Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aumann R, Hart S (2002) Handbook of game theory with economic applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2025–2054

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagheri E, Ghorbani A (2010) The analysis and management of non-canonical requirement specifications through a belief integration game. Knowl Inf Syst 22(1): 27–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrangans-Martinez B, Pazos-Arias J, Fernandez-Vilas A (2008) On the interplay between inconsistency and incompleteness in multi-perspective requirements specifications. Inf Softw Technol 50(4): 296–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertossi L, Hunter A, Schaub T (2004) Introduction to inconsistency tolerance. In: Bertossi L, Hunter A, Schaub T (eds) Inconsistency tolerance, lecture notes in computer science vol. 3300. Springer, New York, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cristani M, Burato E (2009) Approximate solutions of moral dilemmas in multiple agent system. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2): 157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan H, Zaiane O, Foss A, Wu J (2009) Resolution-based outlier factor: detecting the top-n most outlying data points in engineering data. Knowl Inf Syst 19(1): 31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grant J, Hunter A (2006) Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J Intell Inf Syst 27(2): 159–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grant J, Hunter A (2008) Analysing inconsistent first-order knowledge bases. Artif Intell 172(8–9): 1064–1093

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Grant J (1978) Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame J Formal Log 19(3): 435–444

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunter A, Konieczny S (2004) Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: Bertossi L, Hunter A, Schaub T (eds) Inconsistency tolerance, lecture notes in computer science, vol. 3300. Springer, New York, pp 189–234

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hunter A, Konieczny S (2006) Shapley inconsistency values. In: Doherty P, Mylopoulos J, Welty C (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the 10th international conference(KR06). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, US, pp 249–259

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hunter A, Konieczny S (2008) Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the eleventh international conference(KR08). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, US, pp 358–366

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunter A (2002) Measuring inconsistency in knowledge via quasi-classical models. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI2002), AAAI Press, Menlo Park, US, pp 68–73

  14. Hunter A (2004) Logical comparison of inconsistent perspectives usingscoring functions. Knowl Inf Syst 6(5): 528–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knight K (2002) Measuring inconsistency. J Philos Log 31(1): 77–98

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Knight K (2003) Two information measures for inconsistent sets. J Log Lang Inf 12(2): 227–248

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Konieczny S, Lang J, Marquis P (2003) Quantifying information and contradiction in propositional logic through epistemic actions. In: Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intellignce (IJCAI2003), pp 106–111

  18. Kyburg E (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, pp 197–197

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ma Y, Qi G, Hitzler P, Lin Z (2007) Measuring inconssitency for description logics based on paraconsistent semantics. In: Mellouli K (eds) Proceedings of European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning about uncertainty 2007, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4724. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 30–41

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mu K, Jin Z, Lu R, Liu W(2005) Measuring inconsistency in requirements specifications. In: Godo L (ed) Proceedings of European conference symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning about uncertainty 2005, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 3571, Springer, pp 440–451

  21. Mu K, Jin Z, Lu R, Peng Y (2007) Handling non-canonical software requirements based on annotated predicate calculus. Knowl Inf Syst 11(1): 85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mu K, Jin Z, Zowghi D (2008) A priority-based negotiations approach for handling inconsistency in multiperspective software requirements. J Syst Sci Complex 21(4): 574–596

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Paris J, Vencovska A (1998) Proof systems for probabilistic uncertain reasoning. J Symbolic Log 63(3): 1007–1039

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Paris J (1994) The uncertain reasoner’s companion: a mathematical perspective. In Cambridge Tracts in Theoret. Comput. Sci. 39, Cambridge University Press.

  25. Qi G, Liu W, Bell D (2005) Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized belief bases. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence(IJCAI05), pp 552–557

  26. Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first priniciples. Artif Intell 32(1): 57–95

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Resconi G, Kovalerchuk B (2009) Agents’ model of uncertainty. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2): 213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shapley L (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn H, Tucker M (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol. II (Annals of Mathematical Studies vol. 28). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307– 317

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, 100871, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Kedian Mu

  2. School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK

    Weiru Liu

  3. Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of Education, School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University, 100871, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Zhi Jin

Authors
  1. Kedian Mu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Weiru Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kedian Mu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mu, K., Liu, W. & Jin, Z. A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. Knowl Inf Syst 27, 85–114 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0295-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0295-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation