The chase procedure is a fundamental algorithmic tool in databases that allows us to reason with constraints, such as existential rules, with a plethora of applications. It takes as input a database and a set of constraints, and iteratively completes the database as dictated by the constraints. A key challenge, though, is the fact that it may not terminate, which leads to the problem of checking whether it terminates given a database and a set of constraints. In this work, we focus on the semi-oblivious version of the chase, which is well-suited for practical implementations, and linear existential rules, a central class of constraints with several applications. In this setting, there is a mature body of theoretical work that provides syntactic characterizations of when the chase terminates, algorithms for checking chase termination, precise complexity results, and worst-case optimal bounds on the size of the result of the chase (whenever is finite). Our main objective is to experimentally evaluate the existing chase termination algorithms with the aim of understanding which input parameters affect their performance, clarifying whether they can be used in practice, and revealing their performance limitations.

Explaining why a database query result is obtained is an essential task towards the goal of Explainable AI, especially nowadays where expressive database query languages such as Datalog play a critical role in the development of ontology-based applications. A standard way of explaining a query result is the so-called why-provenance, which essentially provides information about the witnesses to a query result in the form of subsets of the input database that are sufficient to derive that result. To our surprise, despite the fact that the notion of why-provenance for Datalog queries has been around for decades and intensively studied, its computational complexity remains unexplored. The goal of this work is to fill this apparent gap in the why-provenance literature. Towards this end, we pinpoint the data complexity of why-provenance for Datalog queries and key subclasses thereof. The takeaway of our work is that why-provenance for recursive queries, even if the recursion is limited to be linear, is an intractable problem, whereas for non-recursive queries is highly tractable. Having said that, we experimentally confirm, by exploiting SAT solvers, that making why-provenance for (recursive) Datalog queries work in practice is not an unrealistic goal.

In graph-based applications, a common task is to pinpoint the most important or ``central'' vertex in a (directed or undirected) graph, or rank the vertices of a graph according to their importance. To this end, a plethora of so-called centrality measures have been proposed in the literature. Such measures assess which vertices in a graph are the most important ones by analyzing the structure of the underlying graph. A family of centrality measures that are suited for graph databases has been recently proposed by relying on the following simple principle: the importance of a vertex in a graph is relative to the number of ``relevant'' connected subgraphs surrounding it; we refer to the members of this family as subgraph-based centrality measures. Although it has been shown that such measures enjoy several favourable properties, their absolute expressiveness remains largely unexplored. The goal of this work is to precisely characterize the absolute expressiveness of the family of subgraph-based centrality measures by considering both directed and undirected graphs. To this end, we characterize when an arbitrary centrality measure is a subgraph-based one, or a subgraph-based measure relative to the induced ranking. These characterizations provide us with technical tools that allow us to determine whether well-established centrality measures are subgraph-based. Such a classification, apart from being interesting in its own right, gives useful insights on the structural similarities and differences among existing centrality measures.

We focus on ontology-mediated queries (OMQs) based on (frontier-)guarded existential rules and (unions of) conjunctive queries, and we investigate the problem of FO-rewritability, i.e., whether an OMQ can be rewritten as a first-order query. We adopt two different approaches. The first approach employs standard two-way alternating parity tree automata. Although it does not lead to a tight complexity bound, it provides a transparent solution based on widely known tools. The second approach relies on a sophisticated automata model, known as cost automata. This allows us to show that our problem is 2ExpTime-complete. In both approaches, we provide semantic characterizations of FO-rewritability that are of independent interest.

Vadalog is a system for performing complex reasoning tasks such as those required in advanced knowledge graphs. The logical core of the underlying Vadalog language is the warded fragment of tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs). This formalism ensures tractable reasoning in data complexity, while a recent analysis focusing on a practical implementation led to the reasoning algorithm around which the Vadalog system is built. A fundamental question that has emerged in the context of Vadalog is the following: can we limit the recursion allowed by wardedness in order to obtain a formalism that provides a convenient syntax for expressing useful recursive statements, and at the same time achieves space-efficiency? After analyzing several real-life examples of warded sets of TGDs provided by our industrial partners, as well as recent benchmarks, we observed that recursion is often used in a restricted way: the body of a TGD contains at most one atom whose predicate is mutually recursive with a predicate in the head. We show that this type of recursion, known as piece-wise linear in the Datalog literature, is the answer to our main question. We further show that piece-wise linear recursion alone, without the wardedness condition, is not enough as it leads to the undecidability of reasoning. We finally study the relative expressiveness of the query languages based on (piece-wise linear) warded sets of TGDs.

Querying inconsistent ontologies is an intriguing new problem that gave rise to a flourishing research activity in the description logic (DL) community. The computational complexity of consistent query answering under the main DLs is rather well understood; however, little is known about existential rules. The goal of the current work is to perform an in-depth analysis of the complexity of consistent query answering under the main decidable classes of existential rules enriched with negative constraints. Our investigation focuses on one of the most prominent inconsistency-tolerant semantics, namely, the AR semantics. We establish a generic complexity result, which demonstrates the tight connection between classical and consistent query answering. This result allows us to obtain in a uniform way a relatively complete picture of the complexity of our problem.

We study the complexity of conjunctive query answering under (weakly-)(frontier-)guarded disjunctive existential rules, i.e., existential rules extended with disjunction, and their main subclasses, linear rules and inclusion dependencies (IDs). Our main result states that conjunctive query answering under a fixed set of disjunctive IDs is 2EXPTIME-hard. This quite surprising result together with a 2EXPTIME upper bound for weakly-frontier-guarded disjunctive rules, obtained by exploiting recent results on guarded negation first-order logic, gives us a complete picture of the computational complexity of our problem. We also consider a natural subclass of disjunctive IDs, namely frontier-one (only one variable is propagated), for which the combined complexity decreases to EXPTIME. Finally, we show that frontier-guarded rules, combined with negative constraints, are strictly more expressive than DL-Lite H bool , one of the most expressive languages of the DL-Lite family. We also show that query answering under this DL is 2EXPTIME-complete in combined complexity.

Answering queries posed over knowledge bases is a central problem in knowledge representation and database theory. In the database area, checking query containment is an important query optimization and schema integration technique. In knowledge representation it has been used for object classification, schema integration, service discovery, and more. In the presence of a knowledge base, the problem of query containment is strictly related to that of query answering; indeed, the two are reducible to each other; we focus on the latter, and our results immediately extend to the former.