A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets

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 MIVC, 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 MIVC. 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.

Handling Inconsistency In Distributed Software Requirements Specifications Based On Prioritized Merging

Developing a desirable framework for handling inconsistencies in software requirements specifications is a challenging problem. It has been widely recognized that the relative priority of requirements can help developers to make some necessary trade-off decisions for resolving con- flicts. However, for most distributed development such as viewpoints-based approaches, different stakeholders may assign different levels of priority to the same shared requirements statement from their own perspectives. The disagreement in the local levels of priority assigned to the same shared requirements statement often puts developers into a dilemma during the inconsistency handling process. The main contribution of this paper is to present a prioritized merging-based framework for handling inconsistency in distributed software requirements specifications. Given a set of distributed inconsistent requirements collections with the local prioritization, we first construct a requirements specification with a prioritization from an overall perspective. We provide two approaches to constructing a requirements specification with the global prioritization, including a merging-based construction and a priority vector-based construction. Following this, we derive proposals for handling inconsistencies from the globally prioritized requirements specification in terms of prioritized merging. Moreover, from the overall perspective, these proposals may be viewed as the most appropriate to modifying the given inconsistent requirements specification in the sense of the ordering relation over all the consistent subsets of the requirements specification. Finally, we consider applying negotiation-based techniques to viewpoints so as to identify an acceptable common proposal from these proposals.

Measuring inconsistency in network intrusion rules

In this preliminary case study, we investigate how inconsistency in a network intrusion detection rule set can be measured. To achieve this, we first examine the structure of these rules which incorporate regular expression (Regex) pattern matching. We then identify primitive elements in these rules in order to translate the rules into their (equivalent) logical forms and to establish connections between them. Additional rules from background knowledge are also introduced to make the correlations among rules more explicit. Finally, we measure the degree of inconsistency in formulae of such a rule set (using the Scoring function, Shapley inconsistency values and Blame measure for prioritized knowledge) and compare the informativeness of these measures. We conclude that such measures are useful for the network intrusion domain assuming that incorporating domain knowledge for correlation of rules is feasible.

A Syntax-based approach to measuring the degree of inconsistency for belief bases

Measuring the degree of inconsistency of a belief base is an important issue in many real world applications. It has been increasingly recognized that deriving syntax sensitive inconsistency measures for a belief base from its minimal inconsistent subsets is a natural way forward. Most of the current proposals along this line do not take the impact of the size of each minimal inconsistent subset into account. However, as illustrated by the well-known Lottery Paradox, as the size of a minimal inconsistent subset increases, the degree of its inconsistency decreases. Another lack in current studies in this area is about the role of free formulas of a belief base in measuring the degree of inconsistency. This has not yet been characterized well. Adding free formulas to a belief base can enlarge the set of consistent subsets of that base. However, consistent subsets of a belief base also have an impact on the syntax sensitive normalized measures of the degree of inconsistency, the reason for this is that each consistent subset can be considered as a distinctive plausible perspective reflected by that belief base,whilst eachminimal inconsistent subset projects a distinctive viewof the inconsistency. To address these two issues,we propose a normalized framework formeasuring the degree of inconsistency of a belief base which unifies the impact of both consistent subsets and minimal inconsistent subsets. We also show that this normalized framework satisfies all the properties deemed necessary by common consent to characterize an intuitively satisfactory measure of the degree of inconsistency for belief bases. Finally, we use a simple but explanatory example in equirements engineering to illustrate the application of the normalized framework.

Measuring Inconsistency in a Network Intrusion Detection Rule Set Based on Snort

In this preliminary study, we investigate how inconsistency in a network intrusion detection rule set can be measured. To achieve this, we first examine the structure of these rules which are based on Snort and incorporate regular expression (Regex) pattern matching. We then identify primitive elements in these rules in order to translate the rules into their (equivalent) logical forms and to establish connections between them. Additional rules from background knowledge are also introduced to make the correlations among rules more explicit. We measure the degree of inconsistency in formulae of such a rule set (using the Scoring function, Shapley inconsistency values and Blame measure for prioritized knowledge) and compare the informativeness of these measures. Finally, we propose a new measure of inconsistency for prioritized knowledge which incorporates the normalized number of atoms in a language involved in inconsistency to provide a deeper inspection of inconsistent formulae. We conclude that such measures are useful for the network intrusion domain assuming that introducing expert knowledge for correlation of rules is feasible.

From inconsistency handling to non-canonical requirements management: A logical perspective

As a class of defects in software requirements specification, inconsistency has been widely studied in both requirements engineering and software engineering. It has been increasingly recognized that maintaining consistency alone often results in some other types of non-canonical requirements, including incompleteness of a requirements specification, vague requirements statements, and redundant requirements statements. It is therefore desirable for inconsistency handling to take into account the related non-canonical requirements in requirements engineering. To address this issue, we propose an intuitive generalization of logical techniques for handling inconsistency to those that are suitable for managing non-canonical requirements, which deals with incompleteness and redundancy, in addition to inconsistency. We first argue that measuring non-canonical requirements plays a crucial role in handling them effectively. We then present a measure-driven logic framework for managing non-canonical requirements. The framework consists of five main parts, identifying non-canonical requirements, measuring them, generating candidate proposals for handling them, choosing commonly acceptable proposals, and revising them according to the chosen proposals. This generalization can be considered as an attempt to handle non-canonical requirements along with logic-based inconsistency handling in requirements engineering.

Measuring the significance of inconsistency in the Viewpoints framework

Measuring inconsistency is crucial to effective inconsistency management in software development. A complete measurement of inconsistency should focus on not only the degree but also the significance of inconsistency. However, most of the approaches available only take the degree of inconsistency into account. The significance of inconsistency has not yet been given much needed consideration. This paper presents an approach for measuring the significance of inconsistency arising from different viewpoints in the Viewpoints framework. We call an individual set of requirements belonging to different viewpoints a combined requirements collection in this paper. We argue that the
significance of inconsistency arising in a combined requirements collection is closely associated with global priority levels of requirements involved in the inconsistency. Here we assume that the global priority level of an individual requirement captures the relative importance of every viewpoint including this requirement as well as the local priority level of the requirement within the viewpoint. Then we use the synthesis of global priority levels of all the requirements in a combined collection to measure the significance of the
collection. Following this, we present a scoring matrix function to measure the significance of inconsistency in an inconsistent combined requirements collection, which describes the contribution made by each subset of the requirements collection to the significance of the set of requirements involved in the inconsistency. An ordering relationship between inconsistencies of two combined requirements collections, termed more significant than, is also presented by comparing their significance scoring matrix functions. Finally, these techniques were implemented in a prototype tool called IncMeasurer, which we developed as a proof of concept.

Computational approaches to finding and measuring inconsistency in arbitrary knowledge bases

There is extensive theoretical work on measures of inconsistency for arbitrary formulae in knowledge bases. Many of these are defined in terms of the set of minimal inconsistent subsets (MISes) of the base. However, few have been implemented or experimentally evaluated to support their viability, since computing all MISes is intractable in the worst case. Fortunately, recent work on a related problem of minimal unsatisfiable sets of clauses (MUSes) offers a viable solution in many cases. In this paper, we begin by drawing connections between MISes and MUSes through algorithms based on a MUS generalization approach and a new optimized MUS transformation approach to finding MISes. We implement these algorithms, along with a selection of existing measures for flat and stratified knowledge bases, in a tool called mimus. We then carry out an extensive experimental evaluation of mimus using randomly generated arbitrary knowledge bases. We conclude that these measures are viable for many large and complex random instances. Moreover, they represent a practical and intuitive tool for inconsistency handling.

A Characteristic Function Approach to Inconsistency Measures for Knowledge Bases.

Knowledge is an important component in many intelligent systems.
Since items of knowledge in a knowledge base can be conflicting, especially if
there are multiple sources contributing to the knowledge in this base, significant
research efforts have been made on developing inconsistency measures for
knowledge bases and on developing merging approaches. Most of these efforts
start with flat knowledge bases. However, in many real-world applications, items
of knowledge are not perceived with equal importance, rather, weights (which
can be used to indicate the importance or priority) are associated with items of
knowledge. Therefore, measuring the inconsistency of a knowledge base with
weighted formulae as well as their merging is an important but difficult task. In
this paper, we derive a numerical characteristic function from each knowledge
base with weighted formulae, based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence.
Using these functions, we are able to measure the inconsistency of the knowledge
base in a convenient and rational way, and are able to merge multiple knowledge
bases with weighted formulae, even if knowledge in these bases may be
inconsistent. Furthermore, by examining whether multiple knowledge bases are
dependent or independent, they can be combined in different ways using their
characteristic functions, which cannot be handled (or at least have never been
considered) in classic knowledge based merging approaches in the literature.