Belief base merging as a game

We propose in this paper a new family of belief merging operators, that is based on a game between sources : until a coherent set of sources is reached, at each round a contest is organized to find out the weakest sources, then those sources has to concede (weaken their point of view). This idea leads to numerous new interesting operators (depending of the exact meaning of “weakest” and “concede”, that gives the two parameters for this family) and opens new perspectives for belief merging. Some existing operators are also recovered as particular cases. Those operators can be seen as a special case of Booth's Belief Negotiation Models [BOO 02], but the achieved restriction forms a consistent family of merging operators that worths to be studied on its own.

[1]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Some Syntactic Approaches to the Handling of Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Comparative Study Part 1: The Flat Case , 1997, Stud Logica.

[2]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Towards mathematical morpho-logics , 2002 .

[3]  Isabelle Bloch,et al.  A Unified Treatment for Knowledge Dynamics , 2004, KR.

[4]  W. Salmon,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1991 .

[5]  Alessandro Saffiotti,et al.  A General Approach for Inconsistency Handling and Merging Information in Prioritized Knowledge Bases , 1998, KR.

[6]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Logic of Merging , 1998, KR.

[7]  Richard Booth,et al.  Social contraction and belief negotiation , 2002, Inf. Fusion.

[8]  Alberto O. Mendelzon,et al.  Knowledge Base Merging by Majority , 1999 .

[9]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Arbitration (or How to Merge Knowledge Bases) , 1998, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[10]  Remo Pareschi,et al.  Dynamic Worlds: From the Frame Problems to Knowledge Management , 1999 .

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

[12]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

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

[14]  Laurence Cholvy,et al.  Proving Theorems in a Multi-Source Environment , 1993, IJCAI.

[15]  Laurence Cholvy.  Automated Reasoning with Merged Contradictory Information Whose Reliability Depends on Topics , 1995, ECSQARU.

[16]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[17]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision: Contents , 1992 .

[18]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Difference between Merging Knowledge Bases and Combining them , 2000, KR.

[20]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging with Integrity Constraints , 1999, ESCQARU.

[21]  Laurence Cholvy.  Reasoning About Data Provided By Federated Deductive Databases , 2004, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[22]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  DA2 merging operators , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On Merging Strategy-Proofness , 2004, KR.

[24]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Combining Knowledge Bases Consisting of First Order Theories , 1991, ISMIS.

[25]  Peter Z. Revesz.  On the semantics of theory change: arbitration between old and new information , 1993, PODS '93.

[26]  Didier Dubois,et al.  An Overview of Inconsistency-Tolerant Inferences in Prioritized Knowledge Bases , 1999 .

[27]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[28]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Frontier between Arbitration and Majority , 2002, KR.

[29]  R. Booth.  A negotiation-style framework for non-prioritised revision , 2001 .

[30]  Peter G¿rdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 2003 .

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