Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Merging Possibilistic Belief Bases by Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Intelligent Information and Database Systems (ACIIDS 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10191))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Belief merging is one of active research fields with a large range of applications in Artificial Intelligence. Most of the work in this research field is in the centralized approach, however, it is difficult to apply to interactive systems such as multi-agent systems. In this paper, we introduce a new argumentation framework for belief merging. To this end, a constructive model to merge possiblistic belief bases built based on the famous general argumentation framework is proposed. An axiomatic model, including a set of rational and intuitive postulates to characterize the merging result is introduced and several logical properties are mentioned and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–216 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 45(2), 321–340 (2007). Eighth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Possibilistic merging and distance-based fusion of propositional information. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 217–252 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H., Williams, M.-A.: A practical approach to fusing prioritized knowledge bases. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) EPIA 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1695, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi:10.1007/3-540-48159-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Benferhat, S., Kaci, S.: Fusion of possibilistic knowledge bases from a postulate point of view. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 33, 255–285 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Béziau, J.: Paraconsistent logic from a modal viewpoint. J. Appl. Logic 3(1), 7–14 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Blair, H.A., Subrahmanian, V.: Special issue paraconsistent logic programming. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 68(2), 135–154 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Booth, R.: A negotiation-style framework for non-prioritised revision. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK 2001, pp. 137–150. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf. Fusion 7, 19–34 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Delobelle, J., Haret, A., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Rossit, J., Woltran, S.: Merging of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Baral, C., Delgrande, J.P., Wolter, F. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference, KR 2016, Cape Town, South Africa, April 25–29, 2016, pp. 33–42. AAAI Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic. In: Gabbay, D., et al. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 439–513 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: A numerical approach to the merging of argumentation networks. In: Fisher, M., Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7486, pp. 195–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32897-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hunter, A.: Paraconsistent Logics. Springer, Dordrecht (1998)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Konieczny, S.: Belief base merging as a game. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 14(3), 275–294 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Konieczny, S., Perez, R.P.: On the logic of merging. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR98), Trento, pp. 488–498 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 83, 363–378 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin, J., Mendelzon, A.: Merging databases under constraints. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 7(1), 55–76 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Qi, G., Du, J., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Merging knowledge bases in possibilistic logic by lexicographic aggregation. In: Grünwald, P., Spirtes, P. (eds.) UAI 2010, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Catalina Island, CA, USA, July 8–11, 2010, pp. 458–465. AUAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158(23), 2535–2551 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Theor. Decis. 1, 179–219 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Revesz, P.Z.: On the semantics of theory change: arbitration between old and new information. In: 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Databases, pp. 71–92 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B.: An axiomatic model for merging stratified belief bases by negotiation. In: Nguyen, N.-T., Hoang, K., Jȩdrzejowicz, P. (eds.) ICCCI 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7653, pp. 174–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34630-9_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Tran, T.H., Nguyen, N.T., Vo, Q.B.: Axiomatic characterization of belief merging by negotiation. Multimedia Tools Appl. 1–27, June 2012

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tran, T.H., Nguyen, T.H.K., Ha, Q.T., Vu, N.T.: Argumentation framework for merging stratified belief bases. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, T.-P. (eds.) ACIIDS 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9621, pp. 43–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B., Kowalczyk, R.: Merging belief bases by negotiation. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6881, pp. 200–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23851-2_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B., Nguyen, T.H.K.: On the belief merging by negotiation. In: 18th International Conference in Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, KES 2014, Gdynia, Poland, 15–17, 2014, pp. 147–155, September 2014

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, D.: A logic-based axiomatic model of bargaining. Artif. Intell. 174, 1307–1322 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Professor Quang Thuy Ha and Knowledge Technology Lab, Faculty of Information Technology, VNU University of Engineering and Technology for expertise support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electricity Power University of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen

  2. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Trong Hieu Tran, Tran Van Nguyen & Thi Thanh Luu Le

Authors
  1. Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trong Hieu Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tran Van Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thi Thanh Luu Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wrocław University of Science and Technology , Wroclaw, Poland

    Ngoc Thanh Nguyen

  2. Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology , Nomi, Japan

    Satoshi Tojo

  3. Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology , Nomi, Japan

    Le Minh Nguyen

  4. Wrocław University of Science and Technology , Wrocław, Poland

    Bogdan Trawiński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nguyen, T.H.K., Tran, T.H., Nguyen, T.V., Le, T.T.L. (2017). Merging Possibilistic Belief Bases by Argumentation. In: Nguyen, N., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L., Trawiński, B. (eds) Intelligent Information and Database Systems. ACIIDS 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10191. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54472-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54472-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54471-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54472-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation