Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Argumentation Framework for Merging Stratified Belief Bases

  • Conference paper
Intelligent Information and Database Systems (ACIIDS 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9621))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper introduces a new approach for belief merging by using argumentation technique. The key idea is to organize each belief merging process as a game in which participating agents use argumentation technique to debate on their own belief bases to achieve consensus i.e. a common belief base. To this end, we introduce a framework for merging belief by argumentation in which an argumentation-based belief merging protocol is proposed and a set of intuitive and rational postulates to characterize the merging results is introduced. Several logical properties of the family of argumentation-based belief merging operators are also pointed out 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

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The drowning effect takes place when some beliefs are omitted because their preferences are lower than the preferences of conflict beliefs.

  2. 2.

    The elements of a multi-set may be identical.

References

  1. 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 

  2. Baeza-Yates, R.A., Ribeiro-Neto, B.A.: Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press Addison-Wesley, Boston (1999)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Marquis, P.: On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. de Amo, S., Carnielli, W.A., Marcos, J.: A logical framework for integrating inconsistent information in multiple databases. In: Eiter, T., Schewe, K.-D. (eds.) FoIKS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2284, pp. 67–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif.Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: A numerical approach to the merging of argumentation networks. In: Fisher, M., van der Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA XIII 2012. LNCS, vol. 7486, pp. 195–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Da2 merging operators. Artif. Intell. 157, 49–79 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P.: Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. J. Logic Comput. 12(5), 773–808 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R.: Knowledge integration for description logics. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2005, vol. 2, pp. 645–650. AAAI Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Murray, K.S.: Learning as knowledge integration. Technical report, Austin, TX, USA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Olfati-Saber, R., Fax, J.A., Murray, R.M.: Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proc. IEEE 95(1), 215–233 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 , Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Catalina Island, CA, USA, 8–11 July 2010, pp. 458–465. AUAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Merging stratified knowledge bases under constraints. In: AAAI, pp. 281–286 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Reddy, M.P., Prasad, B.E., Reddy, P.G., Gupta, A.: A methodology for integration of heterogeneous databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 6(6), 920–933 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ren, W., Beard, R., Atkins, E.: A survey of consensus problems in multi-agent coordination. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1859–1864, June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  21. Revesz, P.Z.: On the semantics of arbitration. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 7, 133–160 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Shaw, M.J., Subramaniam, C., Tan, G.W., Welge, M.E.: Knowledge management and data mining for marketing. Decis. Support Syst. Knowl. Manage. Support Decis. Making 31(1), 127–137 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sliwko, L., Nguyen, N.T.: Using multi-agent systems and consensus methods for information retrieval in internet. Int. J. Intell. Inf. Database Syst. (IJIIDS) 1(2), 181–198 (2007)

    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, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7653, pp. 174–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6881, pp. 200–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B., Nguyen, T.H.K.: On the belief merging by negotiation. In: Jedrzejowicz, P., Jain, L.C., Howlett, R.J., Czarnowski, I. (eds.) 18th International Conference in Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, KES 2014, Gdynia, Poland, 15–17 September 2014, vol. 35, Procedia Computer Science, pp. 147–155. Elsevier (2014)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was fully supported by Science and Technology Development Fund (B) from Vietnam National University, Hanoi under grant number QG.14.13 (2014–2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Trong Hieu Tran & Quang Thuy Ha

  2. Electricity Power University of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen

  3. Vietnam Petroleum Institue, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Ngoc Trinh Vu

Authors
  1. Trong Hieu Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quang Thuy Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ngoc Trinh Vu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trong Hieu Tran .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Ngoc Thanh Nguyen

  2. Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Bogdan Trawiński

  3. Iwate Prefectural University, Takizawa, Japan

    Hamido Fujita

  4. National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Tzung-Pei Hong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tran, T.H., Nguyen, T.H.K., Ha, Q.T., Vu, N.T. (2016). Argumentation Framework for Merging Stratified Belief Bases. In: Nguyen, N.T., Trawiński, B., Fujita, H., Hong, TP. (eds) Intelligent Information and Database Systems. ACIIDS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9621. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49380-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-49381-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics