Advertisement

Multi-criteria Decision Making with Existential Rules Using Repair Techniques

  • Nikos KaranikolasEmail author
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Pierre Bisquert
  • Christos Kaklamanis
  • Rallou Thomopoulos
  • Bruno Yun
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11311)

Abstract

In this paper, we explain how to benefit from the reasoning capabilities of existential rules for modelling an MCDM problem as an inconsistent knowledge base. The repairs of this knowledge base represent the maximally consistent point of views and inference strategies can be used for decision making.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision-making Existential rules Knowledge representation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work of Nikos Karanikolas was supported with a scholarship from IKY funded by the action “Support of Postdoctoral Researchers” from the resources of the EP “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning” with priority axes 6, 8, 9 and is and co-funded by the European Social Fund - ESF and the Greek state. Part of this work has been carried out while N. Karanikolas was employed by INRA. The authors acknowledge the support of the H2020 NoAW project.

References

  1. 1.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 68–79. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: DALEK: a tool for dialectical explanations in inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 2016), pp. 14–19 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M., Papaleo, L., Pernelle, N., Rocher, S.: On the explanation of SameAs statements using argumentation. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds.) SUM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9858, pp. 51–66. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baget, J.F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.L., Salvat, E.: On rules with existential variables: walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1620–1654 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baget, J.F., Mugnier, M.L., Rudolph, S., Thomazo, M.: Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 712–717 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baget, J.F., et al.: Inconsistency-tolerant query answering: rationality properties and computational complexity analysis. In: Michael, L., Kakas, A. (eds.) JELIA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10021, pp. 64–80. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48758-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The implication problem for data dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) ICALP 1981. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-10843-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chein, M., Mugnier, M.: Graph-based Knowledge Representation - Computational Foundations of Conceptual Graphs. In: Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer, London (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-286-9
  10. 10.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: five easy pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11965893_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15918-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theor. Decis. 1(2), 179–217 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikos Karanikolas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 2
  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 3
  • Christos Kaklamanis
    • 1
    • 4
  • Rallou Thomopoulos
    • 3
  • Bruno Yun
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and InformaticsUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.INRA Iate/INRIA GraphIKMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Computer Technology Institute and Press “Diophantus” (CTI)PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations