The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in databases that allows us to reason with constraints, such as existential rules, with a plethora of applications. It takes a database and a set of constraints as input and iteratively completes the database as dictated by the constraints. A key challenge, though, is the fact that the chase may not terminate, which leads to the problem of checking whether it terminates given a database and a set of constraints. In this work, we focus on the semi-oblivious version of the chase, which is well-suited for practical implementations, and linear existential rules, a central class of constraints with several applications. In this setting, there is a mature body of theoretical work that provides syntactic characterizations of when the chase terminates, algorithms for checking chase termination, precise complexity results, and worst-case optimal bounds on the size of the result of the chase (whenever it is finite). Our main objective is to experimentally evaluate the existing chase termination algorithms with the aim of understanding which input parameters affect their performance, clarifying whether they can be used in practice, and revealing their performance limitations. Concerning guarded existential rules, a natural generalization of linear existential rules, one can reuse the machinery for linear existential rules by first applying the so-called linearization technique, that is, the technique of converting guarded existential rules into linear existential rules without affecting the termination of the chase. A secondary objective of this work is to understand how realistic is the use of the linearization technique in the context of the semi-oblivious chase termination problem.

Datalog is a powerful rule-based language with numerous applications in databases and knowledge representation. Explaining why a fact belongs to the output of a Datalog program over a database is an essential task towards explainable and transparent data-intensive applications. A standard way of explaining a fact is the so-called why-provenance, which provides witnesses in the form of subsets of the input database that as a whole can be used to derive that fact. While why-provenance for Datalog has been extensively studied in the literature, the analogous notion for Datalog with negation remains unexplored. We extend why-provenance to Datalog with negation under the standard well-founded and stable model semantics, inherited from Logic Programming, by building on justification theory. We then perform a thorough data complexity analysis of the underlying explainability problem and show that it is in general intractable for both well-founded and stable model semantics; in particular, it is NP-complete, which is the best that we can hope for since the problem is already NP-complete for positive Datalog.

The idea of using an ontology to enrich user queries with domain knowledge has attracted considerable attention from the database and KR communities during the last fifteen years or so. The ontology and the user query can be conveniently seen as two components of one composite query, called ontology-mediated query (omq), while an omq language (OL, QL) collects all such omqs where the ontology is expressed using the ontology language OL and the user query comes from the query language QL. The evaluation problem for rule-based omq languages of the form (OL, CQ), where OL is a rule-based ontology language, i.e., it collects ontologies modelled using tuple-generating dependencies (a.k.a. existential rules), and CQ is the language of conjunctive queries, has been extensively studied in the literature. In particular, the notion of first-order rewritability of such languages, i.e., the property of being able to rewrite every omq from the language in question to an equivalent first-order query, has been studied in depth. This research effort led an algorithmic characterization of when a rule-based omq language (OL, CQ) is first-order rewritable. More precisely, there is a uniform algorithm Rewrite such that, for every rule-based ontology language OL, the omq language (OL, CQ) is first-order rewritable iff for every omq O from (OL, CQ), the algorithm Rewrite on input O terminates and constructs a first-order rewriting of O. The question that we are interested in is whether the above algorithmic characterization can be extended to rule-based omq languages of the form (OL, CQ(sic)), where CQ (sic) is the language of conjunctive queries with the useful feature of negation. The goal of this work is to initiate effort towards the settlement of the above highly non-trivial question. To this end, we provide a new algorithm, which is a non-trivial extension of the algorithm Rewrite for positive omqs, and show the following: under the Skolem semantics, a well-established approach for defining the answer to a rule-based omq when the user query can use negation, the proposed algorithm is a first-order rewriter for (OL, CQ (sic)), where OL is the language of linear or acyclic tuple-generating dependencies, two central rule-based ontology languages that ensure first-order rewritability for positive omqs. We strongly believe that the new algorithm can serve as a good starting point towards the full settlement of our main question.

Rule-based languages lie at the core of several areas of central importance to databases and artificial intelligence such as deductive databases and knowledge representation and reasoning. Disjunctive existential rules (a.k.a. disjunctive tuple-generating dependencies in the database literature) form such a prominent rule-based language. The goal of this work is to pinpoint the expressive power of disjunctive existential rules in terms of insightful model-theoretic properties. More precisely, given a collection 𝒞 of relational structures, we show that 𝒞 is axiomatizable via a finite set Σ of disjunctive existential rules (i.e., 𝒞 is precisely the set of models of Σ) iff 𝒞 enjoys certain model-theoretic properties. This is achieved by using the well-known property of criticality, a refined version of closure under direct products, and a novel property called diagrammatic compatibility that relies on the method of diagrams. We further establish analogous characterizations for the well-behaved classes of linear and guarded disjunctive existential rules by adopting refined versions of diagrammatic compatibility that consider the syntactic restrictions imposed by linearity and guardedness; this illustrates the robustness of diagrammatic compatibility. We finally exploit diagrammatic compatibility to rewrite a set of guarded disjunctive existential rules into an equivalent set that falls in the weaker class of linear disjunctive existential rules, if one exists.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the 'Save PDF' action button.

Datalog is a powerful rule-based language that allows us to express complex recursive queries and has found numerous applications over the years. Explaining why a result to a Datalog query is obtained is an essential task towards explainable and transparent data-intensive applications that rely on Datalog. A standard way of explaining a query result is the so-called why-provenance, which provides information about the witnesses to a query result in the form of subsets of the input database that as a whole can be used to derive that result. To our surprise, despite the fact that the notion of why-provenance for Datalog queries has been around for decades and intensively studied, its computational complexity remains unexplored. Our goal is to fill this gap in the why-provenance literature. Towards this end, we pinpoint the data complexity of why-provenance for Datalog queries and key subclasses thereof. The takeaway of our work is that why-provenance for recursive queries, even if the recursion is limited to be linear, is an intractable problem, whereas for non-recursive queries is highly tractable.

Datalog is a well-established rule-based language that allows us to express complex recursive queries. As for every other query language, explaining why a result to a Datalog query is obtained is an essential task towards explainable and transparent query evaluation. A standard way of explaining a query result is the so-called why-provenance, which provides information about the witnesses to a query result in the form of subsets of the input database that as a whole can be used to derive that result. The data complexity of why-provenance for Datalog queries has been recently studied and it was shown to be intractable, namely NP-complete even if the recursion is linear. An interesting question that comes up is whether we can ensure tractable data complexity by considering a slightly less informative notion of provenance, in particular, whyminimal-provenance that keeps only subset-minimal witnesses to a query result. Another interesting question is whether we can adopt a more informative notion of provenance than why-provenance, in particular, whymultiplicity-provenance that also keeps track of how many times a certain fact occurs in a witness to a query result, without paying a price in data complexity. This work provides definitive answers to the above questions: (i) whyminimal-provenance ensures tractable data complexity, and (ii) whymultiplicity-provenance can be adopted without paying a price in complexity, apart from one surprising case where the data complexity becomes PSPACE-complete.

Operational consistent query answering (CQA) is a recent framework for CQA based on revised definitions of repairs, which are built by applying a sequence of operations (e.g., fact deletions) starting from an inconsistent database until we reach a database that is consistent w.r.t. the given set of constraints. It has been recently shown that there is an efficient approximation for computing the percentage of repairs that entail a given query when we focus on primary keys, conjunctive queries, and assuming the query is fixed (i.e., in data complexity). However, it has been left open whether such an approximation exists when the query is part of the input (i.e., in combined complexity). We show that this is the case when we focus on self-join-free conjunctive queries of bounded generelized hypertreewidth. We also show that it is unlikely that efficient approximation schemes exist once we give up one of the adopted syntactic restrictions, i.e., self-join-freeness or bounding the generelized hypertreewidth. Towards the desired approximation, we introduce a counting complexity class, called SpanTL, show that each problem in it admits an efficient approximation scheme by using a recent approximability result about tree automata, and then place the problem of interest in SpanTL.

Data dependencies are integrity constraints that the data of interest must obey. During the 1980s, Janos Makowsky made a number of contributions to the study of data dependencies; in particular, he was the first researcher to characterize data dependencies in terms of their structural properties. The goal of this article is to first present an overview of Makowsky's work on characterizing certain classes of data dependencies and then discuss recent developments concerning characterizations of broader classes of data dependencies.

In graph-based applications, a common task is to pinpoint the most important or ``central'' vertex in a (directed or undirected) graph, or rank the vertices of a graph according to their importance. To this end, a plethora of so-called centrality measures have been proposed in the literature. Such measures assess which vertices in a graph are the most important ones by analyzing the structure of the underlying graph. A family of centrality measures that are suited for graph databases has been recently proposed by relying on the following simple principle: the importance of a vertex in a graph is relative to the number of ``relevant'' connected subgraphs surrounding it; we refer to the members of this family as subgraph-based centrality measures. Although it has been shown that such measures enjoy several favourable properties, their absolute expressiveness remains largely unexplored. The goal of this work is to precisely characterize the absolute expressiveness of the family of subgraph-based centrality measures by considering both directed and undirected graphs. To this end, we characterize when an arbitrary centrality measure is a subgraph-based one, or a subgraph-based measure relative to the induced ranking. These characterizations provide us with technical tools that allow us to determine whether well-established centrality measures are subgraph-based. Such a classification, apart from being interesting in its own right, gives useful insights on the structural similarities and differences among existing centrality measures.

We consider the scenario of ontology-based data access where a conjunctive query is evaluated against a database enriched with intensional knowledge via an ontology. It is generally accepted that true scalability of query answering in this setting can only be achieved by using standard relational database management systems (RDBMSs). An approach to query answering that enables the use of RDBMSs is the so-called polynomial combined approach. We investigate this approach for the main guarded- and sticky-based classes of existential rules, and we highlight the assumptions on the underlying schema which are sufficient for the polynomial combined first-order rewritability of those classes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work which explicitly studies the polynomial combined approach for existential rules.

The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in database theory with a variety of applications. A central problem concerning the chase procedure is uniform (a.k.a. allinstances) chase termination: for a given set of tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs), is it the case that the chase terminates for every input database? In view of the fact that this problem is, in general, undecidable, it is natural to ask whether known well-behaved classes of TGDs ensure decidability. We focus on the main paradigms that led to robust TGD-based formalisms, namely guardedness and stickiness, that have been introduced in the context of knowledge-enriched databases. Although uniform chase termination is well understood for the oblivious version of the chase (2EXPTIME-complete for guarded, and PSPACE-complete for sticky TGDs), the more subtle case of the restricted (a.k.a. the standard) chase is rather unexplored. We show that uniform restricted chase termination under guarded single-head TGDs and sticky single-head TGDs is decidable in elementary time. In the case of guardedness, we provide a reduction to the satisfiability problem of monadic second-order logic over infinite trees of bounded degree, while for stickiness we provide a reduction to the emptiness problem of deterministic Bu"\chi automata. Those reductions build on a series of technical results of independent interest related to the notion of fairness of the restricted chase, and the existence of critical databases that characterize nontermination of the restricted chase via databases of a certain form.

Extending programming languages with stochastic behaviour such as probabilistic choices or random sampling has a long tradition in computer science. A recent development in this direction is a declarative probabilistic programming language, proposed by Barany et al. in 2017, which operates on standard relational databases. In particular, Barany et al. proposed generative Datalog, a probabilistic extension of Datalog that allows sampling from discrete probability distributions. Intuitively, the output of a generative Datalog program P on an input database D is a probability space over the minimal models of D and P, the so-called possible outcomes. This is a natural generalization of the (deterministic) semantics of Datalog, where the output of a program on a database is their unique minimal model. A natural question to ask is how generative Datalog can be enriched with the useful feature of negation, which in turn leads to a strictly more expressive declarative probabilistic programming language. In particular, the challenging question is how the probabilistic semantics of generative Datalog with negation can be robustly defined. Our goal is to provide an answer to this question by interpreting negation according to the stable model semantics.

The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in databases that allows us to reason with constraints, such as existential rules, with a plethora of applications. It takes as input a database and a set of constraints, and iteratively completes the database as dictated by the constraints. A key challenge, though, is the fact that it may not terminate, which leads to the problem of checking whether it terminates given a database and a set of constraints. In this work, we focus on the semi-oblivious version of the chase, which is well-suited for practical implementations, and linear existential rules, a central class of constraints with several applications. In this setting, there is a mature body of theoretical work that provides syntactic characterizations of when the chase terminates, algorithms for checking chase termination, and precise complexity results. Our main objective is to experimentally evaluate the existing chase termination algorithms with the aim of understanding which input parameters affect their performance, clarifying whether they can be used in practice, and revealing their performance limitations.

The chase procedure, originally introduced for checking implication of database constraints, and later on used for computing data exchange solutions, has recently become a central algorithmic tool in rule-based ontological reasoning. In this context, a key problem is non-uniform chase termination: does the chase of a database w.r.t. a rule-based ontology terminate? And if this is the case, what is the size of the result of the chase? We focus on guarded tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs), which form a robust rule-based ontology language, and study the above central questions for the semi-oblivious version of the chase. One of our main findings is that non-uniform semi-oblivious chase termination for guarded TGDs is feasible in polynomial time w.r.t. the database, and the size of the result of the chase (whenever is finite) is linear w.r.t. the database. Towards our results concerning non-uniform chase termination, we show that basic techniques such as simplification and linearization, originally introduced in the context of ontological query answering, can be safely applied to the chase termination problem.

Operational consistent query answering (CQA) is a recent framework for CQA, based on revised definitions of repairs and consistent answers, which opens up the possibility of efficient approximations with explicit error guarantees. The main idea is to iteratively apply operations (e.g., fact deletions), starting from an inconsistent database, until we reach a database that is consistent w.r.t. the given set of constraints. This gives us the flexibility of choosing the probability with which we apply an operation, which in turn allows us to calculate the probability of an operational repair, and thus, the probability with which a consistent answer is entailed. A natural way of assigning probabilities to operations is by targeting the uniform probability distribution over a reasonable space such as the set of operational repairs, the set of sequences of operations that lead to an operational repair, and the set of available operations at a certain step of the repairing process. This leads to what we generally call uniform operational CQA. The goal of this work is to perform a data complexity analysis of both exact and approximate uniform operational CQA, focusing on functional dependencies (and subclasses thereof), and conjunctive queries. The main outcome of our analysis (among other positive and negative results), is that uniform operational CQA pushes the efficiency boundaries further by ensuring the existence of efficient approximation schemes in scenarios that go beyond the simple case of primary keys, which seems to be the limit of the classical approach to CQA.

A key task in the context of consistent query answering is to count the number of repairs that entail the query, with the ultimate goal being a precise data complexity classification. This has been achieved in the case of primary keys and self-join-free conjunctive queries (CQs) via an FP/#P-complete dichotomy. We lift this result to the more general case of functional dependencies (FDs). Another important task in this context is whenever the counting problem in question is intractable, to classify it as approximable, i.e., the target value can be efficiently approximated with error guarantees via a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS), or as inapproximable. Although for primary keys and CQs (even with self-joins) the problem is always approximable, we prove that this is not the case for FDs. We show, however, that the class of FDs with a left-hand side chain forms an island of approximability. We see these results, apart from being interesting in their own right, as crucial steps towards a complete classification of approximate counting of repairs in the case of FDs and self-join-free CQs.

Querying inconsistent knowledge bases is an intriguing problem that gave rise to a flourishing research activity in the knowledge representation and reasoning community during the last years. It has been extensively studied in the context of description logics (DLs), and its computational complexity is rather well-understood. Although DLs are popular formalisms for modeling ontologies, it is generally agreed that rule-based ontologies are well-suited for data-intensive applications, since they allow us to conveniently deal with higher-arity relations, which naturally occur in standard relational databases. The goal of this work is to perform an in-depth complexity analysis of querying inconsistent knowledge bases in the case of the main decidable classes of existential rules, based on the notions of guardedness, linearity, acyclicity, and stickiness, enriched with negative (a.k.a. denial) constraints. Our investigation concentrates on three central inconsistency-tolerant semantics: the ABox repair (AR) semantics, considered as the standard one, and its main sound approximations, the intersection of repairs (IAR) semantics and the intersection of closed repairs (ICR) semantics.