Upside-down Deduction

Over the recent years, several proposals were made to enhance database systems with automated reasoning. In this article we analyze two such enhancements based on meta-interpretation. We consider on the one hand the theorem prover Satchmo, on the other hand the Alexander and Magic Set methods. Although they achieve different goals and are based on distinct reasoning paradigms, Satchmo and the Alexander or Magic Set methods can be similarly described by upside-down meta-interpreters, i.e., meta-interpreters implementing one reasoning principle in terms of the other. Upside-down meta-interpretation gives rise to simple and efficient implementations, but has not been investigated in the past. This article is devoted to studying this technique. We show that it permits one to inherit a search strategy from an inference engine, instead of implementing it, and to combine bottom-up and top-down reasoning. These properties yield an explanation for the efficiency of Satchmo and a justification for the unconventional approach to top-down reasoning of the Alexander and Magic Set methods

Developing a labelled object-relational constraint database architecture for the projection operator

Current relational databases have been developed in order to improve the handling of stored data, however, there are some types of information that have to be analysed for which no suitable tools are available. These new types of data can be represented and treated as constraints, allowing a set of data to be represented through equations, inequations and Boolean combinations of both. To this end, constraint databases were defined and some prototypes were developed. Since there are aspects that can be improved, we propose a new architecture called labelled object-relational constraint database (LORCDB). This provides more expressiveness, since the database is adapted in order to support more types of data, instead of the data having to be adapted to the database. In this paper, the projection operator of SQL is extended so that it works with linear and polynomial constraints and variables of constraints. In order to optimize query evaluation efficiency, some strategies and algorithms have been used to obtain an efficient query plan. Most work on constraint databases uses spatiotemporal data as case studies. However, this paper proposes model-based diagnosis since it is a highly potential research area, and model-based diagnosis permits more complicated queries than spatiotemporal examples. Our architecture permits the queries over constraints to be defined over different sets of variables by using symbolic substitution and elimination of variables.Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología DPI2006-15476-C02-0

Towards an Efficient Evaluation of General Queries

Database applications often require to evaluate queries containing quantifiers or disjunctions, e.g., for handling general integrity constraints. Existing efficient methods for processing quantifiers depart from the relational model as they rely on non-algebraic procedures. Looking at quantified query evaluation from a new angle, we propose an approach to process quantifiers that makes use of relational algebra operators only. Our approach performs in two phases. The first phase normalizes the queries producing a canonical form. This form permits to improve the translation into relational algebra performed during the second phase. The improved translation relies on a new operator - the complement-join - that generalizes the set difference, on algebraic expressions of universal quantifiers that avoid the expensive division operator in many cases, and on a special processing of disjunctions by means of constrained outer-joins. Our method achieves an efficiency at least comparable with that of previous proposals, better in most cases. Furthermore, it is considerably simpler to implement as it completely relies on relational data structures and operators

Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making

We claim that understanding human decisions requires that both automatic and deliberate processes be considered. First, we sketch the qualitative differences between two hypothetical processing systems, an automatic and a deliberate system. Second, we show the potential that connectionism offers for modeling processes of decision making and discuss some empirical evidence. Specifically, we posit that the integration of information and the application of a selection rule are governed by the automatic system. The deliberate system is assumed to be responsible for information search, inferences and the modification of the network that the automatic processes act on. Third, we critically evaluate the multiple-strategy approach to decision making. We introduce the basic assumption of an integrative approach stating that individuals apply an all-purpose rule for decisions but use different strategies for information search. Fourth, we develop a connectionist framework that explains the interaction between automatic and deliberate processes and is able to account for choices both at the option and at the strategy level.System 1, Intuition, Reasoning, Control, Routines, Connectionist Model, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction