Beschreibungslogiken (Description logics, DLs) sind eine Klasse von Wissensrepraesentationsformalismen mit wohldefinierter, logik-basierter Semantik und entscheidbaren Schlussfolgerungsproblemen, wie z.B. dem Erfuellbarkeitsproblem. Zwei wichtige Entscheidungsverfahren fuer das Erfuellbarkeitsproblem von DL-Ausdruecken sind Tableau- und Automaten-basierte Algorithmen. Diese haben aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen Arbeitsweise komplementaere Eigenschaften: Tableau-Algorithmen eignen sich fuer Implementierungen und fuer den Nachweis von PSPACE- und NEXPTIME-Resultaten, waehrend Automaten sich besonders fuer EXPTIME-Resultate anbieten. Zudem ermoeglichen sie eine vom Standpunkt der Theorie aus elegantere Handhabung von unendlichen Strukturen, eignen sich aber wesentlich schlechter fuer eine Implementierung. Ziel der Dissertation ist es, die Gruende fuer diese Unterschiede zu analysieren und Moeglichkeiten aufzuzeigen, wie Eigenschaften von einem Ansatz auf den anderen uebertragen werden koennen, um so die positiven Eigenschaften von beiden Ansaetzen miteinander zu verbinden. Unter Anderem werden Methoden entwickelt, mit Hilfe von Automaten PSPACE-Resultate zu zeigen, und von einem Tableau-Algorithmus automatisch ein EXPTIME-Resultat abzuleiten. / Description Logics (DLs) are a family of knowledge representation languages with well-defined logic-based semantics and decidable inference problems, e.g. satisfiability. Two of the most widely used decision procedures for the satisfiability problem are tableau- and automata-based algorithms. Due to their different operation, these two classes have complementary properties: tableau algorithms are well-suited for implementation and for showing PSPACE and NEXPTIME complexity results, whereas automata algorithms are particularly useful for showing EXPTIME results. Additionally, they allow for an elegant handling of infinite structures, but they are not suited for implementation. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the reasons for these differences and to find ways of transferring properties between the two approaches in order to reconcile the positive properties of both. For this purpose, we develop methods that enable us to show PSPACE results with the help of automata and to automatically derive an EXPTIME result from a tableau algorithm.

Beschreibungslogiken (Description logics, DLs) sind eine Klasse von Wissensrepraesentationsformalismen mit wohldefinierter, logik-basierter Semantik und entscheidbaren Schlussfolgerungsproblemen, wie z.B. dem Erfuellbarkeitsproblem. Zwei wichtige Entscheidungsverfahren fuer das Erfuellbarkeitsproblem von DL-Ausdruecken sind Tableau- und Automaten-basierte Algorithmen. Diese haben aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen Arbeitsweise komplementaere Eigenschaften: Tableau-Algorithmen eignen sich fuer Implementierungen und fuer den Nachweis von PSPACE- und NEXPTIME-Resultaten, waehrend Automaten sich besonders fuer EXPTIME-Resultate anbieten. Zudem ermoeglichen sie eine vom Standpunkt der Theorie aus elegantere Handhabung von unendlichen Strukturen, eignen sich aber wesentlich schlechter fuer eine Implementierung. Ziel der Dissertation ist es, die Gruende fuer diese Unterschiede zu analysieren und Moeglichkeiten aufzuzeigen, wie Eigenschaften von einem Ansatz auf den anderen uebertragen werden koennen, um so die positiven Eigenschaften von beiden Ansaetzen miteinander zu verbinden. Unter Anderem werden Methoden entwickelt, mit Hilfe von Automaten PSPACE-Resultate zu zeigen, und von einem Tableau-Algorithmus automatisch ein EXPTIME-Resultat abzuleiten. / Description Logics (DLs) are a family of knowledge representation languages with well-defined logic-based semantics and decidable inference problems, e.g. satisfiability. Two of the most widely used decision procedures for the satisfiability problem are tableau- and automata-based algorithms. Due to their different operation, these two classes have complementary properties: tableau algorithms are well-suited for implementation and for showing PSPACE and NEXPTIME complexity results, whereas automata algorithms are particularly useful for showing EXPTIME results. Additionally, they allow for an elegant handling of infinite structures, but they are not suited for implementation. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the reasons for these differences and to find ways of transferring properties between the two approaches in order to reconcile the positive properties of both. For this purpose, we develop methods that enable us to show PSPACE results with the help of automata and to automatically derive an EXPTIME result from a tableau algorithm.

The capability of changing beliefs upon new information in a rational and efficient way is crucial for an intelligent agent. Belief change therefore is one of the central research fields in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for over two decades. In the AI literature, two different kinds of belief change operations have been intensively investigated: belief update, which deal with situations where the new information describes changes of the world; and belief revision, which assumes the world is static. As another important research area in AI, reasoning about actions mainly studies the problem of representing and reasoning about effects of actions. These two research fields are closely related and apply a common underlying principle, that is, an agent should change its beliefs (knowledge) as little as possible whenever an adjustment is necessary. This lays down the possibility of reusing the ideas and results of one field in the other, and vice verse. This thesis aims to develop a general framework and devise computational models that are applicable in reasoning about actions. Firstly, I shall propose a new framework for iterated belief revision by introducing a new postulate to the existing AGM/DP postulates, which provides general criteria for the design of iterated revision operators. Secondly, based on the new framework, a concrete iterated revision operator is devised. The semantic model of the operator gives nice intuitions and helps to show its satisfiability of desirable postulates. I also show that the computational model of the operator is almost optimal in time and space-complexity. In order to deal with the belief change problem in multi-agent systems, I introduce a concept of mutual belief revision which is concerned with information exchange among agents. A concrete mutual revision operator is devised by generalizing the iterated revision operator. Likewise, a semantic model is used to show the intuition and many nice properties of the mutual revision operator, and the complexity of its computational model is formally analyzed. Finally, I present a belief update operator, which takes into account two important problems of reasoning about action, i.e., disjunctive updates and domain constraints. Again, the updated operator is presented with both a semantic model and a computational model.

The capability of changing beliefs upon new information in a rational and efficient way is crucial for an intelligent agent. Belief change therefore is one of the central research fields in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for over two decades. In the AI literature, two different kinds of belief change operations have been intensively investigated: belief update, which deal with situations where the new information describes changes of the world; and belief revision, which assumes the world is static. As another important research area in AI, reasoning about actions mainly studies the problem of representing and reasoning about effects of actions. These two research fields are closely related and apply a common underlying principle, that is, an agent should change its beliefs (knowledge) as little as possible whenever an adjustment is necessary. This lays down the possibility of reusing the ideas and results of one field in the other, and vice verse. This thesis aims to develop a general framework and devise computational models that are applicable in reasoning about actions. Firstly, I shall propose a new framework for iterated belief revision by introducing a new postulate to the existing AGM/DP postulates, which provides general criteria for the design of iterated revision operators. Secondly, based on the new framework, a concrete iterated revision operator is devised. The semantic model of the operator gives nice intuitions and helps to show its satisfiability of desirable postulates. I also show that the computational model of the operator is almost optimal in time and space-complexity. In order to deal with the belief change problem in multi-agent systems, I introduce a concept of mutual belief revision which is concerned with information exchange among agents. A concrete mutual revision operator is devised by generalizing the iterated revision operator. Likewise, a semantic model is used to show the intuition and many nice properties of the mutual revision operator, and the complexity of its computational model is formally analyzed. Finally, I present a belief update operator, which takes into account two important problems of reasoning about action, i.e., disjunctive updates and domain constraints. Again, the updated operator is presented with both a semantic model and a computational model.