Complexity of Consistent Query Answering in Databases under Cardinality-Based and Incremental Repair Semantics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent Query Answering (CQA) is the problem of computing from a database the answers to a query that are consistent with respect to certain integrity constraints that the database, as a whole, may fail to satisfy. Consistent answers have been characterized as those that are invariant under certain minimal forms of restoration of the database consistency. We investigate algorithmic and complexity theoretic issues of CQA under database repairs that minimally depart -wrt the cardinality of the symmetric difference- from the original database. We obtain first tight complexity bounds. We also address the problem of incremental complexity of CQA, that naturally occurs when an originally consistent database becomes inconsistent after the execution of a sequence of update operations. Tight bounds on incremental complexity are provided for various semantics under denial constraints. Fixed parameter tractability is also investigated in this dynamic context, where the size of the update sequence becomes the relevant parameter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".