ResearchPreference Data Management

Distributions over rankings are used to model user preferences in various settings including political elections and electronic commerce. The Repeated Insertion Model (RIM) gives rise to various known probability distributions over rankings, in particular to the popular Mallows model. However, probabilistic inference on RIM is computationally challenging, and provably intractable in the general case. In this paper we propose an algorithm for computing the marginal probability of an arbitrary partially ordered set over RIM. We analyze the complexity of the algorithm in terms of properties of the model and the partial order, captured by a novel measure termed the “cover width”. We also conduct an experimental study of the algorithm over serial and parallelized implementations. Building upon the relationship between inference with rank distributions and counting linear extensions, we investigate the inference problem when restricted to partial orders that lend themselves to efficient counting of their linear extensions.

We develop a novel framework that aims to create bridges between the computational social choice and the database management communities. This framework enriches the tasks currently supported in computational social choice with relational database context, thus making it possible to formulate sophisticated queries about voting rules, candidates, voters, issues, and positions. At the conceptual level, we give rigorous semantics to queries in this framework by introducing the notions of necessary answers and possible answers to queries. At the technical level, we embark on an investigation of the computational complexity of the necessary answers. We establish a number of results about the complexity of the necessary answers of conjunctive queries involving positional scoring rules that contrast sharply with earlier results about the complexity of the necessary winners.

Models of uncertain preferences, such as Mallows, have been extensively studied due to their plethora of application domains. In a recent work, a conceptual and theoretical framework has been proposed for supporting uncertain preferences as first-class citizens in a relational database. The resulting database is probabilistic, and, consequently, query evaluation entails inference of marginal probabilities of query answers. In this paper, we embark on the challenge of a practical realization of this framework. We first describe an implementation of a query engine that supports querying probabilistic preferences alongside relational data. Our system accommodates preference distributions in the general form of the Repeated Insertion Model (RIM), which generalizes Mallows and other models. We then devise a novel inference algorithm for conjunctive queries over RIM, and show that it significantly outperforms the state of the art in terms of both asymptotic and empirical execution cost. We also develop performance optimizations that are based on sharing computation among different inference tasks in the workload. Finally, we conduct an extensive experimental evaluation and demonstrate that clear performance benefits can be realized by a query engine with built-in probabilistic inference, as compared to a stand-alone implementation with a black-box inference solver.

In its traditional definition, a repair of an inconsistent database is a consistent database that differs from the inconsistent one in a “minimal way.” Often, repairs are not equally legitimate, as it is desired to prefer one over another; for example, one fact is regarded more reliable than another, or a more recent fact should be preferred to an earlier one. Motivated by these considerations, researchers have introduced and investigated the framework of preferred repairs, in the context of denial constraints and subset repairs. There, a priority relation between facts is lifted towards a priority relation between consistent databases, and repairs are restricted to the ones that are optimal in the lifted sense. Three notions of lifting (and optimal repairs) have been proposed: Pareto, global, and completion. In this paper we investigate the complexity of deciding whether the priority relation suffices to clean the database unambiguously, or in other words, whether there is exactly one optimal repair. We show that the different lifting semantics entail highly different complexities. Under Pareto optimality, the problem is coNP-complete, in data complexity, for every set of functional dependencies (FDs), except for the tractable case of (equivalence to) one FD per relation. Under global optimality, one FD per relation is still tractable, but we establish Pi-2-p-completeness for a relation with two FDs. In contrast, under completion optimality the problem is solvable in polynomial time for every set of FDs. In fact, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for arbitrary conflict hypergraphs. We further show that under a general assumption of transitivity, this algorithm solves the problem even for global optimality. The algorithm is extremely simple, but its proof of correctness is quite intricate.