Data Credence in IoR: Vision and Challenges

As the Internet of Things permeates every aspect of human life, assessing the credence or integrity of the data generated by "things" becomes a central exercise for making decisions or in auditing events. In this paper, we present a vision of this exercise that includes the notion of data credence, assessing data credence in an efficient manner, and the use of technologies that are on the horizon for the very large scale Internet of Things

Data Credence in IoT: Vision and Challenges

As the Internet of Things permeates every aspect of human life, assessing the credence or integrity of the data generated by "things" becomes a central exercise for making decisions or in auditing events. In this paper, we present a vision of this exercise that includes the notion of data credence, assessing data credence in an efficient manner, and the use of technologies that are on the horizon for the very large scale Internet of Things

Revisiting Postulates for Inconsistency Measures

Postulates for inconsistency measures are examined, the set of postulates due to Hunter and Konieczny being the starting point. Objections are raised against a few individual postulates. More general shortcomings are discussed and a new series of postulates is introduced

Towards a Unified Framework for Syntactic Inconsistency Measures

A number of proposals have been made to define inconsistency measures. Each has its rationale. But to date, it is not clear how to delineate the space of options for measures, nor is it clear how we can classify measures systematically. In this paper, we introduce a general framework for comparing syntactic inconsistency measures. It uses the construction of an inconsistency graph for each knowledgebase. We then introduce abstractions of the inconsistency graph and use the hierarchy of the abstractions to classify a range of inconsistency measures

A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets

Hunter and Konieczny explored the relationships between measures of inconsistency for a belief base and the minimal inconsistent subsets of that belief base in several of their papers. In particular, an inconsistency value termed MIV (C) , defined from minimal inconsistent subsets, can be considered as a Shapley Inconsistency Value. Moreover, it can be axiomatized completely in terms of five simple axioms. MinInc, one of the five axioms, states that each minimal inconsistent set has the same amount of conflict. However, it conflicts with the intuition illustrated by the lottery paradox, which states that as the size of a minimal inconsistent belief base increases, the degree of inconsistency of that belief base becomes smaller. To address this, we present two kinds of revised inconsistency measures for a belief base from its minimal inconsistent subsets. Each of these measures considers the size of each minimal inconsistent subset as well as the number of minimal inconsistent subsets of a belief base. More specifically, we first present a vectorial measure to capture the inconsistency for a belief base, which is more discriminative than MIV (C) . Then we present a family of weighted inconsistency measures based on the vectorial inconsistency measure, which allow us to capture the inconsistency for a belief base in terms of a single numerical value as usual. We also show that each of the two kinds of revised inconsistency measures can be considered as a particular Shapley Inconsistency Value, and can be axiomatically characterized by the corresponding revised axioms presented in this paper.Computer Science, Artificial IntelligenceComputer Science, Information SystemsSCI(E)7ARTICLE185-1142