home.md

@@ -14,34 +14,42 @@ Our tool implements the verification capabilities proposed by Smit et al. (2017)
 
 ## Identical rules verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.20.06](uploads/485fba45b77b64b8b546925b45a413e3/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.20.06.png)
+
 In this table, identical rules can be identified, e.g. rules 1 and 3, or rules 4 and 5.
 
 ## Equivalent rules verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.26.11](uploads/9fbe6e28c1fc84167bcf65f9734b66fd/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.26.11.png)
+
 In this table, there are equivalent rules. This can result e.g. from different modellers with different understandings or terminology for the same domain of interest. For example, "bill" and "invoice" are synonyms, thus the rules are equivalent due to the same implied semantics. Furthermore, rules 4 and 5, or rules 6 and 7 are equivalent and should be merged.
 
 ## Subsumed rules verification
 
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.22.23](uploads/314f0799dad8dfe21911728cfbde5af0/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.22.23.png)
+
 In this table, rule 3 is subsumed by rule 4.
 
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.23.34](uploads/d076155c4b26dfc352df112456e719c9/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.23.34.png)
+
 In this table, rule 2 subsumes rules 3-7.
 
 ## Interdeterminism verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.32.45](uploads/462dedf10e3c00a421843aecc3c4ddf4/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.32.45.png)
+
 Interdeterminism can occur if multiple rules with different or contradictory conclusions could be activated together. In the example, there are overlapping or subsumed rule conditions (i.e. an input of 7 would trigger all 3 marked rules). Yet, the rules have different conclusions, thus it is unclear what should be inferred. This is cases such as in the example, where the outputs are logically inconsistent (the output for creditworthiness is true and false at the same time, so no inference can be made)
 
 ## Partial reduction verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.34.36](uploads/280ff3bfafcd520e5ce12ffe72529de3/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.34.36.png)
+
 The highlighted rules could be combined into a new range (10-30), which would simplify the DMN decision table.
 
 ## Overlapping condition verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.36.00](uploads/79fc363df779ef0a4fbb78f9e6eb0943/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.36.00.png)
+
 In the example, the conditions of rules 2 and 3 are overlapping, i.e. an input of 16 would trigger both rules. This can lead to highly confusing rule tables, as it can not intuitively be seen which rules will be activated together. C.f. also a recent work on this topic by Batoulis and Weske (2018).
 
 ## Missing rules verification
 ![Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.39.02](uploads/b988ac372fe81df9006534e240143550/Bildschirmfoto_2019-06-02_um_16.39.02.png)
+
 In the example, there is no rule defined for the input of x<2, or x=5. This could yield limitations to decision-making, if such input is encountered.