Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/- under Cardinality-Based Repairs

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) via the link in this recordQuerying inconsistent ontological knowledge bases is an important problem in practice, for which several inconsistencytolerant query answering semantics have been proposed, including query answering relative to all repairs, relative to the intersection of repairs, and relative to the intersection of closed repairs. In these semantics, one assumes that the input database is erroneous, and the notion of repair describes a maximally consistent subset of the input database, where different notions of maximality (such as subset and cardinality maximality) are considered. In this paper, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of inconsistencytolerant (Boolean conjunctive) query answering in a wide range of Datalog± languages under the cardinality-based versions of the above three repair semantics.This work was supported by the Alan Turing Institute under the UK EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1, and by the EPSRC grants EP/R013667/1, EP/L012138/1, and EP/M025268/1

Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/- under Cardinality-Based Repairs

Querying inconsistent ontological knowledge bases is an important problem in practice, for which several inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been proposed. In these semantics, the input database is erroneous, and a repair is a maximally consistent database subset. Different notions of maximality (such as subset and cardinality maximality) have been considered. In this paper, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of inconsistency-tolerant query answering in a wide range of Datalog+/– languages under the cardinality-based versions of three prominent repair semantic

Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Prioritized Knowledge Bases: Complexity Analysis and Links with Abstract Argumentation

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in the 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2020) without the appendi