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.

In recent years, explainable AI has become a major focus of research, driven by the need to better understand how AI systems arrive at their decisions in order to ensure trust and effective deployment. A central challenge in this field is the explanation of classifiers. Existing approaches typically distinguish between local explanations, which account for a classifier’s decision on an individual input, and global explanations, which aim to characterize the classifier’s behavior as a whole, independent of any particular input. This work concentrates on global explanations and characterizes classification decisions through "maximal" sufficient conditions that, when satisfied, guarantee that the classifier assigns the desired class to any input. We present a detailed analysis of the computational complexity of key problems in this setting across several important families of classifiers considered in the literature.

Explainable AI has garnered considerable attention in recent years, as understanding the reasons behind decisions or predictions made by AI systems is crucial for their successful adoption. Explaining classifiers' behavior is one prominent problem. Work in this area has proposed notions of both local and global explanations, where the former are concerned with explaining a classifier's behavior for a specific instance, while the latter are concerned with explaining the overall classifier's behavior regardless of any specific instance. In this paper, we focus on global explanations, and explain classification in terms of “minimal” necessary conditions for the classifier to assign a specific class to a generic instance. We carry out a thorough complexity analysis of the problem for natural minimality criteria and important families of classifiers considered in the literature.

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.

Existential rules, a.k.a. tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs), form a well-established formalism for specifying ontologies. In particular, the warded language is a well-behaved fragment of TGD-based ontologies, striking a good balance between expressive power and computational complexity of answering Ontology-Mediated Queries (OMQs). The theoretical foundations of answering OMQs over warded ontologies are by now well-understood, but to the best of our knowledge, very few efforts exist that exploit such a rich theory for building practical query answering algorithms. Our goal is to fill the above gap by designing a novel Datalog rewriting algorithm for OMQs over warded ontologies which is amenable to practical implementations, as well as providing an implementation and an experimental evaluation, with the aim of understanding how key input parameters affect the performance of this approach, and what are its limits when combined with off-the-shelf Datalog-based engines.

Data exchange, the problem of transferring data from a source schema to a target schema, has been studied for several years. The semantics of answering positive queries over the target schema has been defined in early work, but little attention has been paid to more general queries. A few proposals of semantics for more general queries exist but they either do not properly extend the standard semantics under positive queries, giving rise to counterintuitive answers, or they make query answering undecidable even for the most important data exchange settings, for example, with weakly-acyclic dependencies. The goal of this paper is to provide a new semantics for data exchange that is able to deal with general queries. At the same time, we want our semantics to coincide with the classical one when focusing on positive queries, and to not trade-off too much in terms of complexity of query answering. We show that query answering is undecidable in general under the new semantics, but it is $\text{co}\text{NP}\text{-complete}$ when the dependencies are weakly-acyclic. Moreover, in the latter case, we show that exact answers under our semantics can be computed by means of logic programs with choice, thus exploiting existing efficient systems. For more efficient computations, we also show that our semantics allows for the construction of a representative target instance, similar in spirit to a universal solution, that can be exploited for computing approximate answers in polynomial time.

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.

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.

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.

Ontological databases have become the distinguished knowledge bases for today’s systems, which consist of an extensional database and an ontology. Several ontological languages have been proposed to model domain knowledge such as Datalog[ ∃ ] which extends Datalog with existential quantification. This addition has enriched the language capabilities in capturing complex domain knowledge, however, it makes reasoning tasks, such as query answering, undecidable. Identifying decidable fragments of Datalog[ ∃ ] is an important approach to deal with the above issues, where prominent examples are fragments supporting so-called query rewritability. Several rewriting algorithms have been introduced; however, these algorithms are executed in a sequential fashion. In this paper we discuss a methodology that allows existing rewriting algorithms to exploit multi-core architectures, and show how to employ this methodology to implement a parallel version of an existing query rewriting algorithm.

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.

Dung's Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions, including the possibility of representing uncertainty about the existence of arguments and attacks. In this regard, two main proposals have been introduced in the literature: Probabilistic Argumentation Framework (PrAF) and Incomplete Argumentation Framework (iAF). PrAF is an extension of AF with probability theory, thus representing quantified uncertainty. In contrast, iAF represents unquantified uncertainty, that is it can be seen as a special case where we only know that some elements (arguments or attacks) are uncertain. In this paper, we first address the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted in PrAF. This is carried out by introducing the concept of probabilistic explanation for any given (probabilistic) extension. We show that the complexity of the problem is FP#P-hard and propose polynomial approximation algorithms with bounded additive error for PrAFs where odd-length cycles are forbidden. We investigate the approximate complexity of the related FP#P-hard problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance in PrAF, showing that they are generally harder than the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted. Next we consider iAF and, after showing some equivalence properties among classes of iAFs, we study iAF as a special case of PrAF where uncertain elements have associated a probability equal to 1/2. Finally, given this result, we investigate the relationships between iAF acceptance problems and probabilistic acceptance in PrAF.

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.

Consistent query answering (CQA) is a widely accepted paradigm for querying inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs). A consistent answer to a query is a tuple that is an answer to the query over every repair of the KB, which is in turn a consistent KB whose extensional knowledge "minimally" differs from the original one's. This coarse-grained classification of answers into consistent and non-consistent ones lacks any information about their degree of consistency, i.e., how likely it is that a tuple is an answer to the query, when considering all the repaired KBs. To overcome this limitation, we consider a fine-grained notion of repair for KBs with equality-generating dependencies (EGDs), based on attribute-level updates, and exploit this notion to propose a probabilistic CQA approach, which associates a confidence to each answer, thereby providing more informative query answers. We first show that computing the query answer confidence is #P-hard. Then, in the light of this intractability result, we study the existence of efficient randomized, approximation schemes. In particular, we show that absolute error approximation schemes always exist in the general case, while more refined relative error approximation schemes, i.e., fully polynomial-time, randomized approximation schemes (FPRAS) exist when assuming that the constraints of the knowledge base are primary keys. Finally, we extend our framework to knowledge bases with tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs) and generalize our approximability results to the new setting, and prove additional inapproximability results.

Query answering over inconsistent knowledge bases is a problem that has attracted a great deal of interest over the years. Different inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been proposed, and most of them are based on the notion of repair, that is, a "maximal" consistent subset of the database. In general, there can be several repairs, so it is often natural and desirable to express preferences among them. In this paper, we propose a framework for querying inconsistent knowledge bases under user preferences for existential rule languages. We provide generalizations of popular inconsistency-tolerant semantics taking preferences into account and study the data and combined complexity of different relevant problems.

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.

In this paper we deal with inconsistent databases and propose a logic framework that allows specifying sets of actions which should be performed to make databases consistent (repairs). The motivation of this work stems from the observation that in repairing a database it is natural to express among a set of update operations, the (preferred) actions which should be performed to repair the database. We introduce (conditioned) active integrity constraints, a simple and powerful form of active rules with declarative semantics, well suited for computing database repairs and consistent answers. We first consider a "prescriptive" semantics where the allowed actions are those specified by the constraints. Under such a semantics the existence of repairs and consistent answers is not guaranteed. Thus, we also investigate the class of universally quantified constraints under a different semantics where actions are interpreted as preference conditions on the set of possible repairs ("preferable" semantics). Under such a semantics every database with integrity constraints admits repairs and consistent answers. We show that (conditioned) active integrity constraints can be rewritten into disjunctive Datalog programs with classical negation and that (preferred) repairs can be derived through the computation of (preferred) disjunctive stable models. We study the complexity of computing repairs and consistent answers and show that active integrity constraints can also be used to express hard problems.

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.