The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in databases that allows us to reason with constraints, such as existential rules, with a plethora of applications. It takes a database and a set of constraints as input and iteratively completes the database as dictated by the constraints. A key challenge, though, is the fact that the chase may not terminate, which leads to the problem of checking whether it terminates given a database and a set of constraints. In this work, we focus on the semi-oblivious version of the chase, which is well-suited for practical implementations, and linear existential rules, a central class of constraints with several applications. In this setting, there is a mature body of theoretical work that provides syntactic characterizations of when the chase terminates, algorithms for checking chase termination, precise complexity results, and worst-case optimal bounds on the size of the result of the chase (whenever it is finite). Our main objective is to experimentally evaluate the existing chase termination algorithms with the aim of understanding which input parameters affect their performance, clarifying whether they can be used in practice, and revealing their performance limitations. Concerning guarded existential rules, a natural generalization of linear existential rules, one can reuse the machinery for linear existential rules by first applying the so-called linearization technique, that is, the technique of converting guarded existential rules into linear existential rules without affecting the termination of the chase. A secondary objective of this work is to understand how realistic is the use of the linearization technique in the context of the semi-oblivious chase termination problem.

Operational consistent query answering (CQA) is a recent framework for CQA, based on revised definitions of repairs and consistent answers, which opens up the possibility of efficient approximations with explicit error guarantees. The main idea is to iteratively apply operations (e.g., fact deletions), starting from an inconsistent database, until we reach a database that is consistent w.r.t. the given set of constraints. This gives us the flexibility of choosing the probability with which we apply an operation, which in turn allows us to calculate the probability of an operational repair, and thus, the probability with which a consistent answer is entailed. A natural way of assigning probabilities to operations is by targeting the uniform probability distribution over a reasonable space such as the set of operational repairs, the set of sequences of operations that lead to an operational repair, and the set of available operations at a certain step of the repairing process. This leads to what we generally call uniform operational CQA. The goal of this work is to perform a data complexity analysis of both exact and approximate uniform operational CQA, focusing on functional dependencies (and subclasses thereof) and conjunctive queries. The main outcome of our analysis, among other positive and negative results, is that uniform operational CQA pushes the efficiency boundaries further by ensuring the existence of efficient approximation schemes in scenarios that go beyond the simple case of primary keys, which seems to be the limit of the classical approach to CQA.

Datalog is a powerful rule-based language that allows us to express complex recursive queries and has found numerous applications over the years. Explaining why a result to a Datalog query is obtained is an essential task towards explainable and transparent data-intensive applications that rely on Datalog. A standard way of explaining a query result is the so-called why-provenance, which provides information about the witnesses to a query result in the form of subsets of the input database that as a whole can be used to derive that result. To our surprise, despite the fact that the notion of why-provenance for Datalog queries has been around for decades and intensively studied, its computational complexity remains unexplored. Our goal is to fill this gap in the why-provenance literature. Towards this end, we pinpoint the data complexity of why-provenance for Datalog queries and key subclasses thereof. The takeaway of our work is that why-provenance for recursive queries, even if the recursion is limited to be linear, is an intractable problem, whereas for non-recursive queries is highly tractable.

Operational consistent query answering (CQA) is a recent framework for CQA based on revised definitions of repairs, which are built by applying a sequence of operations (e.g., fact deletions) starting from an inconsistent database until we reach a database that is consistent w.r.t. the given set of constraints. It has been recently shown that there is an efficient approximation for computing the percentage of repairs that entail a given query when we focus on primary keys, conjunctive queries, and assuming the query is fixed (i.e., in data complexity). However, it has been left open whether such an approximation exists when the query is part of the input (i.e., in combined complexity). We show that this is the case when we focus on self-join-free conjunctive queries of bounded generelized hypertreewidth. We also show that it is unlikely that efficient approximation schemes exist once we give up one of the adopted syntactic restrictions, i.e., self-join-freeness or bounding the generelized hypertreewidth. Towards the desired approximation, we introduce a counting complexity class, called SpanTL, show that each problem in it admits an efficient approximation scheme by using a recent approximability result about tree automata, and then place the problem of interest in SpanTL.

Datalog is a well-established rule-based language that allows us to express complex recursive queries. As for every other query language, explaining why a result to a Datalog query is obtained is an essential task towards explainable and transparent query evaluation. A standard way of explaining a query result is the so-called why-provenance, which provides information about the witnesses to a query result in the form of subsets of the input database that as a whole can be used to derive that result. The data complexity of why-provenance for Datalog queries has been recently studied and it was shown to be intractable, namely NP-complete even if the recursion is linear. An interesting question that comes up is whether we can ensure tractable data complexity by considering a slightly less informative notion of provenance, in particular, whyminimal-provenance that keeps only subset-minimal witnesses to a query result. Another interesting question is whether we can adopt a more informative notion of provenance than why-provenance, in particular, whymultiplicity-provenance that also keeps track of how many times a certain fact occurs in a witness to a query result, without paying a price in data complexity. This work provides definitive answers to the above questions: (i) whyminimal-provenance ensures tractable data complexity, and (ii) whymultiplicity-provenance can be adopted without paying a price in complexity, apart from one surprising case where the data complexity becomes PSPACE-complete.

The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in databases that allows us to reason with constraints, such as existential rules, with a plethora of applications. It takes as input a database and a set of constraints, and iteratively completes the database as dictated by the constraints. A key challenge, though, is the fact that it may not terminate, which leads to the problem of checking whether it terminates given a database and a set of constraints. In this work, we focus on the semi-oblivious version of the chase, which is well-suited for practical implementations, and linear existential rules, a central class of constraints with several applications. In this setting, there is a mature body of theoretical work that provides syntactic characterizations of when the chase terminates, algorithms for checking chase termination, and precise complexity results. Our main objective is to experimentally evaluate the existing chase termination algorithms with the aim of understanding which input parameters affect their performance, clarifying whether they can be used in practice, and revealing their performance limitations.

The chase procedure, originally introduced for checking implication of database constraints, and later on used for computing data exchange solutions, has recently become a central algorithmic tool in rule-based ontological reasoning. In this context, a key problem is non-uniform chase termination: does the chase of a database w.r.t. a rule-based ontology terminate? And if this is the case, what is the size of the result of the chase? We focus on guarded tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs), which form a robust rule-based ontology language, and study the above central questions for the semi-oblivious version of the chase. One of our main findings is that non-uniform semi-oblivious chase termination for guarded TGDs is feasible in polynomial time w.r.t. the database, and the size of the result of the chase (whenever is finite) is linear w.r.t. the database. Towards our results concerning non-uniform chase termination, we show that basic techniques such as simplification and linearization, originally introduced in the context of ontological query answering, can be safely applied to the chase termination problem.

Operational consistent query answering (CQA) is a recent framework for CQA, based on revised definitions of repairs and consistent answers, which opens up the possibility of efficient approximations with explicit error guarantees. The main idea is to iteratively apply operations (e.g., fact deletions), starting from an inconsistent database, until we reach a database that is consistent w.r.t. the given set of constraints. This gives us the flexibility of choosing the probability with which we apply an operation, which in turn allows us to calculate the probability of an operational repair, and thus, the probability with which a consistent answer is entailed. A natural way of assigning probabilities to operations is by targeting the uniform probability distribution over a reasonable space such as the set of operational repairs, the set of sequences of operations that lead to an operational repair, and the set of available operations at a certain step of the repairing process. This leads to what we generally call uniform operational CQA. The goal of this work is to perform a data complexity analysis of both exact and approximate uniform operational CQA, focusing on functional dependencies (and subclasses thereof), and conjunctive queries. The main outcome of our analysis (among other positive and negative results), is that uniform operational CQA pushes the efficiency boundaries further by ensuring the existence of efficient approximation schemes in scenarios that go beyond the simple case of primary keys, which seems to be the limit of the classical approach to CQA.

A key task in the context of consistent query answering is to count the number of repairs that entail the query, with the ultimate goal being a precise data complexity classification. This has been achieved in the case of primary keys and self-join-free conjunctive queries (CQs) via an FP/#P-complete dichotomy. We lift this result to the more general case of functional dependencies (FDs). Another important task in this context is whenever the counting problem in question is intractable, to classify it as approximable, i.e., the target value can be efficiently approximated with error guarantees via a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS), or as inapproximable. Although for primary keys and CQs (even with self-joins) the problem is always approximable, we prove that this is not the case for FDs. We show, however, that the class of FDs with a left-hand side chain forms an island of approximability. We see these results, apart from being interesting in their own right, as crucial steps towards a complete classification of approximate counting of repairs in the case of FDs and self-join-free CQs.

Consistent query answering (CQA) aims to deliver meaningful answers when queries are evaluated over inconsistent databases. Such answers must be certainly true in all repairs, which are consistent databases whose difference from the inconsistent one is somehow minimal. Although CQA provides a clean framework for querying inconsistent databases, it is arguably more informative to compute the percentage of repairs in which a candidate answer is true, instead of simply saying that is true in all repairs, or is false in at least one repair. It should not be surprising, though, that computing this percentage is computationally hard. On the other hand, for practically relevant settings such as conjunctive queries and primary keys, there are data-efficient randomized approximation schemes for approximating this percentage. Our goal is to perform a thorough experimental evaluation and comparison of those approximation schemes. Our analysis provides new insights on which technique is indicated depending on key characteristics of the input, and it further provides evidence that making approximate CQA as described above feasible in practice is not an unrealistic goal.

Consistent query answering is a principled approach for querying inconsistent databases. It relies on two basic notions: the notion of a repair, that is, a consistent database that "minimally" differs from the original one, and the notion of a consistent query answer, that is, a query answer that can be derived from every repair. In general, an inconsistent database can admit multiple repairs, each corresponding to a different way of restoring consistency, and the consistent query answering framework does not make any discrimination among them. However, in many applications it is natural and desired to express preferences among the different choices that can be made to resolve inconsistency.

The chase procedure is one of the most fundamental algorithmic tools in database theory. A key algorithmic task is uniform chase termination, i.e., given a set of tuple-generating dependencies (tgds), is it the case that the chase under this set of tgds terminates, for every input database? In view of the fact that this problem is undecidable, no matter which version of the chase we consider, it is natural to ask whether well-behaved classes of tgds, introduced in different contexts such as ontological reasoning, make our problem decidable. In this work, we consider a prominent decidability paradigm for tgds, called stickiness. We show that for sticky sets of tgds, uniform chase termination is decidable if we focus on the (semi-)oblivious chase, and we pinpoint its exact complexity: PSpace-complete in general, and NLogSpace-complete for predicates of bounded arity. These complexity results are obtained via graph-based syntactic characterizations of chase termination that are of independent interest.

Consistent query answering (CQA) aims to deliver meaningful answers when queries are evaluated over inconsistent databases. Such answers must be certainly true in all repairs, which are consistent databases whose difference from the inconsistent one is somehow minimal. An interesting task in this context is to count the number of repairs that entail the query. This problem has been already studied for conjunctive queries and primary keys; we know that it is #P-complete in data complexity under polynomial-time Turing reductions (a.k.a. Cook reductions). However, as it has been already observed in the literature of counting complexity, there are problems that are ''hard-to-count-easy-to-decide'', which cannot be complete (under reasonable assumptions) for #P under weaker reductions, and, in particular, under standard many-one logspace reductions (a.k.a. parsimonious reductions). For such ''hard-to-count-easy-to-decide'' problems, a crucial question is whether we can determine their exact complexity by looking for subclasses of #P to which they belong. Ideally, we would like to show that such a problem is complete for a subclass of #P under many-one logspace reductions. The main goal of this work is to perform such a refined analysis for the problem of counting the number of repairs under primary keys that entail the query.

Consistent query answering (CQA) aims to find meaningful answers to queries when databases are inconsistent, i.e., do not conform to their specifications. Such answers must be certainly true in all repairs, which are consistent databases whose difference from the inconsistent one is minimal, according to some measure. This task is often computationally intractable, and much of CQA research concentrated on finding islands of tractability. Nevertheless, there are many relevant queries for which no efficient solutions exist, which is reflected by the limited practical applicability of the CQA approach. To remedy this, one needs to devise a new CQA framework that provides explicit guarantees on the quality of query answers. However, the standard notions of repair and certain answers are too coarse to permit more elaborate schemes of query answering. Our goal is to provide a new framework for CQA based on revised definitions of repairs and query answering that opens up the possibility of efficient approximate query answering with explicit guarantees. The key idea is to replace the current declarative definition of a repair with an operational one, which explains how a repair is constructed, and how likely it is that a consistent instance is a repair. This allows us to define how certain we are that a tuple should be in the answer. Using this approach, we study the complexity of both exact and approximate CQA. Even though some of the problems remain hard, for many common classes of constraints we can provide meaningful answers in reasonable time, for queries going far beyond the standard CQA approach.

The chase is a well-known algorithm with a wide range of applications in data exchange, data cleaning, data integration, query optimization, and ontological reasoning. Since the chase evaluation might not terminate and it is undecidable whether it terminates, the problem of defining (decidable) sufficient conditions ensuring termination has received a great deal of interest in recent years. In this regard, several termination criteria have been proposed. One of the main weaknesses of current approaches is the limited analysis they perform on equality generating dependencies (EGDs). In this paper, we propose sufficient conditions ensuring that a set of dependencies has at least one terminating chase sequence. We propose novel criteria which are able to perform a more accurate analysis of EGDs. Specifically, we propose a new stratification criterion and an adornment algorithm. The latter can both be used as a termination criterion and be combined with current techniques to make them more effective, in that strictly more sets of dependencies are identified. Our techniques identify sets of dependencies that are not recognized by any of the current criteria.

The chase procedure is considered as one of the most fundamental algorithmic tools in database theory. It has been successfully applied to different database problems such as data exchange, and query answering and containment under constraints, to name a few. One of the central problems regarding the chase procedure is all-instance termination, that is, given a set of tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs) (a.k.a. existential rules), decide whether the chase under that set terminates, for every input database. It is well-known that this problem is undecidable, no matter which version of the chase we consider. The crucial question that comes up is whether existing restricted classes of TGDs, proposed in different contexts such as ontological query answering, make the above problem decidable. In this work, we focus our attention on the oblivious and the semi-oblivious versions of the chase procedure, and we give a positive answer for classes of TGDs that are based on the notion of guardedness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that establishes positive results about the (semi-)oblivious chase termination problem. In particular, we first concentrate on the class of linear TGDs, and we syntactically characterize, via rich- and weak-acyclicity, its fragments that guarantee the termination of the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase, respectively. Those syntactic characterizations, apart from being interesting in their own right, allow us to pinpoint the complexity of the problem, which is PSPACE-complete in general, and NL-complete if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, for both the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase. We then proceed with the more general classes of guarded and weakly-guarded TGDs. Although we do not provide syntactic characterizations for its relevant fragments, as for linear TGDs, we show that the problem under consideration remains decidable. In fact, we show that it is 2EXPTIME-complete in general, and EXPTIME-complete if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, for both the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase. Finally, we investigate the expressive power of the query languages obtained from our analysis, and we show that they are equally expressive with standard database query languages. Nevertheless, we have strong indications that they are more succinct.