A Reasoning Platform Based on the MI Shapley Inconsistency Value

In this paper we show how to build a reasoning platform using an inconsistency value. The idea is to use an inconsistency value for evaluating how much each formula of the belief base is responsible of the inconsistency of the base. Then this evaluation allows us to obtain a stratification (total pre-order) of the base, that can be used as the preferential input for different reasoning tasks, such as inference, belief revision, or conciliation. We show that the obtained operators are interesting and have good logical properties. We use as inconsistency value, the MI Shapley inconsistency value, that is known to have good properties, and that can be computed from minimal inconsistent subsets. We developed a java-based platform, that use the Sat4j library for computing the minimal inconsistent subsets, and that allows to have an effective way to compute the MI Shapley inconsistent subsets. We implemented also several inference, revision and conciliation methods, that use this inconsistency value. So this provides a complete reasoning platform, that can be used for instance for academic purposes.

[1]  Éric Grégoire,et al.  Using local search to find MSSes and MUSes , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  SATEN: An Object-Oriented Web-Based Revision and Extraction Engine , 2000, ArXiv.

[3]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A Textbook Of Belief Dynamics , 1999 .

[4]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Some Syntactic Approaches to the Handling of Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Comparative Study Part 1: The Flat Case , 1997, Stud Logica.

[5]  Éric Grégoire,et al.  Tracking MUSes and Strict Inconsistent Covers , 2006, 2006 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design.

[6]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  A Scalable Algorithm for Minimal Unsatisfiable Core Extraction , 2006, SAT.

[7]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A consistency-based approach for belief change , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Inês Lynce,et al.  Towards efficient MUS extraction , 2012, AI Commun..

[9]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[10]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[11]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  On the measure of conflicts: Shapley Inconsistency Values , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging information under constraints: a qualitative framework , 2007 .

[14]  Peter Z. Revesz,et al.  On the Semantics of Arbitration , 1997, Int. J. Algebra Comput..

[15]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

[17]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Approaches to Measuring Inconsistent Information , 2005, Inconsistency Tolerance.

[18]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  Inconsistency Tolerance , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Belief base merging as a game , 2004, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[21]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[22]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Using the Davis and Putnam Procedure for an Efficient Computation of Preferred Models , 1996, ECAI.

[23]  Armin Biere,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2006, 9th International Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, August 12-15, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, SAT.

[24]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (vol. 1) , 1993 .

[25]  W. Salmon,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1991 .

[26]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Logic Based Merging , 2011, J. Philos. Log..

[27]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  Algorithms for Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets of Constraints , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[28]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[29]  Renato Bruni,et al.  On exact selection of minimally unsatisfiable subformulae , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[30]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  COBA 2.0: A Consistency-Based Belief Change System , 2007, ECSQARU.

[31]  Daniel Le Berre,et al.  The Sat4j library, release 2.2 , 2010, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[32]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[33]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics , 1990, Artif. Intell..