Kedian Mu

A Syntax-based approach to measuring the degree of inconsistency for belief bases

Measuring the degree of inconsistency of a belief base is an important issue in many real-world applications. It has been increasingly recognized that deriving syntax sensitive inconsistency measures for a belief base from its minimal inconsistent subsets is a natural way forward. Most of the current proposals along this line do not take the impact of the size of each minimal inconsistent subset into account. However, as illustrated by the well-known Lottery Paradox, as the size of a minimal inconsistent subset increases, the degree of its inconsistency decreases. Another lack in current studies in this area is about the role of free formulas of a belief base in measuring the degree of inconsistency. This has not yet been characterized well. Adding free formulas to a belief base can enlarge the set of consistent subsets of that base. However, consistent subsets of a belief base also have an impact on the syntax sensitive normalized measures of the degree of inconsistency, the reason for this is that each consistent subset can be considered as a distinctive plausible perspective reflected by that belief base, whilst each minimal inconsistent subset projects a distinctive view of the inconsistency. To address these two issues, we propose a normalized framework for measuring the degree of inconsistency of a belief base which unifies the impact of both consistent subsets and minimal inconsistent subsets. We also show that this normalized framework satisfies all the properties deemed necessary by common consent to characterize an intuitively satisfactory measure of the degree of inconsistency for belief bases. Finally, we use a simple but explanatory example in requirements engineering to illustrate the application of the normalized framework.

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 MIVC, 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 MIVC. 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.

Measuring inconsistency in requirements specifications

In the field of requirements engineering, measuring inconsistency is crucial to effective inconsistency management. A practical measure must consider both the degree and significance of inconsistency in specification. The main contribution of this paper is providing an approach for measuring inconsistent specification in terms of the priority-based scoring vector, which integrates the measure of the degree of inconsistency with the measure of the significance of inconsistency. In detail, for each specification Δ that consists of a set of requirements statements, if L is a m-level priority set, we define a m-dimensional priority-based significance vector

Measuring the blame of each formula for inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases

\vec{V}

Measuring Inconsistency in a Network Intrusion Detection Rule Set Based on Snort

to measure the significance of the inconsistency in Δ. Furthermore, a priority-based scoring vector

Handling Inconsistency In Distributed Software Requirements Specifications Based On Prioritized Merging

\vec{S_p}

Responsibility for inconsistency

:

Handling non-canonical software requirements based on Annotated Predicate Calculus

\mathcal{P}(\Delta) \longrightarrow N^{m+1}

Approaches to measuring inconsistency for stratified knowledge bases

(Δ)→ Nm+1 has been defined to provide an ordering relation over specifications that describes which specification is “more essentially inconsistent than” others.

Measuring the significance of inconsistency in the Viewpoints framework

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.