We discover a connection between finding subset-maximal repairs for sets of functional and inclusion dependencies, and computing extensions within argumentation frameworks (AFs). We study the complexity of the existence of a repair and deciding whether a given tuple belongs to some (or every) repair, by simulating the instances of these problems via AFs. We prove that subset-maximal repairs under functional dependencies correspond to the naive extensions, which also coincide with the preferred and stable extensions in the resulting AFs. For inclusion dependencies, one needs a pre-processing step on the resulting AFs in order for the extensions to coincide. Allowing both types of dependencies breaks this relationship between extensions, and only preferred semantics captures the repairs. Finally, we establish that the complexities of the above decision problems are NP-complete and Pi_2^P-complete, when both functional and inclusion dependencies are allowed.

翻译：我们发现子集最大修复（对于函数依赖和包含依赖集）与论证框架（AFs）中扩展的计算之间存在联系。通过将这些问题实例模拟为论证框架，我们研究了修复存在性的复杂性，以及判定给定元组是否属于某些（或所有）修复的复杂性。我们证明，函数依赖下的子集最大修复对应于朴素扩展，这些扩展在生成的论证框架中与优先扩展和稳定扩展一致。对于包含依赖，需要对生成的论证框架进行预处理才能使扩展保持一致。允许两种依赖共存会破坏这种扩展关系，只有优先语义能捕获修复。最后，我们确定当同时允许函数依赖和包含依赖时，上述判定问题的复杂性分别为NP完全和Pi_2^P完全。