Approximate Reasoning in First-Order Logic Theories: Johan Wittocx and Maarten Mari en and Marc Denecker
Approximate Reasoning in First-Order Logic Theories: Johan Wittocx and Maarten Mari en and Marc Denecker
Approximate Reasoning in First-Order Logic Theories: Johan Wittocx and Maarten Mari en and Marc Denecker
.
For a variable x and an element d D, I[x/d] is the inter-
pretation that assigns d to x and corresponds to I on all other
symbols. This notation is extended to tuples of variables and
domain elements of the same length. The truth value I() of
a formula in I, and the satisfaction relation [= are dened
as usual (see, e.g., (Enderton 1972)). Abusing notation, we
write I([d]) and I [= [d] instead of I[x/d]([x]), respec-
tively I[x/d] [= [x].
Approximate Structures
In this section, the notion of an approximate structure for
a vocabulary is introduced. To ease the presentation, we
assume from now on that a vocabulary contains no function
symbols. This assumption can be made without loss of gen-
erality, because there exists a standard transformation
1
from
any theory T, to a theory T
R
l
,
R
u
) of two n-ary relations.
R approximates an n-ary
relation R if
R
l
R
R
u
.
An approximate relation
R is called consistent if
R
l
R
u
, i.e., it approximates at least one relation. It is called
exact if
R
l
=
R
u
, i.e., it approximates precisely one rela-
tion. If
R is exact, we identify
R with the unique relation
R it approximates and write R instead of R, R). An ap-
proximate relation
R
1
is less precise than an approximate
relation
R
2
, denoted
R
1
p
R
2
, if
R
l
1
R
l
2
and
R
u
1
R
u
2
.
If
R
1
p
R
2
, then
R
1
approximates all relations approxi-
mated by
R
2
.
Approximate structures are dened similarly to approxi-
mate relations.
Denition 2. An approximate -structure
I with domain D
is a tuple
I
l
,
I
u
) of two -structures with domain D. The
approximate relation P
I
assigned by
I to a predicate symbol
P is the approximate relation P
I
l
, P
I
u
).
I approxi-
mates a -structure I with domain D if for each predicate
symbol P , P
I
is approximated by P
I
.
The notions of consistency, exactness and precision point-
wise extend to approximate structures. I.e.,
I is consis-
tent (exact) if for all predicate symbols P, P
I
is consis-
tent (exact) and
I
1
p
I
2
if for all predicate symbols P,
P
I
1
p
P
I
2
. Note that
I approximates a structure I iff
I
is less precise than the exact approximate structure I, I).
The least precise approximate structure with domain D is
denoted
D
p
. Vice versa, the most precise one is denoted
p
.
D
p
approximates all structures with domain D,
D
p
is inconsistent. The size [
I[ of
I is dened as the size of its
domain D.
The truth value
I() of a formula in an approximate
structure
I with domain D is inductively dened as follows:
I() =
I
l
() if is atomic;
I() = (
I
u
,
I
l
)());
I( ) =
I()
I();
I(x [x, y]) = t iff for some d D,
I([d, y]) = t.
Otherwise,
I(x [x, y]) = f.
Observe that if a structure I is approximated by
I, then
I()
underestimates I(). I.e., if
I() = t, then I() = t.
As such, we say that is certainly true according to
I if
I
u
,
I
l
)() is an overestimation of
I(). I.e., if I() = t, then
I
u
,
I
l
)() = t and we say that
is possibly true in
I. Similarly, is certainly false in
I if
I
u
,
I
l
)() = f. Finally, is
possibly false in
I if
I() = f.
Denition 3. An approximate structure
I with domain D is
an approximation of a theory T, if it approximates all mod-
els of T with domain D. An approximate structure
J with
domain D is an approximation of T above
I if
I
p
J and
all models of T approximated by
I are approximated by
J.
Approximate Reasoning
As mentioned in the introduction, we are interested in ap-
proximations for a given theory T (e.g., the integrity con-
straints of a database) above a given approximate struc-
ture
I (e.g., the tables of an incomplete database) with -
nite domain D. The most precise approximation that can
be obtained is given by glb
p
(M, M) [ M, M)
p
I) =
D
p
. In particular, this is the case when
I is inconsistent.
Example 1. Consider the theory T
1
= (1); (2); (3) of
the sentences of the introduction and let
I be the approx-
imate structure with domain D = m
1
, m
2
, c
1
, c
2
, c
3
, c
4
given by Module
I
= m
1
, m
2
, Course
I
=
c
1
, c
2
, c
3
, c
4
, In
I
= (m
1
, c
1
); (m
1
, c
3
), (m
2
, c
2
)
and Selected
I
= c
1
, D). Then O
T
1
(
I) assigns
m
1
, c
1
, c
3
, m
1
, c
1
, c
3
, c
4
) to Selected.
The problem of constructing O
T
(
I) is at least as hard as
deciding whether T has a model approximated by
I, which
is intractable. Even for a xed T and varying
I, this decision
problem is NP-complete (Fagin 1974).
The usual complexity measure for algorithms in the con-
text of databases with integrity constraints is called data
complexity, and is dened as the complexity in the size [
I[
of
I. I.e., for this measure, the theory T is considered to
be xed. All complexity results in this paper concern data
complexity. In this section we develop a method to compute
an approximation for T above
I in polynomial time in [
I[.
The method we present consists of computing and com-
bining the optimal approximations for individual sentences
of T, instead of computing the optimal approximation for
T as a whole. The resulting approximate structure
J is not
guaranteed to be as precise as O
T
(
I) =
glb
p
(M, M) [ M, M)
p
I and M [= ). Observe
that for a given T, M, M)
p
I [ M [=
M, M)
p
I [ M [= T, hence O
T
(
I) is more precise
than O
is a
p
-
monotone operator on the lattice of approximate structures
with domain D.
Lemma 4. If is a sentence of T, then O
I) is more pre-
cise than
I and approximates T above
I.
Lemma 4 shows the soundness of the following procedure
for computing approximations
J of T above
I. Start by set-
ting
J =
I. Then choose a sentence of T and replace
J
by O
(
J). Repeat.
Interesting properties of this procedure are termination and
conuence. To state these formally, we introduce the con-
cept of a renement sequence.
Denition 5. A renement sequence for T above
I is a se-
quence
J
i
)
0in
of approximate structures such that
J
0
=
I,
J
i
<
p
J
i+1
and
J
i+1
= O
J
i
) for some sentence
of T. A renement sequence is called terminal if it cannot
be extended anymore. For a terminal renement sequence
J
i
)
0in
, the structure
J
n
is called its limit.
Theorem 6. Every renement sequence for T above
I is
nite and every terminal renement sequence has the same
limit.
We denote the unique limit of a terminal renement se-
quence for T above
I by O
T
(
I).
Example 1 (continued). Let
I
i
)
0i4
be the renement
sequence for T
1
above
I given by
I
1
= O
(1)
(
I
0
),
I
2
=
O
(3)
(
I
1
),
I
3
= O
(2)
(
I
2
) and
I
4
= O
(3)
(
I
3
). One can ver-
ify that c
2
, Selected
I
u
1
, i.e., in
I
1
it is already derived
that c
2
cannot be selected. Also, m
2
, Selected
I
u
2
, m
1
Selected
I
l
3
and c
3
Selected
I
l
4
. Hence,
I
4
= O
T
1
(
I), the
renement sequence is terminal and O
T
1
(
I) = O
T
1
(
I).
It is not necessarily the case that O
T
(
I) is equal to O
T
(
I).
E.g., if T = P Q; P Q and
I =
D
p
, then
O
T
(
I) =
D
p
. However, because T has no model, the
optimal approximation O
T
(
I) is equal to
D
p
.
Also, for two logically equivalent theories T and T
,
O
T
(
I) and O
T
p
, T = P Q; P Q and
T
= (P Q) (P Q).
Equivalence Normal Form
The length of a terminal renement sequence for T above
I is polynomial
2
in [
is computable
in polynomial time.
Denition 7. A TNF sentence is in equivalence normal
form (ENF) if is of the form x (P(x) [y]), such
that P is a predicate symbol or the symbol , y x and
[y] is of the form Q(y), Q(y), Q(y) R(y), Q(y)
R(y), v Q(y, v), v Q(y, v), y
1
= y
2
, where Q and R are
2
Note that the length of a renement sequence can be exponen-
tial in the arity of the symbols occurring in T.
predicate symbols, different from P. A theory is in ENF if
all its sentences are.
Note that for ENF sentences of the form x (P(x)
Q(y) R(y)) and x (P(x) Q(y) R(y)), the variables
occurring in Q and R are exactly the same.
The following transformation (akin to the Tseitin trans-
formation for propositional logic (Tseitin 1968)) reduces ar-
bitrary theories T to ENF theories T
is com-
putable in polynomial time. The method we present is based
on the simple observation that if M is a model of the ENF
sentence y, z (P(y, z) [y]) and d
y
, d
z
are tuples of do-
main elements, then M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = M([d
y
]). This has
the following consequences:
1. If
I([d
y
]) = t, i.e., [d] is certainly true in
I, then
for any model M of approximated by
I, it holds that
M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = M([d
y
]) = t. Therefore,
I([d
y
]) =
t implies that O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t. Similarly, if [d
y
]
is certainly false in
I, then so is P(d
y
, d
z
) in O
I).
2. Vice versa, if
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t, then M([d
y
]) = t
in any model M of approximated by
I. Therefore, if
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t and there is only one way to ensure that
J([d
y
]) = t in an approximate structure
J
p
I, this is
reected in O
I)([d
y
]) = t, is by making
both Q(d
y
) and R(d
y
) certainly true in O
I). As
such,
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t, then O
I)(Q(d
y
)) = t and
O
I)(R(d
y
)) = t.
If [y] is the formula Q(y) R(y),
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t
and
I(R(d
y
)) = t, then O
I)(Q(d
y
)) = t.
A similar observation can be made if P(d
y
, d
z
) is cer-
tainly false in
I.
3. For tuples d
y
, d
z
and d
z
of domain elements and
any model M of , M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = M([d
y
]) =
M(P(d
y
, d
z
)). Therefore, if there exists a tuple d
z
such that
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t, then for all tuples d
z
,
O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t. Similarly if
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f.
We can now show how to compute O
. Lemma 8, based
on items 1 and 3 above, shows how to compute P
O
I)
;
Lemma 9, based on item 2 above, does the same for the
predicates that occur in .
Lemma 8. Let be the ENF sentence y, z (P(y, z)
[y]). Denote by [y] the formula z P(y, z) and
by
I) is
consistent, then for any tuple of domain elements d
y
and d
z
, O
I)
l
(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
I([d
y
] [d
y
]) and
O
I)
u
(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
I([d
y
]
[d
y
]). If O
I) is
inconsistent, then either
I is inconsistent or there exist a tu-
ple d
y
such that
I([d
y
] [d
y
]) =
I([d
y
]
[d
y
]).
Lemma 9. Let , [y] and
I)
is consistent, then O
I)
l
(Q(d)) =
I(Q(d)
ct
[d]) and
O
I)
u
(Q(d)) =
I(Q(d)
cf
[d]), where
ct
and
cf
are the formulas that are dened as follows, depending on
.
ct
cf
Q(y)
Q(y) R(y)
R(y)
v Q(y, v)
(v ,= v
Q(y, v
))
ct
cf
Q(y)
Q(y) R(y) R(y)
v Q(y, v) v
(v ,= v
Q(y, v
))
I) in
polynomial time for any ENF sentence . Indeed, rst as-
sume that O
I) =
D
p
.
Theorem 10. Let T be a theory in ENF and
I an approxi-
mate structure with nite domain D. Then a terminal rene-
ment sequence for T above
I is computable in time polyno-
mial in [
I[.
Hence, the following algorithm can be used to compute an
approximation for an arbitrary theory T over a vocabulary
above
I.
1. Transform T to a theory T
over
by assigning (, D
n
) to every n-ary predicate sym-
bol P
.
2. Construct a (terminal) renement sequence
I
i
)
0in
for
T
above
I and return
I
n
[
.
Note that this is an any-time algorithm: the renement se-
quence constructed in step 2 can be terminal, but this is not
necessary. The following examples illustrate what the algo-
rithm can achieve.
Example 1 (continued). If T
1
is transformed to an ENF
theory T
above
I is equal to O
T
(
I). I.e.,
the algorithm above on T
1
and
I computes the optimal re-
sult.
Example 3. Consider the theory T
2
, taken from
some planning domain, consisting of the sentence
a
0
, a
p
, t
0
Prec(a
p
, a
0
) Do(a
0
, t
0
) t
p
(t
p
<
t
0
Do(a
p
, t
p
)). This sentence describes that some
action a
0
with precondition a
p
can only be performed at
timepoint t
0
if a
p
is performed at an earlier timepoint t
p
.
Let
I be an approximate structure. Then the algorithm
above derives that if t
0
is smaller than the ith timepoint
and there exists a chain of actions a
1
, . . . , a
i
such that
I(Prec(a
1
, a
0
) . . . Prec(a
i
, a
i1
)) holds, then a
0
can
certainly not be performed at timepoint t
0
.
In an actual implementation of the algorithm, it is impor-
tant to construct a good renement sequence. I.e., a short se-
quence with a sufciently precise last element. To nd such
a sequence, a good heuristic is needed to decide at each step,
which operator O
I) = O
T
(
I)
approximates O
T
(
I) is to O
T
(
I), with O
T
(
I) =
O
T
(
I) = O
T
(
the theory
, ,
1
, . . . ,
n
. If one of the following conditions is sat-
ised, then O
T
(
I) = O
T
I):
there is no predicate symbol that occurs in both and ;
I() = t or
I() = t.
Lemma 12. Let T and T
I
i
)
0in
is a renement sequence
for T
above
I and O
T
(
I
n
) = O
T
I
n
), then O
T
(
I) =
O
T
I).
The following example illustrates the use of lemmas 11
and 12 to prove that for a certain T and
I, the transformation
to ENF does not result in a less optimal approximation of T
above
I.
Example 4. Consider the theory T
3
over consisting
of the sentence x UGCourse(x) (GCourse(x)
Difficult(x)), which states that a course is either for un-
dergraduates, or for graduates and difcult. An ENF trans-
formation T
4
of T
3
consists of, e.g., the three sentences
x S
1
(x) (4)
S
1
(x) UGCourse(x) S
2
(x) (5)
S
2
(x) GCourse(x) Difficult(x) (6)
We show that O
T
4
(
I)[
= O
T
3
(
I)[
I
is exact, i.e.,
I contains
complete information about the undergraduate courses.
Denote by T
5
the theory (4); (5) (6) and by T
6
the the-
ory (4) (5) (6). Because clearly, O
T
6
(
I) = O
T
6
(
I)
and O
T
6
(
I)[
= O
T
3
(
I)[
I) = O
T
4
(
I).
First observe that O
(4)
(
I)(S
1
(d)) = t for each
d D. Hence, O
(4)
(
I)) = O
T
6
(O
(4)
(
I) = O
T
6
(
I).
Because UGCourse
I
is exact, also O
(5)
(O
(4)
(
I))((5)) =
t. As before, we conclude by lemma 11 and 12 that
O
T
4
(
I) = O
T
5
(
I).
Symbolic Approximate Reasoning
The presented algorithm to compute an approximation for T
above some approximate structure
I with domain D will of-
ten be too expensive for practical purposes. If the vocabulary
of T contains a predicate P with arity n, then the approxi-
mate relation assigned to P can contain up to 2 [D[
n
tuples.
For a large D, storing and manipulating such an approxima-
tive relation can become infeasible in practice. Note that n is
not necessarily small. Even if the original theory T contains
no predicates with a large arity, transforming T to an ENF
theory creates predicates with arity equal to the number of
free variables of the subformula in T it represents.
To obtain a more practical algorithm, the computed rene-
ment sequence can be represented in a compact, symbolic
way, independent of D. In this section, we show how such a
symbolic representation can be obtained.
Symbolic Approximate Structures
Let T be an ENF theory over a vocabulary and let be a
vocabulary, not necessarily related to .
Denition 13. A symbolic approximate -structure
over
is an assignment of a tuple
l
P
[x],
u
P
[x]) to each n-ary
predicate P , where
l
P
[x] and
u
P
[x] are two formulas
over with n free variables.
Given a xed -structure I, to each symbolic approxi-
mate -structure
over , an approximate -structure is
associated, by evaluating it in I. As such,
can be seen
as a symbolic representation of this associated approximate
-structure.
Denition 14. The evaluation of a symbolic approximate -
structure
over in a -structure I is the approximate -
structure I(
), dened by P
I(
)
= d [ I [=
l
P
[d], d [
I [=
u
P
[d]).
Example 5. Let be the vocabulary containing two n-
ary relation symbols P
l
and P
u
for every n-ary relation
symbol P . Let
I be an approximate -structure,
):
Lemma 15. Let be a formula over ,
a symbolic ap-
proximative structure over and I a -structure. Then
I(
()) = I(
)().
Let be an ENF sentence. Based on lemmas 8 and 9, we
dene the operator
O
, in
the sense that for any symbolic approximate structure
, it
holds that I(
O
)) = O
(I(
)).
Denition 16. Let be the ENF sentence y, z (P(y, z)
[y]).
O
))
l
P
=
([x] z P(x)) and (
O
))
u
P
=
(
([x] z P(x)));
for an atom Q(y) that occurs in , (
O
))
l
Q
=
(
ct
Q(y)) and (
O
))
u
Q
= (
(
cf
Q(y))), where
ct
and
cf
are dened as in lemma 9.
) corresponds to
on all predicates that do not oc-
cur in .
Because of lemmas 8, 9, and 15, we have the following
result, as desired.
Proposition 17. For every ENF sentence , symbolic ap-
proximate structure
over and -structure I, it holds
that I(
O
)) = O
(I(
)) if O
(I(
)) is consistent. If
O
(I(
)) is inconsistent, then so is I(
O
)).
Symbolic Renement Sequences
Let
be a symbolic approximate structure. Similarly to a
renement sequence, a symbolic renement sequence for T
above
is a sequence
i
)
0in
of symbolic approximate
structures such that
0
=
and for each i < n, there is a
sentence in T such that
i+1
=
O
i
).
Based on proposition 17, an approximate structure for T
above
I can be obtained by rst dening an approximate
structure
over a vocabulary and a -structure such that
I(
) =
I. Example 5 shows a possible denition of these.
Then construct a symbolic renement sequence
i
)
0in
for T above
. Finally, return I(
n
).
However, using symbolic renement sequences has its
costs. Note that for any symbolic approximate structure
) are
strictly larger than the ones assigned by
. Also, a symbolic
renement sequence is not guaranteed to be nite. These
problems can sometimes be avoided by replacing the formu-
las assigned by
O
) is
the problem of nding models M of T that expand I
, i.e.,
M[
= I
and let
I
be the ap-
proximate structure with domain D that assigns P
I
, P
I
)
to every predicate symbol P and , D
n
) to all other
n-ary predicate symbols P . Then an approximation
J
of T above
I
and then
substituting subformulas that are certainly true or false ac-
cording to
J. Experiments in that paper showed that com-
puting and using
J almost never incurs overhead, while the
size of T
G
decreases. Moreover, often the time to create the
grounding decreases drastically.
Incomplete Databases
A recent trend in databases is the development of approx-
imate methods to reason about databases with incomplete
knowledge. The incompleteness of the database may stem
from the use of null values, or of a restricted form of closed
world assumption as in (Cort es-Calabuig et al. 2007), or it
arises from integrating a collection of local databases each
based on its own local schema into one virtual database over
a global schema (Grahne and Mendelzon 1999). In all these
cases, the data complexity of certain and possible query an-
swering is computationally hard (co-NP, respectively NP).
For this reason fast (and often very precise) polynomial ap-
proximate query answering methods are developed, which
compute an underestimation of the certain, and an overesti-
mation of the possible answers.
The tables of an incomplete database are naturally rep-
resented as an approximate structure
I. The integrity con-
straints, local closed world assumption or mediator scheme
corresponds to a logic theory T. Approximate answering a
query [x] boils down to computing two relations R
l
and
R
u
consisting of tuples d which are true in all models, re-
spectively some model, of T above
I. Hence, a possible
technique to compute R
l
and R
u
consists of computing a
renement sequence
I
i
)
0in
for T above
I and then com-
puting
I
n
([x]), respectively the complement of
I
n
([x]).
It turns out that this method of approximate query an-
swering generalizes the algorithm of (Cort es-Calabuig et
al. 2006). Computing a symbolic renement sequence
i
)
0in
and then computing
n
([x]), respectively
n
([x]), generalizes the query rewriting technique pre-
sented in (Cort es-Calabuig et al. 2007).
Related Work
The notion of approximation in our work is quite differ-
ent from the one in most other works about approximate
reasoning in logic theories. E.g., the approach started by
Levesque (Levesque 1988) and further explored by, a.o.,
Schaerf and Cadoli (Schaerf and Cadoli 1995) performs ap-
proximate query answering for one query, while our method
computes an approximate structure approximating all mod-
els of a theory. Their methods could hardly be used for, e.g.,
grounding. The same holds for the knowledge compilation
approach, started by Selman and Kautz (Selman and Kautz
1991), which is often applied in description logics.
In the literature, we nd mathematical constructs similar
to the ones used in this paper in two other research areas:
rough set theory (Pawlak 1992) and four-valued logic (Ack-
ermann 1967). In rough set theory, attributes of elements of
a universe U are used to classify each x U as certainly in,
possibly in, or certainly not in a rough set X U of inter-
est. In our work, the computed sets P
O
T
(
I)
can be viewed
as non-exact sets similar to rough sets but, in contrast, they
are are not given explicitly but computed from T and
I.
Also, (consistent) approximate relations and structures
can be viewed as (three-valued) four-valued relations and
structures, but in multi-valued logics, relation symbols de-
note three-valued relations, whereas we use standard two-
valued FO-logic and use the approximate relations only to
approximate collections of possible relations.
As pointed out in the previous section, the work pre-
sented here is strongly related to certain approximate meth-
ods in databases with incomplete knowledge, for instance in
the context of integration of distributed databases (Lenz-
erini 2002; Grahne and Mendelzon 1999), or of locally
closed databases (Cort es-Calabuig et al. 2006; 2007). Our
methods could be useful in generalizations of locally closed
databases, e.g., for databases with integrity constraints.
In (Wittocx, Mari en, and Denecker 2008) we presented
in more detail how symbolic approximations can be used
for grounding in the context of MX(FO). The non-symbolic
algorithm, with its results on termination, conuence, com-
plexity and optimality is not described in that paper. Also,
the symbolic method presented there is less precise and less
general than the one in this paper.
Conclusions
We presented a method to compute an approximation of all
models with a given nite domain of given FO theory. For
an important class of theories, the data-complexity of the
method is polynomial. Some preliminary results about pre-
cision were stated. We also presented how to obtain sym-
bolic representations of approximations, which can improve
the efciency of the method. Finally, we discussed some ap-
plications in the context of databases and model expansion
and mentioned related work.
Acknowledgments
Johan Wittocx is research assistant of the Fonds voor Weten-
schappelijk Onderzoek - Vlaanderen (FWO Vlaanderen).
Appendix
Proof of lemma 4 First note that for every model M of T
approximated by
I, it holds that M, M)
p
I and M [=
. Hence, by the denition of O
, O
I) approximates T
above
I.
Denote by / the set M, M)
p
I [ M [= . If
/ = , then O
I) =
D
p
, which is clearly more precise
than
I. On the other hand, if / ,= , then
I is a
p
-lower
bound of /and hence, also in this case glb
leq
p
(/)
p
I.
Proof of theorem 6 Because the domain D of
I is -
nite, there are only a nite number of approximate structures
J
p
I. As such, every renement sequence above
I is -
nite.
To prove conuence, let
J
i
)
0in
and
K
j
)
0jm
be two terminal renement sequences and denote by
i
and
j
the sentences of T such that respectively
O
i
(
J
i
) =
J
i+1
and O
j
(
K
j
) =
K
j+1
. Then,
because for each sentence , O
is a
p
-monotone
operator,
K
m
= O
m1
(O
m2
(. . . (O
0
(
I
n
))))
p
O
m1
(O
m2
(. . . (O
0
(
J
n
)))) =
J
n
. Similarly,
J
n
p
K
m
. Hence,
J
n
=
K
m
.
Proof of lemmas 8 and 9 The proofs of lemmas 8 and 9
merely consist of a simple, but long and tedious case-by-
case analysis. As an example, we prove the case where is
the ENF sentence y, z (P(y, z) v Q(y, v)).
Denote by
J the approximate structure suggested by the
lemmas, i.e., the approximate structure such that for any
d
y
, d
z
, d
v
D:
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
I(z P(d
y
, z) v Q(d
y
, v));
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
I(z P(d
y
, z) v Q(d
y
, v));
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) =
I(Q(d
y
, d
v
) z P(d
y
, z));
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) =
I(Q(d
y
, d
v
) (z P(d
y
, z)
v
(v
,= d
v
Q(d
y
, v
))));
J corresponds to
I on all symbols that do not occur in .
One can easily check that
J
p
I. From the discussion
above lemma 8, it follows that
J
p
O
I).
Assume O
I(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = t;
for some d
y
, d
z
D,
I(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t and
I(v Q(d
y
, v)) = t.
In all cases, also
J is inconsistent.
Now assume O
I) is consistent. It is sufcient to
prove that for any atom P(d
y
, d
z
), respectively Q(d
y
, d
v
)
such that
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f, re-
spectively
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) =
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = f, also
O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f, respectively
O
I)(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = O
I)(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = f.
Assume that
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) =
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f.
Let M be a model of approximated by
I. We
will construct a model M
of approximated by
I
such that M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) ,= M(P(d
y
, d
z
)). Assume
M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = t. Because
J(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f, both
I(z P(d
y
, z)) = f and
I(v Q(d
y
, v)) = f. Hence,
there exists some d
v
such that
I(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = f. Let
M
(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f for every d
z
D and
M
(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = f. Clearly, M
is approximated by
I
and M
belong to I [ I, I)
p
I and I [= , it holds
that O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = O
I)(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f, as de-
sired.
The case where M(P(d
y
, d
z
)) = f is similar.
The case where
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) =
J(Q(d
y
, d
v
)) = f is
similar to the previous case.
Proof of lemma 11 The case where and have no pred-
icate symbols in common is trivial, as is the case where
I() = t.
To prove the case where
I() = t, assume
I() = t
and let
J be an arbitrary approximate structure such that
J
p
I. It is sufcient to prove that O
(O
(
J)) =
O
(
J). Indeed, then every renement for T above
I
can be transformed to a renement sequence for T
above
by an application
of O
followed by O
(O
(
J)) <
p
O
(
J). Then there exists a structure M
such that M, M)
p
J, M [= and M ,[= . Hence
M ,[= , which is a contradiction to
J() = t.
Proof of lemma 12 Observe that it is sufcient to prove
that O
T
(
I)
p
O
T
I)
p
O
T
I) holds. Because
I
n
p
I, we have O
T
(
I)
p
O
T
(
I
n
) = O
T
(
I
n
). Since
I
n
)
0in
is a renement se-
quence for T
above
I, also O
T
(
I
n
) = O
T
I).
References
Ackermann, R. 1967. An Introduction to Many-Valued
Logics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Cort es-Calabuig, A.; Denecker, M.; Arieli, O.; and
Bruynooghe, M. 2006. Representation of partial knowl-
edge and query answering in locally complete databases. In
Hermann, M., and Voronkov, A., eds., LPAR, volume 4246
of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 407421. Springer.
Cort es-Calabuig, A.; Denecker, M.; Arieli, O.; and
Bruynooghe, M. 2007. Approximate query answering
in locally closed databases. In Proc. 22nd National Con-
ference on Articial Intelligence (AAAI), 397402. AAAI
Press.
Enderton, H. B. 1972. A Mathematical Introduction To
Logic. Academic Press.
Fagin, R. 1974. Generalized rst-order spectra and
polynomial-time recognizable sets. Complexity of Com-
putation 7:4374.
Goubault, J. 1995. A bdd-based simplication and skolem-
ization procedure. Logic Journal of IGPL 3(6):827855.
Grahne, G., and Mendelzon, A. 1999. Tableau tech-
niques for querying information sources through global
schemas. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference
on Database Theory ICDT, volume 1540, 332347. LNCS.
Greco, S., and Molinaro, C. 2007. Querying and repair-
ing inconsistent databases under three-valued semantics. In
Dahl, V., and Niemel a, I., eds., ICLP, volume 4670 of Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science, 149164. Springer.
Lenzerini, M. 2002. Data integration: A theoretical per-
spective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-rst ACM SIGACT-
SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database
Systems, June 3-5, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 233246.
Levesque, H. J. 1988. Logic and the complexity of reason-
ing. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(4):355389.
Mari en, M.; Wittocx, J.; and Denecker, M. 2006. The IDP
framework for declarative problem solving. In Search and
Logic: Answer Set Programming and SAT, 1934.
Mitchell, D., and Ternovska, E. 2005. A framework for
representing and solving NP search problems. In AAAI05,
430435. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Mitchell, D.; Ternovska, E.; Hach, F.; and Mohebali, R.
2006. Model expansion as a framework for modelling and
solving search problems. Technical Report TR2006-24, Si-
mon Fraser University.
Pawlak, Z. 1992. Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Rea-
soning about Data. Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Schaerf, M., and Cadoli, M. 1995. Tractable reasoning via
approximation. Articial Intelligence 74(2):249310.
Selman, B., and Kautz, H. A. 1991. Knowledge compi-
lation using horn approximations. In National Conference
on Articial Intelligence, 904909.
Tseitin, G. S. 1968. On the complexity of derivation in
propositional calculus. In Slisenko, A. O., ed., Studies in
Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic II, vol-
ume 8 of Seminars in Mathematics: Steklov Mathem. Inst.
New York: Consultants Bureau. 115125.
Ullman, J. D. 1988. Principles of Database and
Knowledge-Base Systems, Volume I. Computer Science
Press.
Wittocx, J.; Mari en, M.; and Denecker, M. 2008. Ground-
ing with bounds. In AAAI08. accepted.