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.

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.

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 the blame of each formula for inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases.

It is increasingly recognized that identifying the degree of blame or responsibility of each formula for inconsistency of a knowledge base (i.e. a set of formulas) is useful for making rational decisions to resolve inconsistency in that knowledge base. Most current techniques for measuring the blame of each formula with regard to an inconsistent knowledge base focus on classical knowledge bases only. Proposals for measuring the blames of formulas with regard to an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base have not yet been given much consideration. However, the notion of priority is important in inconsistency-tolerant reasoning. This article investigates this issue and presents a family of measurements for the degree of blame of each formula in an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base by using the minimal inconsistent subsets of that knowledge base. First of all, we present a set of intuitive postulates as general criteria to characterize rational measurements for the blames of formulas of an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base. Then we present a family of measurements for the blame of each formula in an inconsistent prioritized knowledge base under the guidance of the principle of proportionality, one of the intuitive postulates. We also demonstrate that each of these measurements possesses the properties that it ought to have. Finally, we use a simple but explanatory example in requirements engineering to illustrate the application of these measurements. Compared to the related works, the postulates presented in this article consider the special characteristics of minimal inconsistent subsets as well as the priority levels of formulas. This makes them more appropriate to characterizing the inconsistency measures defined from minimal inconsistent subsets for prioritized knowledge bases as well as classical knowledge bases. Correspondingly, the measures guided by these postulates can intuitively capture the inconsistency for prioritized knowledge bases.

Inconsistency of surrogate measures of alcohol-related accidents in South Australia

Three major changes in drink driving enforcement have occurred in South Australia since 1981. The effect of these changes on a number of surrogate measures of alcohol involvement in accidents were investigated. The surrogates included alcohol involvement of driver fatalities, and combinations of casualty, serious casualty, single vehicle and nighttime accidents. Data from previous studies were also cited. It was found that relationships between surrogate measures were inconsistent, and incompatible with assumptions about drink driving levels and related accidents. It was concluded that until these effects are understood the use of surrogate measures should be treated with caution.

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.

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.

The Queensland study of melanoma : Environmental and genetic associations (Q-MEGA); Study design, baseline characteristics, and repeatability of phenotype and sun exposure measures

Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is a major health issue in Queensland, Australia, which has the world’s highest incidence. Recent molecular and epidemiologic studies suggest that CMM arises through multiple etiological pathways involving gene-environment interactions. Understanding the potential mechanisms leading to CMM requires larger studies than those previously conducted. This article describes the design and baseline characteristics of Q-MEGA, the Queensland Study of Melanoma: Environmental and Genetic Associations, which followed up 4 population-based samples of CMM patients in Queensland, including children, adolescents, men aged over 50, and a large sample of adult cases and their families, including twins. Q-MEGA aims to investigate the roles of genetic and environmental factors, and their interaction, in the etiology of melanoma. Three thousand, four hundred and seventy-one participants took part in the follow-up study and were administered a computer-assisted telephone interview in 2002-2005. Updated data on environmental and phenotypic risk factors, and 2777 blood samples were collected from interviewed participants as well as a subset of relatives. This study provides a large and well-described population-based sample of CMM cases with follow-up data. Characteristics of the cases and repeatability of sun exposure and phenotype measures between the baseline and the follow-up surveys, from 6 to 17 years later, are also described.

Development of self-efficacy and expectancy measures for benzodiazepines

This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability and validity of a pair of self-report questionnaires to measure self-efficacy and expectancy associated with benzodiazepine use, the Benzodiazepine Refusal Self- Efficacy Questionnaire (BRSEQ) and the Benzodiazepine Expectancy Questionnaire (BEQ). Internal structure of the questionnaireswas established by principal component analysis (PCA) in a sample of 155 respondents, and verified by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in a second independent sample (n=139) using structural equation modeling. The PCA of the BRSEQ resulted in a 16-item, 4-factor scale, and the BEQ formed an 18-item, 2-factor scale. Both scales were internally reliable. CFA confirmed these internal structures and reduced the questionnaires to a 14-item self-efficacy scale and a 12-item expectancy scale. Lower self-efficacy and higher expectancy were moderately associated with higher scores on the SDS-B. The scales provide reliable measures for assessing benzodiazepine self-efficacy and expectancies. Future research will examine the utility of the scales in prospective prediction of benzodiazepine cessation.

Cognitive assessment in closed head injury : stability, validity and parallel forms for two neuropsychological measures of recovery

Investigated the psychometric properties of the original and alternate sets of the Trail Making Test (TMT) and the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT; A. L. Benton and D. Hamsher, 1978) in 50 orthopedic and 15 closed head injured (1 yr after trauma) patients (aged 15–59 yrs). Although the alternate forms of both measures proved to be stable and consistent with each other in both groups, only the parallel sets of TMT reliably discriminated the clinical group from controls. Practice effects in the head injured were significant only for Trail B of TMT. Factor analysis of the control group's results identified Verbal Knowledge as a major contributor to performance on COWAT, whereas TMT was more dependent on Rapid Visual Search and Visuomotor Sequencing.

Interestingness Measures for Multi-Level Association Rules

Association rule mining is one technique that is widely used when querying databases, especially those that are transactional, in order to obtain useful associations or correlations among sets of items. Much work has been done focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and redundancy. There has also been a focusing on the quality of rules from single level datasets with many interestingness measures proposed. However, with multi-level datasets now being common there is a lack of interestingness measures developed for multi-level and cross-level rules. Single level measures do not take into account the hierarchy found in a multi-level dataset. This leaves the Support-Confidence approach,which does not consider the hierarchy anyway and has other drawbacks, as one of the few measures available. In this paper we propose two approaches which measure multi-level association rules to help evaluate their interestingness. These measures of diversity and peculiarity can be used to help identify those rules from multi-level datasets that are potentially useful.