How to deal with unbelievable assertions

  • Matti NykänenEmail author
  • Raul Hakli
  • Satu Eloranta
  • Olli Niinivaara


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.


Belief revision Argumentation Convictions Dialogue protocols 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

03B41 68T42 03C40 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 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)Google Scholar
  3. 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)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bollobaś, B.: Combinatorics: Set Systems, Hypergraphs, Families of Vectors, and Combinatorial Probability. Cambridge University Press (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boolos, G.S., Jeffrey, R.C.: Computability and Logic, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf. Fusion 7, 19–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 DiagramsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darwiche, A, Pearl, J: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89 (1-2), 1–29 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. 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)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eloranta, S.: Dynamic Aspects of Knowledge Bases. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fermé, E.L., Hansson, S.O.: Selective revision. Stud. Log. 63(3), 331–342 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frank, M.C., Goodman, N.D.: Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cogn. Psychol. 75, 80–96 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardenfors̈, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grice, P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. Academic Press (1975)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grice, P.: Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9. Academic Press (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grice, P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Groenendijk, J.: The logic of interrogation: Classical version. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT IX), pp. 109–126. Cornell University (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen & Co (1970)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hansson, S.O.: Belief contraction without recovery. Stud. Log. 50, 251–260 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansson, S.O.: Semi-revision. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 7(1-2), 151–175 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansson, S.O.: A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50(2-3), 413–427 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hansson, S.O., Fermé, E.L., Cantwell, J., Falappa, M.A.: Credibility limited revision. J. Symbol. Log. 66(4), 1581–1596 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press (1962)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hintikka, J., Halonen, I.: Interpolation as explanation. Philos. Sci. 66 (Proceedings), S414–S423 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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)Google Scholar
  31. 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)Google Scholar
  32. 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)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledgebase revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kohlas, J., Moral, S., Haenni, R.: Propositional information systems. J. Logic Comput. 9(5), 651–681 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krabbe, E.C.W.: The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese 127, 141–159 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krajíček, J.: Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic. J. Symbol. Log. 62(2), 457–486 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 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)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 18, 391–443 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lewis, D.K.: Counterfactuals. Blackwell (1973)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Makinson, D.: Propositional relevance through letter-sharing, pp. 377–387. Journal of Applied Logic (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Makinson, D.: Screened revision. Theoria 63(1-2), 14–23 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mundici, D.: Tautologies with a unique Craig interpolant, uniform vs. nonuniform complexity. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 27(3), 265–273 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 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)Google Scholar
  45. 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)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 13, 347–376 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pudlaḱ, P.: Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. J. Symbol. Log. 62(3), 981–998 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reiter, R.: On integrity constraints, pp. 97–111. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)Google Scholar
  49. 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)Google Scholar
  50. 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)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Spohn, W.: Causation, Coherence and Concepts: A Collection of Essays, volume 256 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spohn, W.: The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory and its Philosophical Applications. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Troelstra, A.S., Schwichtenberg, H.: Basic Proof Theory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  54. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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)Google Scholar
  56. 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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matti Nykänen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raul Hakli
    • 2
  • Satu Eloranta
    • 3
  • Olli Niinivaara
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Department of Culture and Society, Section of Philosophy and History of IdeasAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations