Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How to deal with unbelievable assertions

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We tackle the problem that arises when an agent receives unbelievable information. Information is unbelievable if it conflicts with the agent’s convictions, that is, what the agent considers knowledge. We propose two solutions based on modifying the information so that it is no longer unbelievable. In one solution, the source and the receiver of the information cooperatively resolve the conflict. For this purpose we introduce a dialogue protocol in which the receiver explains what is wrong with the information by using logical interpolation, and the source produces a new assertion accordingly. If such cooperation is not possible, we propose an alternative solution in which the receiver revises the new piece of information by its own convictions to make it acceptable.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Alchourroń, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbol. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Atserias, A., Kolaitis, P.G., Vardi, M.Y.: Constraint propagation as a proof system. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2004, volume 3258 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 77–91. Springer (2004)

  3. Bellot, D., Godefroid, C., Han, P., Prost, J. P., Schlechta, K., Wurbel, E.: A semantical approach to the concept of screened revision. Theoria 63, 24–33 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bollobaś, B.: Combinatorics: Set Systems, Hypergraphs, Families of Vectors, and Combinatorial Probability. Cambridge University Press (1986)

  5. Boolos, G.S., Jeffrey, R.C.: Computability and Logic, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press (1989)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Zhao, X., Fujita, M., Yang, J.: Spectral transforms for large boolean functions with applications to technology mapping. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 10(2-3), 137–148 (1997). Special issue on Multi-Terminal Binary Decision Diagrams

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cogan, E., Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: New types of inter-agent dialogues. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005 Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005 Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 4049 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 154–168. Springer (2006)

  9. Darwiche, A, Pearl, J: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89 (1-2), 1–29 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)

  11. D’Silva, V.: Propositional interpolation and abstract interpretation. In: Gordon, A.D. (ed.) 19th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP), volume 6012 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 185–204. Springer-Verlag (2010)

  12. D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Purandare, M., Weissenbacher, G.: Interpolant strength. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M. (eds.) Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpolation (VMCAI), volume 5944 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 129–145. Springer-Verlag (2010)

  13. Eloranta, S.: Dynamic Aspects of Knowledge Bases. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland (2013)

  14. Eloranta, S., Hakli, R., Niinivaara, O., Nykanen̈, M.: Accommodative belief revision. In: Hölldobler, S., Cutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2008), volume 5293 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 180–191. Springer (2008)

  15. Fermé, E.L., Hansson, S.O.: Selective revision. Stud. Log. 63(3), 331–342 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Frank, M.C., Goodman, N.D.: Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cogn. Psychol. 75, 80–96 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gardenfors̈, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press (1988)

  18. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company (1979)

  19. Grice, P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. Academic Press (1975)

  20. Grice, P.: Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9. Academic Press (1978)

  21. Grice, P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press (1989)

  22. Groenendijk, J.: The logic of interrogation: Classical version. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT IX), pp. 109–126. Cornell University (1999)

  23. Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen & Co (1970)

  24. Hansson, S.O.: Belief contraction without recovery. Stud. Log. 50, 251–260 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Hansson, S.O.: Semi-revision. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 7(1-2), 151–175 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Hansson, S.O.: A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50(2-3), 413–427 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansson, S.O., Fermé, E.L., Cantwell, J., Falappa, M.A.: Credibility limited revision. J. Symbol. Log. 66(4), 1581–1596 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press (1962)

  29. Hintikka, J., Halonen, I.: Interpolation as explanation. Philos. Sci. 66 (Proceedings), S414–S423 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang, G.: Constructing Craig interpolation formulas. In: Du, D.-Z., Li, M. (eds.) First Annual International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON ’95), volume 959 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 181–190. Springer (1995)

  31. Jäger, G.: Game dynamics connects semantics and pragmatics. In: Pietarinen, A.-V. (ed.) Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning, volume 18 of Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, pp. 103–118. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK (2007)

  32. Jin, Y., Thielscher, M., Zhang, D.: Mutual belief revision: semantics and computation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’07). ISBN 978-1-57735-323-2, pp. 440–445. AAAI Press (2007)

  33. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledgebase revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Kohlas, J., Moral, S., Haenni, R.: Propositional information systems. J. Logic Comput. 9(5), 651–681 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Krabbe, E.C.W.: The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese 127, 141–159 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Krajíček, J.: Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic. J. Symbol. Log. 62(2), 457–486 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Laera, L., Blacoe, I., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’07). ISBN 978-81-904262-7-5, pp. 1285–1292. ACM, NY, USA (2007)

  38. Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 18, 391–443 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Lewis, D.K.: Counterfactuals. Blackwell (1973)

  40. Makinson, D.: Propositional relevance through letter-sharing, pp. 377–387. Journal of Applied Logic (2009)

  41. Makinson, D.: Screened revision. Theoria 63(1-2), 14–23 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification (CAV), volume 2725 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–13. Springer (2003)

  43. Mundici, D.: Tautologies with a unique Craig interpolant, uniform vs. nonuniform complexity. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 27(3), 265–273 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Nykanen̈, M., Eloranta, S., Niinivaara, O., Hakli, R.: Cooperative replies to unbelievable assertions: A dialogue protocol based on logical interpolation. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2011), volume 2 – Agents, pp. 245–250. SciTe Press (2011)

  45. Parsons, S., Sklar, E.: How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Second International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2005). Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 4049 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 297–312. Springer (2006)

  46. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 13, 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Pudlaḱ, P.: Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. J. Symbol. Log. 62(3), 981–998 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Reiter, R.: On integrity constraints, pp. 97–111. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)

  49. Snaith, M., Reed, C.: Justified argument revision in agent dialogue. In: McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2012) (2012)

  50. Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic state. In: Harper, W.L., Skyrms, B. (eds.) Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. 2, pp. 105–134. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988)

  51. Spohn, W.: Causation, Coherence and Concepts: A Collection of Essays, volume 256 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Springer (2009)

  52. Spohn, W.: The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory and its Philosophical Applications. Oxford University Press (2012)

  53. Troelstra, A.S., Schwichtenberg, H.: Basic Proof Theory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (2000)

  54. Van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.-J., Dignum, F., Van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.-J.: Ontology negotiation: goals, requirements and implementation. Int. J. Agent-O. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 63–90 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van Veenen, J., Prakken, H.: A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Second International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2005). Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 4049 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 138–153. Springer (2006)

  56. Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Commitments in Interpersonal Dialogue. SUNY series in logic and language. State University of New York (1995)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland

    Matti Nykänen

  2. Department of Culture and Society, Section of Philosophy and History of Ideas, Aarhus University, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 7, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Raul Hakli

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2B, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Satu Eloranta & Olli Niinivaara

Authors
  1. Matti Nykänen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raul Hakli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satu Eloranta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olli Niinivaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matti Nykänen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nykänen, M., Hakli, R., Eloranta, S. et al. How to deal with unbelievable assertions. Ann Math Artif Intell 78, 323–360 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9493-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9493-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)