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.

[1]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  On Generating All Maximal Independent Sets , 1988, Inf. Process. Lett..

[2]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Ontology-Based Data Access: A Survey , 2018, IJCAI.

[3]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[4]  Thomas Pellissier Tanon,et al.  Learning How to Correct a Knowledge Base from the Edit History , 2019, WWW.

[5]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[6]  Wolfgang Dvorák,et al.  Computational Problems in Formal Argumentation and their Complexity , 2017, FLAP.

[7]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  An Introduction to Description Logic , 2017 .

[8]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases , 2015, PRIMA.

[9]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/- under Cardinality-Based Repairs , 2019, AAAI.

[10]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Elect: An Inconsistency Handling Approach for Partially Preordered Lightweight Ontologies , 2019, LPNMR.

[11]  Benny Kimelfeld,et al.  Detecting Ambiguity in Prioritized Database Repairing , 2017, ICDT.

[12]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering? , 2013, SUM.

[13]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The DL-Lite Family and Relations , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  François Goasdoué,et al.  Computing and Explaining Query Answers over Inconsistent DL-Lite Knowledge Bases , 2019, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[15]  Juliana Freire,et al.  XSB: A System for Effciently Computing WFS , 1997, LPNMR.

[16]  Bernardo Cuenca Grau,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles , 2009 .

[17]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  Tractable Approximations of Consistent Query Answering for Robust Ontology-based Data Access , 2013, IJCAI.

[18]  D. Nardi,et al.  An Introduction to Description Logic , 2017 .

[19]  Vladimir Gurvich,et al.  An Efficient Incremental Algorithm for Generating All Maximal Independent Sets in Hypergraphs of Bounded Dimension , 2000, Parallel Process. Lett..

[20]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Meghyn Bienvenu.  Inconsistency Handling in Ontology-Mediated Query Answering: A Progress Report , 2019, Description Logics.

[22]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-tolerant query answering in ontology-based data access , 2015, J. Web Semant..

[23]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Dichotomies in the Complexity of Preferred Repairs , 2015, PODS.

[24]  Jianfeng Du,et al.  Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent SHIQ knowledge bases , .

[25]  Benny Kimelfeld,et al.  Counting and Enumerating (Preferred) Database Repairs , 2017, PODS.

[26]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[27]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Identifying the Minimal Transversals of a Hypergraph and Related Problems , 1995, SIAM J. Comput..

[28]  Giorgos Stoilos,et al.  Efficient Query Answering over Expressive Inconsistent Description Logics , 2016, IJCAI.

[29]  Giorgos Stoilos,et al.  A Framework and Positive Results for IAR-answering , 2018, AAAI.

[30]  Frederick Reiss,et al.  Declarative Cleaning of Inconsistencies in Information Extraction , 2016, TODS.

[31]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Ontology-Mediated Query Answering with Data-Tractable Description Logics , 2015, Reasoning Web.

[32]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  Inconsistency Handling for Partially Preordered Ontologies: Going Beyond Elect , 2019, KSEM.

[33]  Giorgos Flouris,et al.  A comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with sets of attacking arguments , 2019, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[34]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Querying of Description Logic Knowledge Bases , 2016, Reasoning Web.

[35]  François Goasdoué,et al.  Querying Inconsistent Description Logic Knowledge Bases under Preferred Repair Semantics , 2014, Description Logics.

[36]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[37]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[38]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  Policy-based inconsistency management in relational databases , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[39]  Leopoldo E. Bertossi,et al.  Complexity of Consistent Query Answering in Databases Under Cardinality-Based and Incremental Repair Semantics , 2006, ICDT.

[40]  Jianfeng Du,et al.  Weight-based consistent query answering over inconsistent $${\mathcal {SHIQ}}$$ knowledge bases , 2012, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[41]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering: Rationality Properties and Computational Complexity Analysis , 2016, JELIA.

[42]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics for Description Logics , 2010, RR.

[43]  Martin Diller,et al.  Investigating Subclasses of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks , 2018, COMMA.

[44]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  How to Select One Preferred Assertional-Based Repair from Inconsistent and Prioritized DL-Lite Knowledge Bases? , 2015, IJCAI.

[45]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Acyclic Argumentation: Attack = Conflict + Preference , 2006, ECAI.

[46]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Linking Data to Ontologies , 2008, J. Data Semant..

[47]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases , 2012, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[48]  Serena Villata,et al.  Preference in Abstract Argumentation , 2018, COMMA.

[49]  Simon Parsons,et al.  A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, ArgMAS.