Advertisement

A Causality-Based Approach to Assessing Inconsistency for Multi-context Systems

  • Kedian MuEmail author
Conference paper
  • 829 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11775)

Abstract

Nonmonotonic multi-context systems provide a promising starting point to interlink heterogeneous and decentralized knowledge contexts effectively by modeling the information exchange among contexts instead of logics of contexts uniformly by virtue of bridge rules. Inconsistency handling has been considered as one of the important issues in multi-context systems, since inconsistency makes a multi-context system useless. In this paper, we propose an approach to assessing the responsibility of each bridge rule of a multi-context system for the inconsistency of that system, which helps us better understand roles of bridge rules involved in inconsistency from the point of view of causality.

Keywords

Inconsistency Multi-context systems Causality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61572002, No. 61170300, No. 61690201, and No. 61732001.

References

  1. 1.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Holte, R.C., Howe, A.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 22–26 July 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 385–390. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Managed multi-context systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2011, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 16–22 July 2011, pp. 786–791. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chockler, H., Halpern, J.Y.: Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22, 93–115 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P., Weinzierl, A.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in multi-context systems. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, KR 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 9–13 May 2010, pp. 329–339. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Schüller, P., Weinzierl, A.: Finding explanations of inconsistency in multi-context systems. Artif. Intell. 216, 233–274 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Preference-based inconsistency assessment in multi-context systems. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6341, pp. 143–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_14CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Weinzierl, A.: Preference-based diagnosis selection in multi-context systems. In: Eiter, T., Strass, H., Truszczyński, M., Woltran, S. (eds.) Advances in Knowledge Representation, Logic Programming, and Abstract Argumentation. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9060, pp. 233–248. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpern, J.Y., Pearl, J.: Causes and explanations: a structural-model approach. Part i: causes. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 56(4), 843–887 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference (KR 2008), pp. 358–366. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell. 174(14), 1007–1026 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Quantifying information and contradiction in propositional logic through test actions. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-03, Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 106–111. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mu, K.: Responsibility for inconsistency. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 61, 43–60 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mu, K.: Measuring inconsistency with constraints for propositional knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 259, 52–90 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mu, K., Wang, K., Wen, L.: Preferential multi-context systems. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 75, 39–56 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinzierl, A.: Comparing inconsistency resolutions in multi-context systems. In: Lassiter, D., Slavkovik, M. (eds.) ESSLLI 2010-2011. LNCS, vol. 7415, pp. 158–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31467-4_11CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinzierl, A.: Inconsistency management under preferences for multi-context systems and extensions. Dissertation, Faculty of Informatics, Vienna University of Technology, Austria, pp. 1–228 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematical SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations