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

Consistency-Based Reliability Assessment

International audienceThis paper addresses the question of assessing the relative reliability of unknown information sources. We propose to consider a phase during which the consistency of information they report is analysed, whether it is the consistency of each single report, or the consistency of a report w.r.t. some trusted knowledge or the consistency of different reports together. We adopt an axiomatic approach by first giving postulates which characterize how the resulting reliability preorder should be; then we define a family of operators for building this preorder and demonstrate that it satisfies the proposed postulates

Consistency-Based Reliability Assessment

This paper addresses the question of assessing the relative reliability of unknown information sources. We propose to consider a phase during which the consistency of information they report is analysed, whether it is the consistency of each single report, or the consistency of a report w.r.t. some trusted knowledge or the consistency of different reports together. We adopt an axiomatic approach by first giving postulates which characterize how the resulting reliability preorder should be; then we define a family of operators for building this preorder and demonstrate that it satisfies the proposed postulates

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

Analysing inconsistent information using distance-based measures

There have been a number of proposals for measuring inconsistency in a knowledgebase (i.e. a set of logical formulae). These include measures that consider the minimally inconsistent subsets of the knowledgebase, and measures that consider the paraconsistent models (3 or 4 valued models) of the knowledgebase. In this paper, we present a new approach that considers the amount by which each formula has to be weakened in order for the knowledgebase to be consistent. This approach is based on ideas of knowledge merging by Konienczny and Pino-Perez. We show that this approach gives us measures that are different from existing measures, that have desirable properties, and that can take the significance of inconsistencies into account. The latter is useful when we want to differentiate between inconsistencies that have minor significance from inconsistencies that have major significance. We also show how our measures are potentially useful in applications such as evaluating violations of integrity constraints in databases and for deciding how to act on inconsistency

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

Dimensional Inconsistency Measures and Postulates in Spatio-Temporal Databases

The problem of managing spatio-temporal data arises in many applications, such as location-based services, environmental monitoring, geographic information systems, and many others. Often spatio-temporal data arising from such applications turn out to be inconsistent, i.e., representing an impossible situation in the real world. Though several inconsistency measures have been proposed to quantify in a principled way inconsistency in propositional knowledge bases, little effort has been done so far on inconsistency measures tailored for the spatio-temporal setting.In this paper, we define and investigate new measures that are particularly suitable for dealing with inconsistent spatio-temporal information, because they explicitly take into account the spatial and temporal dimensions, as well as the dimension concerning the identifiers of the monitored objects. Specifically, we first define natural measures that look at individual dimensions (time, space, and objects), and then propose measures based on the notion of a repair. We then analyze their behavior w.r.t. common postulates defined for classical propositional knowledge bases, and find that the latter are not suitable for spatio-temporal databases, in that the proposed inconsistency measures do not often satisfy them. In light of this, we argue that also postulates should explicitly take into account the spatial, temporal, and object dimensions and thus define ?dimension-aware? counterparts of common postulates, which are indeed often satisfied by the new inconsistency measures. Finally, we study the complexity of the proposed inconsistency measures.Fil: Grant, John. Towson University; Estados UnidosFil: Martinez, Maria Vanina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Computación. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Molinaro, Cristian. Università della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Parisi, Francesco. Università della Calabria; Itali

Localising iceberg inconsistencies

In artificial intelligence, it is important to handle and analyse inconsistency in knowledge bases. Inconsistent pieces of information suggest questions like “where is the inconsistency?” and “how severe is it?”. Inconsistency measures have been proposed to tackle the latter issue, but the former seems underdeveloped and is the focus of this paper. Minimal inconsistent sets have been the main tool to localise inconsistency, but we argue that they are like the exposed part of an iceberg, failing to capture contradictions hidden under the water. Using classical propositional logic, we develop methods to characterise when a formula is contributing to the inconsistency in a knowledge base and when a set of formulas can be regarded as a primitive conflict. To achieve this, we employ an abstract consequence operation to “look beneath the water level”, generalising the minimal inconsistent set concept and the related free formula notion. We apply the framework presented to the problem of measuring inconsistency in knowledge bases, putting forward relaxed forms for two debatable postulates for inconsistency measures. Finally, we discuss the computational complexity issues related to the introduced concepts

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