{"title":"Identifying roles of formulas in inconsistency under Priest's minimally inconsistent logic of paradox","authors":"Kedian Mu","doi":"10.1016/j.artint.2024.104199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>It has been increasingly recognized that identifying roles of formulas of a knowledge base in the inconsistency of that base can help us better look inside the inconsistency. However, there are few approaches to identifying such roles of formulas from a perspective of models in some paraconsistent logic, one of typical tools used to characterize inconsistency in semantics. In this paper, we characterize the role of each formula in the inconsistency arising in a knowledge base from informational as well as causal aspects in the framework of Priest's minimally inconsistent logic of paradox. At first, we identify the causal responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency based on the counterfactual dependence of the inconsistency on the formula under some contingency in semantics. Then we incorporate the change on semantic information in the framework of causal responsibility to develop the informational responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency to capture the contribution made by the formula for the inconsistent information. This incorporation makes the informational responsibility interpretable from the point of view of causality, and capable of catching the role of a formula in inconsistent information concisely. In addition, we propose notions of naive and quasi naive responsibilities as two auxiliaries to describe special relations between inconsistency and formulas in semantic sense. Some intuitive and interesting properties of the two kinds of responsibilities are also discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8434,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence","volume":"335 ","pages":"Article 104199"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370224001358","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
It has been increasingly recognized that identifying roles of formulas of a knowledge base in the inconsistency of that base can help us better look inside the inconsistency. However, there are few approaches to identifying such roles of formulas from a perspective of models in some paraconsistent logic, one of typical tools used to characterize inconsistency in semantics. In this paper, we characterize the role of each formula in the inconsistency arising in a knowledge base from informational as well as causal aspects in the framework of Priest's minimally inconsistent logic of paradox. At first, we identify the causal responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency based on the counterfactual dependence of the inconsistency on the formula under some contingency in semantics. Then we incorporate the change on semantic information in the framework of causal responsibility to develop the informational responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency to capture the contribution made by the formula for the inconsistent information. This incorporation makes the informational responsibility interpretable from the point of view of causality, and capable of catching the role of a formula in inconsistent information concisely. In addition, we propose notions of naive and quasi naive responsibilities as two auxiliaries to describe special relations between inconsistency and formulas in semantic sense. Some intuitive and interesting properties of the two kinds of responsibilities are also discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Artificial Intelligence (AIJ) welcomes papers covering a broad spectrum of AI topics, including cognition, automated reasoning, computer vision, machine learning, and more. Papers should demonstrate advancements in AI and propose innovative approaches to AI problems. Additionally, the journal accepts papers describing AI applications, focusing on how new methods enhance performance rather than reiterating conventional approaches. In addition to regular papers, AIJ also accepts Research Notes, Research Field Reviews, Position Papers, Book Reviews, and summary papers on AI challenges and competitions.