اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدHow and Why is An Answer (Still) Correct? Maintaining Provenance in Dynamic Knowledge Graphs
97
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Knowledge graphs (KGs) have increasingly become the backbone of many critical knowledge-centric applications. Most large-scale KGs used in practice are automatically constructed based on an ensemble of extraction techniques applied over diverse data sources. Therefore, it is important to establish the provenance of results for a query to determine how these were computed. Provenance is shown to be useful for assigning confidence scores to the results, for debugging the KG generation itself, and for providing answer explanations. In many such applications, certain queries are registered as standing queries since their answers are needed often. However, KGs keep continuously changing due to reasons such as changes in the source data, improvements to the extraction techniques, refinement/enrichment of information, and so on. This brings us to the issue of efficiently maintaining the provenance polynomials of complex graph pattern queries for dynamic and large KGs instead of having to recompute them from scratch each time the KG is updated. Addressing these issues, we present HUKA which uses provenance polynomials for tracking the derivation of query results over knowledge graphs by encoding the edges involved in generating the answer. More importantly, HUKA also maintains these provenance polynomials in the face of updates---insertions as well as deletions of facts---to the underlying KG. Experimental results over large real-world KGs such as YAGO and DBpedia with various benchmark SPARQL query workloads reveals that HUKA can be almost 50 times faster than existing systems for provenance computation on dynamic KGs.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Knowledge graphs (KG) that model the relationships between entities as labeled edges (or facts) in a graph are mostly constructed using a suite of automated extractors, thereby inherently leading to uncertainty in the extracted facts. Modeling the un
certainty as probabilistic confidence scores results in a probabilistic knowledge graph. Graph queries over such probabilistic KGs require answer computation along with the computation of those result probabilities, aka, probabilistic inference. We propose a system, HAPPI (How Provenance of Probabilistic Inference), to handle such query processing. Complying with the standard provenance semiring model, we propose a novel commutative semiring to symbolically compute the probability of the result of a query. These provenance-polynomiallike symbolic expressions encode fine-grained information about the probability computation process. We leverage this encoding to efficiently compute as well as maintain the probability of results as the underlying KG changes. Focusing on a popular class of conjunctive basic graph pattern queries on the KG, we compare the performance of HAPPI against a possible-world model of computation and a knowledge compilation tool over two large datasets. We also propose an adaptive system that leverages the strengths of both HAPPI and compilation based techniques. Since existing systems for probabilistic databases mostly focus on query computation, they default to re-computation when facts in the KG are updated. HAPPI, on the other hand, does not just perform probabilistic inference and maintain their provenance, but also provides a mechanism to incrementally maintain them as the KG changes. We extend this maintainability as part of our proposed adaptive system.
Why and why-not provenance have been studied extensively in recent years. However, why-not provenance, and to a lesser degree why provenance, can be very large resulting in severe scalability and usability challenges. In this paper, we introduce a no
vel approximate summarization technique for provenance which overcomes these challenges. Our approach uses patterns to encode (why-not) provenance concisely. We develop techniques for efficiently computing provenance summaries balancing informativeness, conciseness, and completeness. To achieve scalability, we integrate sampling techniques into provenance capture and summarization. Our approach is the first to scale to large datasets and to generate comprehensive and meaningful summaries.
Explaining why an answer is (or is not) returned by a query is important for many applications including auditing, debugging data and queries, and answering hypothetical questions about data. In this work, we present the first practical approach for
answering such questions for queries with negation (first- order queries). Specifically, we introduce a graph-based provenance model that, while syntactic in nature, supports reverse reasoning and is proven to encode a wide range of provenance models from the literature. The implementation of this model in our PUG (Provenance Unification through Graphs) system takes a provenance question and Datalog query as an input and generates a Datalog program that computes an explanation, i.e., the part of the provenance that is relevant to answer the question. Furthermore, we demonstrate how a desirable factorization of provenance can be achieved by rewriting an input query. We experimentally evaluate our approach demonstrating its efficiency.
As users become confronted with a deluge of provenance data, dedicated techniques are required to make sense of this kind of information. We present Aggregation by Provenance Types, a provenance graph analysis that is capable of generating provenance
graph summaries. It proceeds by converting provenance paths up to some length k to attributes, referred to as provenance types, and by grouping nodes that have the same provenance types. The summary also includes numeric values representing the frequency of nodes and edges in the original graph. A quantitative evaluation and a complexity analysis show that this technique is tractable; with small values of k, it can produce useful summaries and can help detect outliers. We illustrate how the generated summaries can further be used for conformance checking and visualization.
Explaining why an answer is in the result of a query or why it is missing from the result is important for many applications including auditing, debugging data and queries, and answering hypothetical questions about data. Both types of questions, i.e
., why and why-not provenance, have been studied extensively. In this work, we present the first practical approach for answering such questions for queries with negation (first-order queries). Our approach is based on a rewriting of Datalog rules (called firing rules) that captures successful rule derivations within the context of a Datalog query. We extend this rewriting to support negation and to capture failed derivations that explain missing answers. Given a (why or why-not) provenance question, we compute an explanation, i.e., the part of the provenance that is relevant to answer the question. We introduce optimizations that prune parts of a provenance graph early on if we can determine that they will not be part of the explanation for a given question. We present an implementation that runs on top of a relational database using SQL to compute explanations. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach scales to large instances and significantly outperforms an earlier approach which instantiates the full provenance to compute explanations.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
