No Arabic abstract
We consider existential rules (aka Datalog+) as a formalism for specifying ontologies. In recent years, many classes of existential rules have been exhibited for which conjunctive query (CQ) entailment is decidable. However, most of these classes cannot express transitivity of binary relations, a frequently used modelling construct. In this paper, we address the issue of whether transitivity can be safely combined with decidable classes of existential rules. First, we prove that transitivity is incompatible with one of the simplest decidable classes, namely aGRD (acyclic graph of rule dependencies), which clarifies the landscape of `finite expansion sets of rules. Second, we show that transitivity can be safely added to linear rules (a subclass of guarded rules, which generalizes the description logic DL-Lite-R) in the case of atomic CQs, and also for general CQs if we place a minor syntactic restriction on the rule set. This is shown by means of a novel query rewriting algorithm that is specially tailored to handle transitivity rules. Third, for the identified decidable cases, we pinpoint the combined and data complexities of query entailment.
We propose a simple method for combining together voting rules that performs a run-off between the different winners of each voting rule. We prove that this combinator has several good properties. For instance, even if just one of the base voting rules has a desirable property like Condorcet consistency, the combination inherits this property. In addition, we prove that combining voting rules together in this way can make finding a manipulation more computationally difficult. Finally, we study the impact of this combinator on approximation methods that find close to optimal manipulations.
The chase is a sound and complete algorithm for conjunctive query answering over ontologies of existential rules with equality. To enable its effective use, we can apply acyclicity notions; that is, sufficient conditions that guarantee chase termination. Unfortunately, most of these notions have only been defined for existential rule sets without equality. A proposed solution to circumvent this issue is to treat equality as an ordinary predicate with an explicit axiomatisation. We empirically show that this solution is not efficient in practice and propose an alternative approach. More precisely, we show that, if the chase terminates for any equality axiomatisation of an ontology, then it terminates for the original ontology (which may contain equality). Therefore, one can apply existing acyclicity notions to check chase termination over an axiomatisation of an ontology and then use the original ontology for reasoning. We show that, in practice, doing so results in a more efficient reasoning procedure. Furthermore, we present equality model-faithful acyclicity, a general acyclicity notion that can be directly applied to ontologies with equality.
The goal of entity matching in knowledge graphs is to identify entities that refer to the same real-world objects using some similarity metric. The result of entity matching can be seen as a set of entity pairs interpreted as the same-as relation. However, the identified set of pairs may fail to satisfy some structural properties, in particular transitivity, that are expected from the same-as relation. In this work, we show that an ad-hoc enforcement of transitivity, i.e. taking the transitive closure, on the identified set of entity pairs may decrease precision dramatically. We therefore propose a methodology that starts with a given similarity measure, generates a set of entity pairs that are identified as referring to the same real-world objects, and applies the cluster editing algorithm to enforce transitivity without adding many spurious links, leading to overall improved performance.
We propose a new family of constraints which combine together lexicographical ordering constraints for symmetry breaking with other common global constraints. We give a general purpose propagator for this family of constraints, and show how to improve its complexity by exploiting properties of the included global constraints.
Nansons and Baldwins voting rules select a winner by successively eliminating candidates with low Borda scores. We show that these rules have a number of desirable computational properties. In particular, with unweighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with one manipulator, whilst with weighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with a small number of candidates and a coalition of manipulators. As only a couple of other voting rules are known to be NP-hard to manipulate with a single manipulator, Nansons and Baldwins rules appear to be particularly resistant to manipulation from a theoretical perspective. We also propose a number of approximation methods for manipulating these two rules. Experiments demonstrate that both rules are often difficult to manipulate in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules deserve further study.