The Statistical Power and Confidence of Some Key Comparison Analysis Methods to Correctly Identify Participant Bias

The validity of calibration and measurement capability (CMC) claims by national metrology institutes is supported by the results of international measurement comparisons. Many methods of comparison analysis are described in the literature and some have been recommended by CIPM Consultative Committees. However, the power of various methods to correctly identify biased results is not well understood. In this work, the statistical power and confidence of some methods of interest to the CIPM Consultative Committees were assessed using synthetic data sets with known properties. Our results show that the common mean model with largest consistent subset delivers the highest statistical power under conditions likely to prevail in mature technical fields, where most participants are in agreement and CMC claims can reasonably be supported by the results of the comparison. Our approach to testing methods is easily applicable to other comparison scenarios or analysis methods and will help the metrology community to choose appropriate analysis methods for comparisons in mature technical fields.

Preference-based Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering under Existential Rules

Query answering over inconsistent knowledge bases is a problem that has attracted a great deal of interest over the years. Different inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been proposed, and most of them are based on the notion of repair, that is, a "maximal" consistent subset of the database. In general, there can be several repairs, so it is often natural and desirable to express preferences among them. In this paper, we propose a framework for querying inconsistent knowledge bases under user preferences for existential rule languages. We provide generalizations of popular inconsistency-tolerant semantics taking preferences into account and study the data and combined complexity of different relevant problems.

Complexity of Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering in Datalog+/– under Cardinality-Based Repairs

Querying inconsistent ontological knowledge bases is an important problem in practice, for which several inconsistencytolerant query answering semantics have been proposed, including query answering relative to all repairs, relative to the intersection of repairs, and relative to the intersection of closed repairs. In these semantics, one assumes that the input database is erroneous, and the notion of repair describes a maximally consistent subset of the input database, where different notions of maximality (such as subset and cardinality maximality) are considered. In this paper, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of inconsistencytolerant (Boolean conjunctive) query answering in a wide range of Datalog± languages under the cardinality-based versions of the above three repair semantics.