Prioritized Repairing and Consistent Query Answering in Relational Databases

A consistent query answer in an inconsistent database is an answer obtained in every (minimal) repair. The repairs are obtained by resolving all conflicts in all possible ways. Often, however, the user is able to provide a preference on how conflicts should be resolved. We investigate here the framework of preferred consistent query answers, in which user preferences are used to narrow down the set of repairs to a set of preferred repairs. We axiomatize desirable properties of preferred repairs. We present three different families of preferred repairs and study their mutual relationships. Finally, we investigate the complexity of preferred repairing and computing preferred consistent query answers.Comment: Accepted to the special SUM'08 issue of AMA

Optimizing the computation of overriding

We introduce optimization techniques for reasoning in DLN---a recently introduced family of nonmonotonic description logics whose characterizing features appear well-suited to model the applicative examples naturally arising in biomedical domains and semantic web access control policies. Such optimizations are validated experimentally on large KBs with more than 30K axioms. Speedups exceed 1 order of magnitude. For the first time, response times compatible with real-time reasoning are obtained with nonmonotonic KBs of this size

Priority-Based Conflict Resolution in Inconsistent Relational Databases

We study here the impact of priorities on conflict resolution in inconsistent relational databases. We extend the framework of repairs and consistent query answers. We propose a set of postulates that an extended framework should satisfy and consider two instantiations of the framework: (locally preferred) l-repairs and (globally preferred) g-repairs. We study the relationships between them and the impact each notion of repair has on the computational complexity of repair checking and consistent query answers

Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approach

A study of query answering in prioritized ontological knowledge bases (KBs) has received attention in recent years. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed and their complexity is rather well-understood, the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answers has paid less attention. Explaining query answers permits users to understand not only what is entailed or not entailed by an inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority, but also why. We, therefore, concern with the use of argumentation frameworks to allow users to better understand explanation techniques of querying answers over inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority. More specifically, we propose a new variant of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, which corresponds to a given inconsistent DL-LiteR KB. We clarify a close relation between preferred subtheories adopted in such prioritized DL-LiteR setting and acceptable semantics of the corresponding argumentation framework. The significant result paves the way for applying algorithms and proof theories to establish preferred subtheories inferences in prioritized DL-LiteR KBs

On various forms of bipolarity in flexible querying

International audienceThe paper discusses the modeling of “if possible" in requirements of the form “A and if possible B". We distinguish between two types of understanding: either i) A and B are requirements of the same nature and are viewed as constraints with different levels of priority, or ii) they are of different nature (only A induces constraint(s) and B is only used for breaking ties among items that are equally satisfying A). We indicate that the two views are related to different types of bipolarity, and discuss them in relation with possibilistic logic. The disjunctive dual of the first view (“A or at least B") is then presented in this logical setting. We also briefly mention the idea of an extension of the second view where B may refer both to bonus conditions or malus conditions that may increase or decrease respectively the interest in an item satisfying A

Belief Revision in Structured Probabilistic Argumentation

In real-world applications, knowledge bases consisting of all the information at hand for a specific domain, along with the current state of affairs, are bound to contain contradictory data coming from different sources, as well as data with varying degrees of uncertainty attached. Likewise, an important aspect of the effort associated with maintaining knowledge bases is deciding what information is no longer useful; pieces of information (such as intelligence reports) may be outdated, may come from sources that have recently been discovered to be of low quality, or abundant evidence may be available that contradicts them. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic structured argumentation framework that arises from the extension of Presumptive Defeasible Logic Programming (PreDeLP) with probabilistic models, and argue that this formalism is capable of addressing the basic issues of handling contradictory and uncertain data. Then, to address the last issue, we focus on the study of non-prioritized belief revision operations over probabilistic PreDeLP programs. We propose a set of rationality postulates -- based on well-known ones developed for classical knowledge bases -- that characterize how such operations should behave, and study a class of operators along with theoretical relationships with the proposed postulates, including a representation theorem stating the equivalence between this class and the class of operators characterized by the postulates