Sum-based weighted belief base merging: From commensurable to incommensurable framework

Different methods have been proposed for merging multiple and potentially conflicting information. The merging process based on the so-called "Sum" operation offers a natural method for merging commensurable prioritized belief bases. Their popularity is due to the fact that they satisfy the majority property and they adopt a non-cautious attitude in deriving plausible conclusions.This paper analyzes the sum-based merging operator when sources to merge are incommensurable, namely when they do not share the same meaning of uncertainty scales. We first show that the obtained merging operator can be equivalently characterized either in terms of an infinite set of compatible scales, or by a well-known Pareto ordering on a set of propositional logic interpretations. We also study some restrictions on compatible scales based on different commensurability hypothesis.Moreover, this paper provides a postulate-based analysis of our merging operators. We show that when prioritized bases to merge are not commensurable, the majority property is no longer satisfied. We provide conditions to recovering it. We also analyze the fairness postulate, which represents the unique postulate unsatisfied when belief bases to merge are commensurable and we propose a new postulate of consensuality. This postulate states that the result of the merging process must be consensual. It obtains the consent of all parties by integrating a piece of belief of each base.Finally, in the incommensurable case, we show that the fairness and consensuality postulates are satisfied when all compatible scales are considered. However, we provide an impossibility theorem stating that there is no way to satisfy fairness and consensuality postulates if only one canonical compatible scale is considered. This paper investigated the sum-based merging operator for incommensurable ranked belief bases.We propose a characterization of the merging result in terms of compatible scales and in terms of a Pareto-ordering.We analyze in details different classes of compatible scales.We analyze the behavior of the different operators regarding postulates satisfaction and cautiousness properties.We propose a new suitable postulate of consensuality and an impossibility result.

[1]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model , 1995, IJCAI.

[2]  Thomas Andreas Meyer.  On the semantics of combination operations , 2001, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[3]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Merging Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics , 2009, ICLP.

[4]  H. Prade,et al.  Possibilistic logic , 1994 .

[5]  Jinxin Lin,et al.  Integration of Weighted Knowledge Bases , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[7]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The Art of Computer Programming, Volumes 1-3 Boxed Set , 1998 .

[8]  Odile Papini.  Iterated Revision Operations Stemming from the History of an Agent’s Observations , 2001 .

[9]  Wayne D. Blizard,et al.  Multiset Theory , 1989, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[10]  Weiru Liu,et al.  The Non-archimedean Polynomials and Merging of Stratified Knowledge Bases , 2009, ECSQARU.

[11]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Merging Stratified Knowledge Bases under Constraints , 2006, AAAI.

[12]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  An Analysis of Sum-Based Incommensurable Belief Base Merging , 2009, SUM.

[13]  Thomas Andreas Meyer,et al.  Social choice theory, belief merging, and strategy-proofness , 2006, Inf. Fusion.

[14]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches , 1991, KR.

[15]  J. Pearl,et al.  On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[16]  A. Sen,et al.  Social Choice Theory , 1980 .

[17]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Arbitration: A Commutative Operator for Belief Revision , 1995, WOCFAI.

[18]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  Max-based Prioritized Information Fusion without Commensurability , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  What does a Conditional Knowledge Base Entail? , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  The Strategy-Proofness Landscape of Merging , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Merging First-Order Knowledge Using Dilation Operators , 2008, FoIKS.

[22]  Julien Hué,et al.  Merging Belief Bases Represented by Logic Programs , 2009, ECSQARU.

[23]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[25]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems - networks of plausible inference , 1991, Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[26]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Distance Based Merging: A General Framework and some Complexity Results , 2002, KR.

[27]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[28]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Conflict-Based Merging Operators , 2008, KR.

[29]  David Thomas,et al.  The Art in Computer Programming , 2001 .

[30]  K. Arrow,et al.  Handbook of Mathematical Economics. Vol. 2. , 1984 .

[31]  K. Binmore.  Interpersonal Comparison of Utility , 2009 .

[32]  Peter Z. Revesz,et al.  On the Semantics of Arbitration , 1997, Int. J. Algebra Comput..

[33]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Propositional merging operators based on set-theoretic closeness , 2008, ECAI.

[34]  Souhila Kaci,et al.  Fusion of possibilistic knowledge bases from a postulate point of view , 2002, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[35]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  A diff-Based Merging Operator , 2008, NMR 2008.

[36]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming: Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning , 1994 .