Semantic inconsistency measures using 3-valued logics

AI systems often need to deal with inconsistencies. One way of getting information about inconsistencies is by measuring the amount of information in the knowledgebase. In the past 20 years numerous inconsistency measures have been proposed. Many of these measures are syntactic measures, that is, they are based in some way on the minimal inconsistent subsets of the knowledgebase. Very little attention has been given to semantic inconsistency measures, that is, ones that are based on the models of the knowledgebase where the notion of a model is generalized to allow an atom to be assigned a truth value that denotes contradiction. In fact, only one nontrivial semantic inconsistency measure, the contension measure, has been in wide use. The purpose of this paper is to define a class of semantic inconsistency measures based on 3-valued logics. First, we show which 3-valued logics are useful for this purpose. Then we show that the class of semantic inconsistency measures can be developed using a graphical framework similar to the way that syntactic inconsistency measures have been studied. We give several examples of semantic inconsistency measures and show how they apply to three useful 3-valued logics. We also investigate the properties of these inconsistency measures and show their computation for several knowledgebases

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

Understanding Inconsistency -- A Contribution to the Field of Non-monotonic Reasoning

Conflicting information in an agent's knowledge base may lead to a semantical defect, that is, a situation where it is impossible to draw any plausible conclusion. Finding out the reasons for the observed inconsistency and restoring consistency in a certain minimal way are frequently occurring issues in the research area of knowledge representation and reasoning. In a seminal paper Raymond Reiter proves a duality between maximal consistent subsets of a propositional knowledge base and minimal hitting sets of each minimal conflict -- the famous hitting set duality. We extend Reiter's result to arbitrary non-monotonic logics. To this end, we develop a refined notion of inconsistency, called strong inconsistency. We show that minimal strongly inconsistent subsets play a similar role as minimal inconsistent subsets in propositional logic. In particular, the duality between hitting sets of minimal inconsistent subsets and maximal consistent subsets generalizes to arbitrary logics if the stronger notion of inconsistency is used. We cover various notions of repairs and characterize them using analogous hitting set dualities. Our analysis also includes an investigation of structural properties of knowledge bases with respect to our notions. Minimal inconsistent subsets of knowledge bases in monotonic logics play an important role when investigating the reasons for conflicts and trying to handle them, but also for inconsistency measurement. Our notion of strong inconsistency thus allows us to extend existing results to non-monotonic logics. While measuring inconsistency in propositional logic has been investigated for some time now, taking the non-monotony into account poses new challenges. In order to tackle them, we focus on the structure of minimal strongly inconsistent subsets of a knowledge base. We propose measures based on this notion and investigate their behavior in a non-monotonic setting by revisiting existing rationality postulates, and analyzing the compliance of the proposed measures with these postulates. We provide a series of first results in the context of inconsistency in abstract argumentation theory regarding the two most important reasoning modes, namely credulous as well as skeptical acceptance. Our analysis includes the following problems regarding minimal repairs: existence, verification, computation of one and characterization of all solutions. The latter will be tackled with our previously obtained duality results. Finally, we investigate the complexity of various related reasoning problems and compare our results to existing ones for monotonic logics

Quantifying Conflicts for Spatial and Temporal Information

International audienc