Repair-based semantics have been extensively studied as a means of obtaining meaningful answers to queries posed over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs). While several works have considered how to exploit a priority relation between facts to select optimal repairs, the question of how to specify such preferences remains largely unaddressed. This motivates us to introduce a declarative rule-based framework for specifying and computing a priority relation between conflicting facts. As the expressed preferences may contain undesirable cycles, we consider the problem of determining when a set of preference rules always yields an acyclic relation, and we also explore a pragmatic approach that extracts an acyclic relation by applying various cycle removal techniques. Towards an end-to-end system for querying inconsistent KBs, we present a preliminary implementation and experimental evaluation of the framework, which employs answer set programming to evaluate the preference rules, apply the desired cycle resolution techniques to obtain a priority relation, and answer queries under prioritized-repair semantics.

While semi-asynchronous federated learning (SAFL) combines the efficiency of synchronous training with the flexibility of asynchronous updates, it inherently suffers from participation bias, which is further exacerbated by non-IID data distributions. More importantly, hierarchical architecture shifts participation from individual clients to client groups, thereby further intensifying this issue. Despite notable advancements in SAFL research, most existing works still focus on conventional cloud-end architectures while largely overlooking the critical impact of non-IID data on scheduling across the cloud-edge-client hierarchy. To tackle these challenges, we propose FedCure, an innovative semi-asynchronous Federated learning framework that leverages coalition construction and participation-aware scheduling to mitigate participation bias with non-IID data. Specifically, FedCure operates through three key rules: (1) a preference rule that optimizes coalition formation by maximizing collective benefits and establishing theoretically stable partitions to reduce non-IID-induced performance degradation; (2) a scheduling rule that integrates the virtual queue technique with Bayesian-estimated coalition dynamics, mitigating efficiency loss while ensuring mean rate stability; and (3) a resource allocation rule that enhances computational efficiency by optimizing client CPU frequencies based on estimated coalition dynamics while satisfying delay requirements. Comprehensive experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that FedCure improves accuracy by up to 5.1x compared with four state-of-the-art baselines, while significantly enhancing efficiency with the lowest coefficient of variation 0.0223 for per-round latency and maintaining long-term balance across diverse scenarios.

Hierarchical Federated Learning (HFL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm tailored for multi-tiered computation architectures, which supports massive access of devices' models simultaneously. To enable efficient HFL, it is crucial to design suitable incentive mechanisms to ensure that devices actively participate in local training. However, there are few studies on incentive mechanism design for HFL. In this paper, we design two-level incentive mechanisms for the HFL with a two-tiered computing structure to encourage the participation of entities in each tier in the HFL training. In the lower-level game, we propose a coalition formation game to joint optimize the edge association and bandwidth allocation problem, and obtain efficient coalition partitions by the proposed preference rule, which can be proven to be stable by exact potential game. In the upper-level game, we design the Stackelberg game algorithm, which not only determines the optimal number of edge aggregations for edge servers to maximize their utility, but also optimize the unit reward provided for the edge aggregation performance to ensure the interests of cloud servers. Furthermore, numerical results indicate that the proposed algorithms can achieve better performance than the benchmark schemes.

Recently, deep models have had considerable success in several tasks, especially with low-level representations. However, effective learning from sparse noisy samples is a major challenge in most deep models, especially in domains with structured representations. Inspired by the proven success of human guided machine learning, we propose Knowledge-augmented Column Networks, a relational deep learning framework that leverages human advice/knowledge to learn better models in presence of sparsity and systematic noise.

Recently, deep models have been successfully applied in several applications, especially with low-level representations. However, sparse, noisy samples and structured domains (with multiple objects and interactions) are some of the open challenges in most deep models. Column Networks, a deep architecture, can succinctly capture such domain structure and interactions, but may still be prone to sub-optimal learning from sparse and noisy samples. Inspired by the success of human-advice guided learning in AI, especially in data-scarce domains, we propose Knowledge-augmented Column Networks that leverage human advice/knowledge for better learning with noisy/sparse samples. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach leads to either superior overall performance or faster convergence (i.e., both effective and efficient).

Generalized CP-nets (GCP-nets) allow a succinct representation of preferences over multi-attribute domains. As a consequence of their succinct representation, many GCP-net related tasks are computationally hard. Even finding the more preferable of two outcomes is PSPACE-complete. In this work, we employ the framework of parameterized complexity to achieve two goals: First, we want to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of GCP-nets. Second, we search for efficient fixed-parameter tractable algorithms.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.

We allow representing and reasoning in the presence of nested multiple aggregates over multiple variables and nested multiple aggregates over functions involving multiple variables in answer sets, precisely, in answer set optimization programming and in answer set programming. We show the applicability of the answer set optimization programming with nested multiple aggregates and the answer set programming with nested multiple aggregates to the Probabilistic Traveling Salesman Problem, a fundamental a priori optimization problem in Operation Research.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.