Connecting Inconsistent Databases and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks
A new paper on arXiv (2605.03954) establishes a link between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases and SET-based Argumentation Frameworks (SETAFs), which extend Dung's argumentation frameworks by allowing collective attacks. The study focuses on integrity constraints including denial constraints and local-as-view tuple-generating dependencies. It finds that subset-maximal repairs under denial constraints correspond to naive extensions, which also match preferred and stable extensions in SETAFs. The main result shows that repairs under the considered tuple-generating dependencies correspond to preferred extensions. Additional preprocessing is required for these dependencies.
Key facts
- arXiv paper 2605.03954 connects inconsistent database repairs to SETAFs.
- SETAFs extend Dung's argumentation frameworks with collective attacks.
- Integrity constraints include denial constraints and local-as-view tuple-generating dependencies.
- Subset-maximal repairs under denial constraints correspond to naive extensions.
- Naive extensions coincide with preferred and stable extensions in SETAFs.
- Repairs under tuple-generating dependencies correspond to preferred extensions.
- Additional preprocessing is needed for tuple-generating dependencies.
- The paper contributes to the growing interest in the connection between database repairs and argumentation.
Entities
Institutions
- arXiv