Explanations for Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering under Existential Rules
Authors: Thomas Lukasiewicz, Enrico Malizia, Cristian Molinaro2909-2916
AAAI 2020 | Conference PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details
| Reproducibility Variable | Result | LLM Response |
|---|---|---|
| Research Type | Theoretical | In this paper, we address the problem of explaining query answers for existential rules under three popular inconsistency-tolerant semantics, namely, the ABox repair, the intersection of repairs, and the intersection of closed repairs semantics. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for a wide range of existential rule languages and for different complexity measures. |
| Researcher Affiliation | Academia | Thomas Lukasiewicz,1 Enrico Malizia,2 Cristian Molinaro3 1University of Oxford, UK, 2University of Exeter, UK, 3University of Calabria, Italy |
| Pseudocode | No | The paper does not contain structured pseudocode or algorithm blocks. It focuses on theoretical definitions, theorems, and complexity analysis. |
| Open Source Code | No | The paper does not provide concrete access to source code for the methodology described. This is a theoretical paper focusing on complexity analysis. |
| Open Datasets | No | The paper is theoretical and focuses on complexity analysis. It does not use or refer to any datasets for training or evaluation. |
| Dataset Splits | No | The paper is theoretical and does not describe dataset splits for training, validation, or testing. |
| Hardware Specification | No | The paper is theoretical and does not specify any hardware used for computations or experiments. |
| Software Dependencies | No | The paper is theoretical and does not mention specific software dependencies with version numbers. |
| Experiment Setup | No | The paper is theoretical and focuses on complexity analysis; therefore, it does not describe an experimental setup with specific hyperparameters or training configurations. |