Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Extremal Separation Problems for Temporal Instance Queries (2405.03511v2)

Published 6 May 2024 in cs.DB and cs.LO

Abstract: The separation problem for a class Q of database queries is to find a query in Q that distinguishes between a given set of positive' andnegative' data examples. Separation provides explanations of examples and underpins the query-by-example paradigm to support database users in constructing and refining queries. As the space of all separating queries can be large, it is helpful to succinctly represent this space by means of its most specific (logically strongest) and general (weakest) members. We investigate this extremal separation problem for classes of instance queries formulated in linear temporal logic LTL with the operators conjunction, next, and eventually. Our results range from tight complexity bounds for verifying and counting extremal separators to algorithms computing them.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. Tight hardness results for LCS and other sequence similarity measures. In FOCS, pages 59–78. IEEE Computer Society, 2015.
  2. Characterizing schema mappings via data examples. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 36(4):23, 2011.
  3. Reverse engineering SPARQL queries. In Proc. of WWW, pages 239–249, 2016.
  4. Computational Complexity - A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  5. First-order rewritability of ontology-mediated queries in linear temporal logic. Artif. Intell., 299:103536, 2021.
  6. Temporal query entailment in the description logic 𝒮⁢ℋ⁢𝒬𝒮ℋ𝒬\mathcal{SHQ}caligraphic_S caligraphic_H caligraphic_Q. J. Web Semant., 33:71–93, 2015.
  7. The complexity of reverse engineering problems for conjunctive queries. In Proc. of ICDT, pages 7:1–7:17, 2017.
  8. Regularizing conjunctive features for classification. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 119:97–124, 2021.
  9. A survey of longest common subsequence algorithms. In Proc. of SPIRE, pages 39–48, 2000.
  10. On the unique satisfiability problem. Inf. Control., 55(1-3):80–88, 1982.
  11. Hardness of longest common subsequence for sequences with bounded run-lengths. In Proc. of CPM, volume 7354 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 138–148. Springer, 2012.
  12. Solving longest common subsequence problems via a transformation to the maximum clique problem. Comput. Oper. Res., 125:105089, 2021.
  13. Temporalizing rewritable query languages over knowledge bases. J. Web Semant., 33:50–70, 2015.
  14. Learning interpretable models expressed in linear temporal logic. In Proc. of ICAPS 2018, pages 621–630. AAAI Press, 2019.
  15. A. Chandra and P. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Conference Record of the Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 77–90. ACM, 1977.
  16. Temporal logic in database query languages. In Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu, editors, Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Second Edition. Springer, 2018.
  17. Cache-oblivious dynamic programming for bioinformatics. IEEE/ACM Trans. on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 7(3):495–510, 2010.
  18. Query definability and its approximations in ontology-based data management. In Proc. of CIKM’21, pages 271–280. ACM, 2021.
  19. The complexity of learning tree patterns from example graphs. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 41(2):14:1–14:44, 2016.
  20. Algorithms on strings. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  21. Inductive logic programming at 30. Mach. Learn., 111(1):147–172, 2022.
  22. Reverse-engineering conjunctive queries from provenance examples. In Proc. of EDBT, pages 277–288, 2019.
  23. The complexity of learning linear temporal formulas from examples. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Grammatical Inference, volume 153 of Proc. of Machine Learning Research, pages 237–250. PMLR, 2021.
  24. Unique characterisability and learnability of temporal instance queries. In Proc. of KR, 2022.
  25. Reverse engineering of temporal queries mediated by LTL ontologies. In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 3230–3238. ijcai.org, 2023.
  26. C. Fraser. Consistent subsequences and supersequences. Theor. Comput. Sci., 165(2):233–246, 1996.
  27. Learning description logic concepts: When can positive and negative examples be separated? In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 1682–1688, 2019.
  28. Reverse engineering queries in ontology-enriched systems: The case of expressive Horn description logic ontologies. In Proc. of IJCAI-ECAI, 2018.
  29. Logical separability of labeled data examples under ontologies. Artif. Intell., 313:103785, 2022.
  30. Fastqre: Fast query reverse engineering. In Proc. of SIGMOD, pages 337–350, 2018.
  31. A relational framework for classifier engineering. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 43(3):11:1–11:36, 2018.
  32. General LTL specification mining (T). In Proc. of ASE, pages 81–92. IEEE, 2015.
  33. D. Maier. The complexity of some problems on subsequences and supersequences. J. ACM, 25(2):322–336, 1978.
  34. D. Martins. Reverse engineering database queries from examples: State-of-the-art, challenges, and research opportunities. Inf. Syst., 83:89–100, 2019.
  35. T. Mitchell. Generalization as search. Artif. Intell., 18(2):203–226, 1982.
  36. Learning linear temporal properties. In Proc. of FMCAD 2018, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2018.
  37. M. Ortiz. Ontology-mediated queries from examples: a glimpse at the DL-Lite case. In Proc. of GCAI, pages 1–14, 2019.
  38. Scalable anytime algorithms for learning fragments of linear temporal logic. In Proc. of TACAS, volume 13243 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 263–280. Springer, 2022.
  39. Explaining trained neural networks with semantic web technologies: First steps. In Proc. of NeSy, 2017.
  40. Learning twig and path queries. In Proc. of ICDT, pages 140–154, 2012.
  41. B. ten Cate and V. Dalmau. The product homomorphism problem and applications. In Proc. of ICDT, pages 161–176, 2015.
  42. Extremal fitting problems for conjunctive queries. In Proc. of PODS, pages 89–98. ACM, 2023.
  43. Reverse engineering SPJ-queries from examples. In Proc. of PODS, pages 151–166, 2017.
  44. Reverse engineering complex join queries. In Proc. of SIGMOD, pages 809–820, 2013.

Summary

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

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