Concise Justifications Versus Detailed Proofs for Description Logic Entailments

We discuss explanations in Description Logics (DLs), a family of logics used for knowledge representation. Initial work on explaining consequences for DLs had focused on justifications, which are minimal subsets of axioms that entail the consequence. More recently, it was proposed that proofs can provide more detailed information about why a consequence follows. Moreover, several measures have been proposed to estimate the comprehensibility of justifications and proofs, for example, their size or the complexity of logical expressions. In this paper, we analyze the connection between these measures, e.g. whether small justifications necessarily give rise to small proofs. We use a dataset of DL proofs that was constructed last year based on the ontologies of the OWL Reasoner Evaluation 2015. We find that, in general, less complex justifications indeed correspond to less complex proofs, and discuss some exceptions to this rule