A consistent query answer in an inconsistent database is an answer obtained in every (minimal) repair. The repairs are obtained by resolving all conflicts in all possible ways. Often, however, the user is able to provide a preference on how conflicts should be resolved. We investigate here the framework of preferred consistent query answers, in which user preferences are used to narrow down the set of repairs to a set of preferred repairs. We axiomatize desirable properties of preferred repairs. We present three different families of preferred repairs and study their mutual relationships. Finally, we investigate the complexity of preferred repairing and computing preferred consistent query answers.
The first article to notice the importance of priorities in information systems is @cite_21 . There, the problem of conflicting updates in (propositional) databases is solved in a manner similar to @math . The considered priorities are transitive, which in our framework is too restrictive. Also, in our framework this restriction does not bring any computational benefits (the reductions can be modified to use only transitive priorities). @cite_0 is another example of @math -like prioritized conflict resolution of first-order theories. The basic framework is defined for priorities which are weak orders. A partial order is handled by considering every extension to weak order. This approach also assumes the transitivity of the priority.
@cite_0 @cite_21
1889296357 2124627636 2116241626 2038897673
In this paper, we study resource allocation for multiuser multiple-input–single-output secondary communication systems with multiple system design objectives. We consider cognitive radio (CR) networks where the secondary receivers are able to harvest energy from the radio frequency when they are idle. The secondary system provides simultaneous wireless power and secure information transfer to the secondary receivers. We propose a multiobjective optimization framework for the design of a Pareto-optimal resource allocation algorithm based on the weighted Tchebycheff approach. In particular, the algorithm design incorporates three important system design objectives: total transmit power minimization, energy harvesting efficiency maximization, and interference-power-leakage-to-transmit-power ratio minimization. The proposed framework takes into account a quality-of-service (QoS) requirement regarding communication secrecy in the secondary system and the imperfection of the channel state information (CSI) of potential eavesdroppers (idle secondary receivers and primary receivers) at the secondary transmitter. The proposed framework includes total harvested power maximization and interference power leakage minimization as special cases. The adopted multiobjective optimization problem is nonconvex and is recast as a convex optimization problem via semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation. It is shown that the global optimal solution of the original problem can be constructed by exploiting both the primal and the dual optimal solutions of the SDP-relaxed problem. Moreover, two suboptimal resource allocation schemes for the case when the solution of the dual problem is unavailable for constructing the optimal solution are proposed. Numerical results not only demonstrate the close-to-optimal performance of the proposed suboptimal schemes but unveil an interesting tradeoff among the considered conflicting system design objectives as well. Abstract In this paper, we address the issue of how Gelfond and Lifschitz's answer set semantics for extended logic programs can be suitably modified to handle prioritized programs. In such programs an ordering on the program rules is used to express preferences. We show how this ordering can be used to define preferred answer sets and thus to increase the set of consequences of a program. We define a strong and a weak notion of preferred answer sets. The first takes preferences more seriously, while the second guarantees the existence of a preferred answer set for programs possessing at least one answer set. Adding priorities to rules is not new, and has been explored in different contexts. However, we show that many approaches to priority handling, most of which are inherited from closely related formalisms like default logic, are not suitable and fail on intuitive examples. Our approach, which obeys abstract, general principles that any approach to prioritized knowledge representation should satisfy, handles them in the expected way. Moreover, we investigate the complexity of our approach. It appears that strong preference on answer sets does not add on the complexity of the principal reasoning tasks, and weak preference leads only to a mild increase in complexity. In a real-time database system, an application may assign a value to a transaction to reflect the return it expects to receive if the transaction commits before its deadline. Most research on real-time database systems has focused on systems where all transactions are assigned the same value, the performance goal being to minimize the number of missed deadlines. When transactions are assigned different values, the goal of the system shifts to maximizing the sum of the values of those transactions that commit by their deadlines. Minimizing the number of missed deadlines becomes a secondary concern. In this article, we address the problem of establishing a priority ordering among transactions characterized by both values and deadlines that results in maximizing the realized value. Of particular interest is the tradeoff established between these values and deadlines in constructing the priority ordering. Using a detailed simulation model, we evaluate the performance of several priority mappings that make this tradeoff in different, but fixed, ways. In addition, a "bucket" priority mechanism that allows the relative importance of values and deadlines to be controlled is introduced and studied. The notion of associating a penalty with transactions whose deadlines are not met is also briefly considered. Computational efficiency is a central concern in the design of knowledge representation systems. In order to obtain efficient systems, it has been suggested that one should limit the form of the statements in the knowledge base or use an incomplete inference mechanism. The former approach is often too restrictive for practical applications, whereas the latter leads to uncertainty about exactly what can and cannot be inferred from the knowledge base. We present a third alternative, in which knowledge given in a general representation language is translated (compiled) into a tractable form—allowing for efficient subsequent query answering. We show how propositional logical theories can be compiled into Horn theories that approximate the original information. The approximations bound the original theory from below and above in terms of logical strength. The procedures are extended to other tractable languages (for example, binary clauses) and to the first-order case. Finally, we demonstrate the generality of our approach by compiling concept descriptions in a general frame-based language into a tractable form.