explain such formal logical proofs to humans. We compare different representations, such as tree- vs. text-based visualizations, but also vary other parameters such as length, interactivity, and the shape of formulas. We did not find evidence to support our main hypothesis that different user groups can understand different proof representations better. Nevertheless, when participants directly compared proof representations, their subjective rankings showed some tendencies such as that most people prefer short tree-shaped proofs. However, this did not impact the user’s understanding of the proofs as measured by an objective performance measure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    gitlab.perspicuous-computing.science/a.kovtunova/user-study-collection.

  2. 2.

    https://icar-project.com/.

  3. 3.

    https://www.limesurvey.org/.

  4. 4.

    https://imld.de/evonne.

References

  1. Alharbi, E., Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Hamie, A., Touloumis, A.: The efficacy of OWL and DL on user understanding of axioms and their entailments. In: ISWC (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_2

  2. Alrabbaa, C., Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Dachselt, R., Koopmann, P., Méndez, J.: Evonne: interactive proof visualization for description logics (system description). In: IJCAR (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10769-6_16

  3. Alrabbaa, C., Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Koopmann, P., Kovtunova, A.: Finding small proofs for description logic entailments: theory and practice. In: LPAR-23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.29007/nhpp

  4. Alrabbaa, C., Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Koopmann, P., Kovtunova, A.: On the complexity of finding good proofs for description logic entailments. In: DL Workshop (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2663/paper-1.pdf

  5. Alrabbaa, C., Baader, F., Borgwardt, S., Koopmann, P., Kovtunova, A.: Finding good proofs for description logic entailments using recursive quality measures. In: CADE (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79876-5_17

  6. Alrabbaa, C., Baader, F., Dachselt, R., Flemisch, T., Koopmann, P.: Visualising proofs and the modular structure of ontologies to support ontology repair. In: DL Workshop (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2663/paper-2.pdf

  7. Alrabbaa, C., Borgwardt, S., Knieriemen, N., Kovtunova, A., Rothermel, A.M., Wiehr, F.: In the hand of the beholder: comparing interactive proof visualizations. In: DL Workshop (2021). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2954/paper-2.pdf

  8. Androutsopoulos, I., Lampouras, G., Galanis, D.: Generating natural language descriptions from OWL ontologies: the NaturalOWL system. JAIR 48, 671–715 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4017

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Baader, F., Brandt, S., Lutz, C.: Pushing the \(\cal{EL} \) envelope. In: IJCAI (2005). http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/053.pdf

  10. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139025355

  11. Baader, F., Peñaloza, R., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Pinpointing in the description logic \({{\cal{EL} }^+}\). In: KI (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74565-5_7

  12. Baader, F., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Debugging SNOMED CT using axiom pinpointing in the description logic \(\cal{EL} ^+\). In: KR-MED (2008). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-410/Paper01.pdf

  13. Borgida, A., Franconi, E., Horrocks, I.: Explaining \(\cal{ALC} \) subsumption. In: ECAI (2000). http://www.frontiersinai.com/ecai/ecai2000/pdf/p0209.pdf

  14. Borgwardt, S., Hirsch, A., Kovtunova, A., Wiehr, F.: In the eye of the beholder: which proofs are best? In: DL Workshop (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2663/paper-6.pdf

  15. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1988). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

  16. Condon, D.M., Revelle, W.: The international cognitive ability resource: development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence 43, 52–64 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Donadello, I., Dragoni, M., Eccher, C.: Explaining reasoning algorithms with persuasiveness: a case study for a behavioural change system. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3341105.3373910

  18. Engström, F., Nizamani, A.R., Strannegård, C.: Generating comprehensible explanations in description logic. In: DL Workshop (2014). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1193/paper_17.pdf

  19. Flemisch, T., Langner, R., Alrabbaa, C., Dachselt, R.: Towards designing a tool for understanding proofs in ontologies through combined node-link diagrams. In: VOILA Workshop (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2778/paper3.pdf

  20. Hayes, A.F.: Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050

  21. Horridge, M.: Justification based explanation in ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UK (2011). https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54511395/FULL_TEXT.PDF

  22. Horridge, M., Bail, S., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Toward cognitive support for OWL justifications. Knowl.-Based Syst. 53, 66–79 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.08.021

  23. Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification oriented proofs in OWL. In: ISWC (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17746-0_23

  24. IBM: SPSS Statistics. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics

  25. Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging and repair of OWL ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, USA (2006). http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3820

  26. Kazakov, Y., Klinov, P., Stupnikov, A.: Towards reusable explanation services in Protege. In: DL Workshop (2017). http://www.ceur-ws.org/Vol-1879/paper31.pdf

  27. Kazakov, Y., Krötzsch, M., Simančík, F.: The incredible ELK. J. Autom. Reason. 53(1), 1–61 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9296-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G.: Visualizing semantic web proofs of defeasible logic in the DR-DEVICE system. Knowl. Based Syst. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhn, T.: The understandability of OWL statements in controlled English. Semant. Web 4, 101–115 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-2012-0063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McGuinness, D.L.: Explaining reasoning in description logics. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, NJ, USA (1996). https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-q0c6-5305

  31. Meehan, T.F., et al.: Logical development of the cell ontology. BMC Bioinform. 12, 1–12 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Miller, T.: Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. AI 267, 1–38 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007

  33. Nguyen, T.A.T., Power, R., Piwek, P., Williams, S.: Predicting the understandability of OWL inferences. In: ESWC (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_8

  34. Schiller, M.R.G., Glimm, B.: Towards explicative inference for OWL. In: DL Workshop (2013). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1014/paper_36.pdf

  35. Schiller, M.R.G., Schiller, F., Glimm, B.: Testing the adequacy of automated explanations of EL subsumptions. In: DL Workshop (2017). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1879/paper43.pdf

  36. Schlobach, S.: Explaining subsumption by optimal interpolation. In: JELIA (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_35

  37. Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: IJCAI (2003). http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/03/Papers/053.pdf

  38. Schulz, S.: The role of foundational ontologies for preventing bad ontology design. In: BOG Workshop (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2205/paper22_bog1.pdf

  39. Simancik, F., Kazakov, Y., Horrocks, I.: Consequence-based reasoning beyond Horn ontologies. In: IJCAI (2011). https://doi.org/10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/IJCAI11-187

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the DFG grant 389792660 as part of TRR 248 – CPEC (https://perspicuous-computing.science), and QuantLA, GRK 1763 (https://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/quantla).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Theoretical Computer Science, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Christian Alrabbaa, Stefan Borgwardt & Alisa Kovtunova

  2. German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany

    Anke Hirsch, Nina Knieriemen, Anna Milena Rothermel & Frederik Wiehr

Authors
  1. Christian Alrabbaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Borgwardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anke Hirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nina Knieriemen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alisa Kovtunova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anna Milena Rothermel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frederik Wiehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Alrabbaa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore

    Guido Governatori

  2. Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany

    Anni-Yasmin Turhan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Alrabbaa, C. et al. (2022). In the Head of the Beholder: Comparing Different Proof Representations. In: Governatori, G., Turhan, AY. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13752. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21541-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21541-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21540-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21541-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation