Why Is It Hard to Obtain a Dichotomy for Consistent Query Answering?

Author:

Fontaine Gaëlle1

Affiliation:

1. University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Abstract

A database may for various reasons become inconsistent with respect to a given set of integrity constraints. In the late 1990s, the formal approach of consistent query answering was proposed in order to query such databases. Since then, a lot of efforts have been spent to classify the complexity of consistent query answering under various classes of constraints. It is known that for the most common constraints and queries, the problem is in coNP and might be coNP-hard, yet several relevant tractable classes have been identified. Additionally, the results that emerged suggested that given a set of key constraints and a conjunctive query, the problem of consistent query answering is either in PTime or is coNP-complete. However, despite all the work, as of today this dichotomy remains a conjecture. The main contribution of this article is to explain why it appears so difficult to obtain a dichotomy result in the setting of consistent query answering. Namely, we prove that such a dichotomy with respect to common classes of constraints and queries is harder to achieve than a dichotomy for the constraint satisfaction problem, which is a famous open problem since the 1990s.

Funder

Conicyt and by Millenium Nucleus Center for Semantic Web Research

NSF

Fondecyt

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

Subject

Computational Mathematics,Logic,General Computer Science,Theoretical Computer Science

Reference27 articles.

1. F. N. Afrati and P. G. Kolaitis. 2009. Repair checking in inconsistent databases: Algorithms and complexity. In ICDT. 31--41. 10.1145/1514894.1514899 F. N. Afrati and P. G. Kolaitis. 2009. Repair checking in inconsistent databases: Algorithms and complexity. In ICDT. 31--41. 10.1145/1514894.1514899

2. M. Arenas P. Barcelo L. Libkin and F. Murlak. 2014. Foundations of Data Exchange. Cambridge University Press. M. Arenas P. Barcelo L. Libkin and F. Murlak. 2014. Foundations of Data Exchange. Cambridge University Press.

3. M. Arenas and L. E. Bertossi. 2010. On the decidability of consistent query answering. In AMW. M. Arenas and L. E. Bertossi. 2010. On the decidability of consistent query answering. In AMW.

4. M. Arenas L. E. Bertossi and J. Chomicki. 1999. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In PODS. 68--79. 10.1145/303976.303983 M. Arenas L. E. Bertossi and J. Chomicki. 1999. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In PODS. 68--79. 10.1145/303976.303983

5. L. Barto. 2011. The dichotomy for conservative constraint satisfaction problems revisited. In LICS. 301--310. 10.1109/LICS.2011.25 L. Barto. 2011. The dichotomy for conservative constraint satisfaction problems revisited. In LICS. 301--310. 10.1109/LICS.2011.25

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Consistent Query Answering for Primary Keys on Rooted Tree Queries;Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data;2024-05-10

2. A Dichotomy in Consistent Query Answering for Primary Keys and Unary Foreign Keys;Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems;2022-06-12

3. Consistent Subgraph Matching over Large Graphs;2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE);2022-05

4. Consistent Query Answering for Primary Keys on Path Queries;Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems;2021-06-20

5. Consistent Query Answering for Primary Keys in Datalog;Theory of Computing Systems;2020-06-30

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3