Ontology-based data access is an extensively studied paradigm aiming at improving query answers with the use of an "ontology". An ontology is a specification of a domain of interest, which, in this context, is described via a logical theory. As a form of logical entailment, ontology-mediated query answering is fully interpretable, which makes it possible to derive explanations for ontological query answers. This is a quite important aspect, as the fact that many recent AI systems mostly operating as black boxes has led to some serious concerns. In the literature, various works on explanations in the context of description logics (DLs) have appeared, mostly focusing on explaining concept subsumption and concept unsatisfiability in the ontologies. Some works on explaining query entailment in DLs have appeared as well, however, mainly dealing with inconsistency-tolerant semantics and, actually, non-entailment of the queries. Surprisingly, explaining ontological query entailment has received little attention for ontology languages based on existential rules. In fact, although DLs are popular formalisms to model ontologies, it is generally agreed that rule-based ontologies are well-suited for data-intensive applications, as they allow us to conveniently deal with higher-arity relations, which naturally occur in standard relational databases. The goal of this work is to close this gap, and study the problem of explaining query entailment in the context of existential rules ontologies in terms of minimal subsets of database facts. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for several decision problems associated with minimal explanations for various classes of existential rules, and for different complexity measures.

Recently, explanations for query answers under existential rules have been investigated, where an explanation is an inclusion-minimal subset of a given database that, together with the ontology, entails the query. In this paper, we take a step further and study explanations under different minimality criteria. In particular, we first study cardinality-minimal explanations and hence focus on deriving explanations of minimum size. We then study a more general preference order induced by a weight distribution. We assume that every database fact is annotated with a (penalization) weight, and we are interested in explanations with minimum overall weight. For both preference orders, we study a variety of explanation problems, such as recognizing a preferred explanation, all preferred explanations, a relevant or necessary fact, and the existence of a preferred explanation not containing forbidden sets of facts. We provide a detailed complexity analysis for all the aforementioned problems, thereby providing a more complete picture for explaining query answers under existential rules.

Ontology-mediated query answering is a paradigm that seeks to exploit the semantic knowledge expressed in terms of ontologies to improve query answers over incomplete data sources. In this paper, we focus on description logic ontologies, and study the problem of explaining why an ontology-mediated query is entailed from a given data source. Specifically, we view explanations as minimal sets of assertions from an ABox, which satisfy the ontologymediated query. Based on such explanations, we study a variety of problems taken from the recent literature on explanations (studied for existential rules), such as recognizing all minimal explanations. Our results establish tight connections between intractable explanation problems and variants of propositional satisfiability problems. We provide insights on the inherent computational difficulty of deriving explanations for ontology-mediated queries

Ontology-mediated query answering is an extensively studied paradigm, where the conceptual knowledge provided by an ontology is leveraged towards more enhanced querying of data sources. A major advantage of ontological reasoning is its interpretability, which allows one to derive explanations for query answers. Indeed, explanations have a long history in knowledge representation, and have also been investigated for ontology languages based on description logics and existential rules. Existing works on existential rules, however, merely focus on understanding why a query is entailed, i.e., explaining positive query answers. In this paper, we continue this line of research and address another important problem, namely, explaining why a query is not entailed under existential rules, i.e., explaining negative query answers. We consider various problems related to explaining non-entailments from the abduction literature, and also introduce new problems. For all considered problems, we give a detailed complexity analysis for a wide range of existential rule languages and complexity measures.

Querying inconsistent ontological knowledge bases is an important problem in practice, for which several inconsistencytolerant query answering semantics have been proposed, including query answering relative to all repairs, relative to the intersection of repairs, and relative to the intersection of closed repairs. In these semantics, one assumes that the input database is erroneous, and the notion of repair describes a maximally consistent subset of the input database, where different notions of maximality (such as subset and cardinality maximality) are considered. In this paper, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of inconsistencytolerant (Boolean conjunctive) query answering in a wide range of Datalog± languages under the cardinality-based versions of the above three repair semantics.

Ontology-mediated query answering is an extensively studied paradigm, which aims at improving query answers with the use of a logical theory. As a form of logical entailment, ontology-mediated query answering is fully interpretable, which makes it possible to derive explanations for query answers. Surprisingly, however, explaining answers for ontology-mediated queries has received little attention for ontology languages based on existential rules. In this paper, we close this gap, and study the problem of explaining query answers in terms of minimal subsets of database facts. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for several decision problems associated with minimal explanations under existential rules.