Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
157 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
43 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Chase Termination Beyond Polynomial Time (2403.16712v2)

Published 25 Mar 2024 in cs.DB and cs.LO

Abstract: The chase is a widely implemented approach to reason with tuple-generating dependencies (tgds), used in data exchange, data integration, and ontology-based query answering. However, it is merely a semi-decision procedure, which may fail to terminate. Many decidable conditions have been proposed for tgds to ensure chase termination, typically by forbidding some kind of "cycle" in the chase process. We propose a new criterion that explicitly allows some such cycles, and yet ensures termination of the standard chase under reasonable conditions. This leads to new decidable fragments of tgds that are not only syntactically more general but also strictly more expressive than the fragments defined by prior acyclicity conditions. Indeed, while known terminating fragments are restricted to PTime data complexity, our conditions yield decidable languages for any k-ExpTime. We further refine our syntactic conditions to obtain fragments of tgds for which an optimised chase procedure decides query entailment in PSpace or k-ExpSpace, respectively.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. The Theory of Joins in Relational Databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 3 (1979), 297–314.
  2. Efficient Optimization of a Class of Relational Expressions. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 4 (1979), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1145/320107.320112
  3. Graal: A Toolkit for Query Answering with Existential Rules. In Proc. 9th Int. Web Rule Symposium (RuleML’15) (LNCS, Vol. 9202), Nick Bassiliades, Georg Gottlob, Fariba Sadri, Adrian Paschke, and Dumitru Roman (Eds.). Springer, 328–344.
  4. On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artificial Intelligence 175, 9–10 (2011), 1620–1654.
  5. Catriel Beeri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1984. A Proof Procedure for Data Dependencies. J. ACM 31, 4 (1984), 718–741.
  6. Benchmarking the Chase. In Proc. 36th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’17), Emanuel Sallinger, Jan Van den Bussche, and Floris Geerts (Eds.). ACM, 37–52.
  7. PDQ: Proof-driven Query Answering over Web-based Data. Proc. VLDB Endowment 7, 13 (2014), 1553–1556.
  8. Capturing Homomorphism-Closed Decidable Queries with Existential Rules. In Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’21), Meghyn Bienvenu, Gerhard Lakemeyer, and Esra Erdem (Eds.). 141–150.
  9. Non-Uniformly Terminating Chase: Size and Complexity. In Proc. 41st Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’22), Leonid Libkin and Pablo Barceló (Eds.). ACM, 369–378.
  10. Semi-Oblivious Chase Termination for Linear Existential Rules: An Experimental Study. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 11 (2023), 2858–2870. https://doi.org/10.14778/3611479.3611493
  11. Query Answering under Non-guarded Rules in Datalog+/-. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2010) (LNCS, Vol. 6333), Pascal Hitzler and Thomas Lukasiewicz (Eds.). Springer, 1–17.
  12. Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem. J. of Artif. Intell. 193 (2012), 87–128.
  13. On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases. In Proc. 22nd Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’03), Frank Neven, Catriel Beeri, and Tova Milo (Eds.). ACM, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1145/773153.773179
  14. Restricted Chase (Non)Termination for Existential Rules with Disjunctions. In Proc. 26th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17), Carles Sierra (Ed.). ijcai.org, 922–928.
  15. Chasing Sets: How to Use Existential Rules for Expressive Reasoning. In Proc. 28th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’19), Sarit Kraus (Ed.). ijcai.org, 1624–1631.
  16. Normalisations of Existential Rules: Not so Innocuous!. In Proc. 19th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’22), Gabriele Kern-Isberner, Gerhard Lakemeyer, and Thomas Meyer (Eds.). 10 pages.
  17. Alternation. J. ACM 28, 1 (1981), 114–133.
  18. Acyclicity Notions for Existential Rules and Their Application to Query Answering in Ontologies. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 47 (2013), 741–808.
  19. Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. Comput. Surveys 33, 3 (2001), 374–425.
  20. Anuj Dawar and Stephan Kreutzer. 2008. On Datalog vs. LFP. In Proc. 35th Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’08); Part II (LNCS, Vol. 5126), Luca Aceto, Ivan Damgård, Leslie Ann Goldberg, Magnús M. Halldórsson, Anna Ingólfsdóttir, and Igor Walukiewicz (Eds.). Springer, 160–171.
  21. The Chase Revisited. In Proc. 27th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’08), Maurizio Lenzerini and Domenico Lembo (Eds.). ACM, 149–158.
  22. Alin Deutsch and Val Tannen. 2003. Reformulation of XML Queries and Constraints. In Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT’03) (LNCS, Vol. 2572), Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Rajeev Motwani (Eds.). Springer, 225–241.
  23. An Existential Rule Framework for Computing Why-Provenance On-Demand for Datalog. In Proc. 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR’22) (LNCS, Vol. 13752), Guido Governatori and Anni-Yasmin Turhan (Eds.). Springer, 146–163.
  24. Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theoretical Computer Science 336, 1 (2005), 89–124.
  25. Simulating Sets in Answer Set Programming. In Proc. 31st Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’22), Luc De Raedt (Ed.). ijcai.org, 2634–2640. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/365
  26. That’s All Folks! LLUNATIC Goes Open Source. PVLDB 7, 13 (2014), 1565–1568.
  27. Tomasz Gogacz and Jerzy Marcinkowski. 2014. All-Instances Termination of Chase is Undecidable. In Proc. 41st Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’14); Part II (LNCS, Vol. 8573), Javier Esparza, Pierre Fraigniaud, Thore Husfeldt, and Elias Koutsoupias (Eds.). Springer, 293–304.
  28. Uniform Restricted Chase Termination. SIAM J. Comput. 52, 3 (2023), 641–683. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1377035
  29. Gösta Grahne and Adrian Onet. 2018. Anatomy of the Chase. Fundam. Inform. 157, 3 (2018), 221–270.
  30. Philipp Hanisch and Markus Krötzsch. 2024. Chase Termination Beyond Polynomial Time. In Proc. 43rd Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’24). ACM.
  31. Markus Krötzsch and Sebastian Rudolph. 2011. Extending Decidable Existential Rules by Joining Acyclicity and Guardedness. In Proc. 22nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11), Toby Walsh (Ed.). AAAI Press/IJCAI, 963–968.
  32. The Power of the Terminating Chase. In Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT’19) (LIPIcs, Vol. 127), Pablo Barceló and Marco Calautti (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 3:1–3:17.
  33. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4 (1979), 455–469. Issue 4.
  34. Bruno Marnette. 2009. Generalized Schema-Mappings: from Termination to Tractability. In Proc. 28th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’09), Jan Paredaens and Jianwen Su (Eds.). ACM, 13–22.
  35. Maximilian Marx and Markus Krötzsch. 2022. Tuple-Generating Dependencies Capture Complex Values. In Proc. 25th Int. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT’22) (LIPIcs, Vol. 220), Dan Olteanu and Nils Vortmeier (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 13:1–13:20. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2022.13
  36. Michael Meier. 2014. The backchase revisited. VLDB J. 23, 3 (2014), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00778-013-0333-Y
  37. Michaël Thomazo Michel Leclére, Marie-Laure Mugnier and Federico Ulliana. 2019. On Chase Termination for Linear Existential Rules. In Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT’19). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
  38. RDFox: A Highly-Scalable RDF Store. In Proc. 14th Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC’15), Part II (LNCS, Vol. 9367), Marcelo Arenas, Óscar Corcho, Elena Simperl, Markus Strohmaier, Mathieu d’Aquin, Kavitha Srinivas, Paul T. Groth, Michel Dumontier, Jeff Heflin, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, and Steffen Staab (Eds.). Springer, 3–20.
  39. Sebastian Rudolph and Michaël Thomazo. 2015. Characterization of the Expressivity of Existential Rule Queries. In Proc. 24th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15), Qiang Yang and Michael Wooldridge (Eds.). AAAI Press, 3193–3199.
  40. Sebastian Rudolph and Michaël Thomazo. 2016. Expressivity of Datalog Variants - Completing the Picture. In Proc. 25th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15), Subbarao Kambhampati (Ed.). AAAI Press, 1230–1236.
  41. Efficient Model Construction for Horn Logic with VLog: System description. In Proc. 9th Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR’18) (LNCS, Vol. 10900), Didier Galmiche, Stephan Schulz, and Roberto Sebastiani (Eds.). Springer, 680–688.
  42. Existential Rule Languages with Finite Chase: Complexity and Expressiveness. In Proc. 29th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15), Blai Bonet and Sven Koenig (Eds.). AAAI Press.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now