arXiv:2608.06399v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Datalog rules are often used to define ontologies over Knowledge Graphs. Rule reasoners routinely optimise such ontologies by rewriting their rules into a form that can be evaluated more efficiently. These transformations preserve the entailed facts, but not the structure of the underlying derivations. A proof tree under the rewritten rules explains why a fact holds, but does not readily yield an explanation in terms of the original rules. We study the problem of constructing, from a proof of entailment under the rewritten rules, a proof under the original ones: we establish its computational complexity and identify two practically relevant languages for specifying proof transformations.
Abstract: Datalog rules are often used to define ontologies over Knowledge Graphs. Rule reasoners routinely optimise such ontologies by rewriting their rules into a form that can be evaluated more efficiently. These transformations preserve the entailed facts, but not the structure of the underlying derivations. A proof tree under the rewritten rules explains why a fact holds, but does not readily yield an explanation in terms of the original rules. We study the problem of constructing, from a proof of entailment under the rewritten rules, a proof under the original ones: we establish its computational complexity and identify two practically relevant languages for specifying proof transformations.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: