Random Logic Programs: Linear Model

This paper proposes a model, the linear model, for randomly generating logic programs with low density of rules and investigates statistical properties of such random logic programs. It is mathematically shown that the average number of answer sets for a random program converges to a constant when the number of atoms approaches infinity. Several experimental results are also reported, which justify the suitability of the linear model. It is also experimentally shown that, under this model, the size distribution of answer sets for random programs tends to a normal distribution when the number of atoms is sufficiently large.Comment: 33 pages. To appear in: Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

Preferential Multi-Context Systems

Multi-context systems (MCS) presented by Brewka and Eiter can be considered as a promising way to interlink decentralized and heterogeneous knowledge contexts. In this paper, we propose preferential multi-context systems (PMCS), which provide a framework for incorporating a total preorder relation over contexts in a multi-context system. In a given PMCS, its contexts are divided into several parts according to the total preorder relation over them, moreover, only information flows from a context to ones of the same part or less preferred parts are allowed to occur. As such, the first $l$ preferred parts of an PMCS always fully capture the information exchange between contexts of these parts, and then compose another meaningful PMCS, termed the $l$-section of that PMCS. We generalize the equilibrium semantics for an MCS to the (maximal) $l_{\leq}$-equilibrium which represents belief states at least acceptable for the $l$-section of an PMCS. We also investigate inconsistency analysis in PMCS and related computational complexity issues

Measuring inconsistency in a network intrusion detection rule set based on Snort

In this preliminary study, we investigate how inconsistency in a network intrusion detection rule set can be measured. To achieve this, we first examine the structure of these rules which are based on Snort and incorporate regular expression (Regex) pattern matching. We then identify primitive elements in these rules in order to translate the rules into their (equivalent) logical forms and to establish connections between them. Additional rules from background knowledge are also introduced to make the correlations among rules more explicit. We measure the degree of inconsistency in formulae of such a rule set (using the Scoring function, Shapley inconsistency values and Blame measure for prioritized knowledge) and compare the *This is a revised and significantly extended version of [1]

An Approach to Generating Proposals for Handling Inconsistent Software Requirements

Inconsistency has been considered as one of the main classes of defects in software requirements specification. Various logic-based techniques have been proposed to manage inconsistencies in requirements engineering. However, identifying an appropriate proposal for resolving inconsistencies in software requirements is still a challenging problem. In this paper, we propose a logic-based approach to generating appropriate proposals for handling inconsistency in software requirements. Informally speaking, given an inconsistent requirements specification, we identify which requirements should be given priority to be changed for resolving the inconsistency in that specification, by balancing the blame of each requirement for the inconsistency against its value for that requirements specification. We follow the viewpoint that minimal inconsistent subsets of a set of formulas are the purest forms of inconsistencies in that set. According to this viewpoint, a potential proposal for resolving inconsistencies can be described by a possible combination of some requirements to be changed that can eliminate minimal inconsistent subsets. Then we propose a method of evaluating the degree of disputability of each requirement involved in the inconsistency in a requirements specification. Finally, we provide an algorithm of generating appropriate proposals for resolving the inconsistency in a requirements specification based on the degree of disputability of requirements.Computer Science, Artificial IntelligenceComputer Science, Information SystemsLogicEICPCI-S(ISTP)

Measuring the blame of each formula for inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases.

It is increasingly recognized that identifying the degree of blame or responsibility of each formula for inconsistency of a knowledge base (i.e. a set of formulas) is useful for making rational decisions to resolve inconsistency in that knowledge base. Most current techniques for measuring the blame of each formula with regard to an inconsistent knowledge base focus on classical knowledge bases only. Proposals for measuring the blames of formulas with regard to an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base have not yet been given much consideration. However, the notion of priority is important in inconsistency-tolerant reasoning. This article investigates this issue and presents a family of measurements for the degree of blame of each formula in an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base by using the minimal inconsistent subsets of that knowledge base. First of all, we present a set of intuitive postulates as general criteria to characterize rational measurements for the blames of formulas of an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base. Then we present a family of measurements for the blame of each formula in an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base under the guidance of the principle of proportionality, one of the intuitive postulates. We also demonstrate that each of these measurements possesses the properties that it ought to have. Finally, we use a simple but explanatory example in requirements engineering to illustrate the application of these measurements. Compared to the related works, the postulates presented in this article consider the special characteristics of minimal inconsistent subsets as well as the priority levels of formulas. This makes them more appropriate to characterizing the inconsistency measures defined from minimal inconsistent subsets for prioritized knowledge bases as well as classical knowledge bases. Correspondingly, the measures guided by these postulates can intuitively capture the inconsistency for prioritized knowledge bases.Computer Science, Theory & MethodsLogicA&HCISCI(E)EI0ARTICLE3481-5162

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