Advertisement

A Possibilistic Analysis of Inconsistency

  • Didier Dubois
  • Henri PradeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)

Abstract

Central in standard possibilistic logic (where propositional logic formulas are associated with lower bounds of their necessity measures), is the notion of inconsistency level of a possibilistic logic base. Formulas whose level is strictly above this inconsistency level constitute a sub-base free of any inconsistency. Some extensions, based on the notions of paraconsistent completion of a possibilistic logic base, and of safely supported formulas, have been proposed for handling formulas below the level of inconsistency. In this paper we further explore these ideas, and show the interest of considering the minimal inconsistent subsets in this setting. Lines for further research are also outlined.

Keywords

Inference Rule Propositional Formula Possibilistic Logic Resolution Rule Certainty Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J.M., Epstein, G. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, pp. 7–37. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge base. In: Proceeding of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, 9–11 July, pp. 411–419. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Reasoning in inconsistent stratified knowledge bases. In: Proceeding of the 26 IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL 1996), Santiago de Compostela, Spain, pp. 184–189, 29–31 May 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: a comparative study. Flat Case Stud. Logica 58, 17–45 (1997)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: An overview of inconsistency-tolerant inferences in prioritized knowledge bases. In: Dubois, D., Prade, H., Klement, E.P. (eds.) Fuzzy Sets, Logic and Reasoning about Knowledge, pp. 395–417. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A. (eds.): Reasoning with Actual and Potential Contradictions:Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems., vol. 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, D.: On ignorance and contradiction considered as truth-values. Logic J. IGPL 16(2), 195–216 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A., Nute, D. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 439–513. Oxford Sci. Publ, Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Handling uncertainty, context, vague predicates, and partial inconsistency in possibilistic logic. In: Driankov, D., L. Ralescu, A., Eklund, P. (eds.) IJCAI-WS 1991. LNCS, vol. 833, pp. 45–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1994) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: Shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell. 174(14), 1007–1026 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jabbour, S., Ma, Y., Raddaoui, B., Sais, L.: Prime implicates based inconsistency characterization. In: Proceeding of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2014), pp. 1037–1038. IOS Press, Prague (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lafage, C., Lang, J., Sabbadin, R.: A logic of supporters. In: Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.) Information, Uncertainty and Fusion, pp. 381–392. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Theor. Decis. 1, 179–219 (1970)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRIT–CNRSToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations