Abstract
We consider an algorithmic approach for revising inconsistent data and restoring its consistency. This approach detects the “spoiled” part of the data (i.e., the set of assertions that cause inconsistency), deletes it from the knowledge-base, and then draws classical conclusions from the “recovered” information. The essence of this approach is its coherence with the original (possibly inconsistent) data: On one hand it is possible to draw classical conclusions from any data that is not related to the contradictory information, while on the other hand, the only inferences allowed by this approach are those that do not contradict any former conclusion. This method may therefore be used by systems that restore consistent information and are obliged to their resource of information. Common examples of this case are diagnostic procedures that analyse faulty components of malfunction devices, and database management systems that amalgamate distributed knowledgebases.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
O. Arieli, A. Avron. Four-valued diagnoses for stratified knowledge-bases. Proc. CSL’96, Selected Papers (D. Van-Dalen, M. Bezem, editors), Springer Verlag, LNCS No.1258, pages 1–17, 1997.
O. Arieli, A. Avron. A model theoretic approach to recover consistent data from inconsistent knowledge-bases. Journal of Automated Reasoning 22(3), pages 263–309, 1999.
N.D. Belnap. A useful four-valued logic. Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic (G. Epstein, J.M. Dunn, editors), Reidel Publishing Company, pages 7–37, 1977.
N.D. Belnap. How computer should think. Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy (G. Ryle, editor), Oriel Press, pages 30–56, 1977.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? Proc. IJCAI’95, pages 1449–1455, 1995.
D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Possibilistic logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, J. Robinson, editors), Oxford Science Publications, pages 439–513, 1994.
M. Fitting. Kleene’s three-valued logics and their children. Fundamenta Informaticae 20, pages 113–131, 1994.
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. Proc. of the 5th Logic Programming Symp. (R. Kowalski, K. Browen, editors) MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, pages 1070–1080, 1988.
M. Ginsberg. Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 30(1), pages 35–79, 1986.
S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(1-2), pages 167–207, 1990.
D. Makinson. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 3 (D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, J. Robinson, editors), Oxford Science Publishers, pages 35–110, 1994.
J. Pearl. Reasoning under uncertainty. Annual Review of Computer Science 4, pages 37–72, 1989.
G. Priest. Minimally Inconsistent LP. Studia Logica 50, pages 321–331, 1991.
V.S. Subrahmanian. Mechanical proof procedures for many valued lattice-based logic programming. Journal of Non-Classical Logic 7, pages 7–41, 1990.
G. Wagner. Vivid logic. Springer-Verlag, LNAI No.764, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arieli, O. (2000). An Algorithmic Approach to Recover Inconsistent Knowledge-Bases. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41131-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40006-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive