Querying inconsistent knowledge bases is a problem that has attracted a great deal of interest over the last decades. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed, and their complexity is rather well-understood, little attention has been paid to the problem of explaining query answers. Explainability has recently become a prominent problem in different areas of AI. In particular, explaining query answers allows users to understand not only what is entailed by an inconsistent knowledge base, but also why. In this paper, we address the problem of explaining query answers for existential rules under three popular inconsistency-tolerant semantics, namely, the ABox repair, the intersection of repairs, and the intersection of closed repairs semantics. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for a wide range of existential rule languages and for different complexity measures.

Coalitional games are mathematical models suited to analyze scenarios where players can collaborate by forming coalitions in order to obtain higher worths than by acting in isolation. A fundamental problem for coalitional games is to single out the most desirable outcomes in terms of appropriate notions of worth distributions, which are usually called solution concepts. Motivated by the fact that decisions taken by realistic players cannot involve unbounded resources, recent computer science literature reconsidered the definition of such concepts by advocating the relevance of assessing the amount of resources needed for their computation in terms of their computational complexity. By following this avenue of research, the paper provides a complete picture of the complexity issues arising with three prominent solution concepts for coalitional games with transferable utility, namely, the core, the kernel, and the bargaining set, whenever the game worth-function is represented in some reasonable compact form (otherwise, if the worths of all coalitions are explicitly listed, the input sizes are so large that complexity problems are-artificially-trivial). The starting investigation point is the setting of graph games, about which various open questions were stated in the literature. The paper gives an answer to these questions, and in addition provides new insights on the setting, by characterizing the computational complexity of the three concepts in some relevant generalizations and specializations.

Aggregating preferences over combinatorial domains has many applications in artificial intelligence (AI). Given the inherent exponential nature of preferences over combinatorial domains, compact representation languages are needed to represent them, and (m)CP-nets are among the most studied ones. Sequential and global voting are two different ways of aggregating preferences represented via CP-nets. In sequential voting, agents' preferences are aggregated feature-by-feature. For this reason, sequential voting may exhibit voting paradoxes, i.e., the possibility to select sub-optimal outcomes when preferences have specific feature dependencies. To avoid paradoxes in sequential voting, one has often assumed the (quite) restrictive constraint of O-legality, which imposes a shared common topological order among all the agents' CP-nets. On the contrary, in global voting, CP-nets are considered as a whole during the preference aggregation process. For this reason, global voting is immune from paradoxes, and hence there is no need to impose restrictions over the CP-nets' structure when preferences are aggregated via global voting. Sequential voting over O-legal CP-nets has extensively been investigated, and O-legality of CP-nets has often been required in other studies. On the other hand, global voting over non-O-legal CP-nets has not carefully been analyzed, despite it was explicitly stated in the literature that a theoretical comparison between global and sequential voting was highly promising and a precise complexity analysis for global voting has been asked for multiple times. In quite few works, only very partial results on the complexity of global voting over CP-nets have been given. In this paper, we start to fill this gap by carrying out a thorough computational complexity analysis of global voting tasks, for Pareto and majority voting, over not necessarily O-legal acyclic binary polynomially connected (m)CP-nets. We show that all these problems belong to various levels of the polynomial hierarchy, and some of them are even in P or LOGSPACE. Our results are a notable achievement, given that the previously known upper bound for most of these problems was the complexity class EXPTIME. We provide various exact complexity results showing tight lower bounds and matching upper bounds for problems that (up to date) did not have any explicit non-obvious lower bound.(a) A CP-net modeling dinner preferences.(b) The CP-net's extended preference graph. Figure 1: A CP-net and its preference graph.has a combinatorial structure [18,45,48]. By combinatorial structure, we mean that the set of candidates (or outcomes) is the Cartesian product of finite value domains for each of a set of features (also called variables, or issues, or attributes). The problem of aggregating agents' preferences over combinatorial domains (or multi-issue domains) is called a combinatorial vote [44,45].Interestingly, voting over combinatorial domains is rather common. For example, in 2012, on the day of the US presidential election, voters in California...

Ontology-mediated query answering is an extensively studied paradigm, which aims at improving query answers with the use of a logical theory. As a form of logical entailment, ontology-mediated query answering is fully interpretable, which makes it possible to derive explanations for query answers. Surprisingly, however, explaining answers for ontology-mediated queries has received little attention for ontology languages based on existential rules. In this paper, we close this gap, and study the problem of explaining query answers in terms of minimal subsets of database facts. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for several decision problems associated with minimal explanations under existential rules.

Several semantics have been proposed to query inconsistent ontological knowledge bases, including the intersection of repairs and the intersection of closed repairs as two approximate inconsistency-tolerant semantics. In this paper, we analyze the complexity of conjunctive query answering under these two semantics for a wide range of Datalog+/- languages. We consider both the standard setting, where errors may only be in the database, and the generalized setting, where also the rules of a Datalog+/- knowledge base may be erroneous.