Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Confluence operators and their relationships with revision, update and merging

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

Abstract

In this paper we introduce confluence operators, that are inspired by the existing links between belief revision, update and merging operators. Roughly, update operators can be considered as pointwise revision, whereas revision operators can be considered as special case of merging operators. Confluence operators are to merging operators what update operators are to revision operators. Similarly, update operators can be considered as special case of confluence operators just as revision can be considered as special case of merging operators. Confluence operators gives all possible agreement situations from a set of belief bases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction. Stud. Log. 44, 405–422 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J.: Combining multiple knowledge bases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 3(2), 208–220 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Comput. Intell. 8(1), 45–71 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benferhat, S., Lagrue, S., Papini, O.: Revision of partially ordered information: axiomatization, semantics and iteration. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05), pp. 376–381 (2005)

  6. Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’02), pp. 374–384 (2002)

  7. Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’88), pp. 475–479 (1988)

  8. Delgrande, J.P., Dubois, D., Lang, J.: Iterated revision as prioritized merging. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’06), pp. 210–220 (2006)

  9. de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lang, J.: Belief extrapolation (or how to reason about observations and unpredicted change). In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’02), pp. 497–508 (2002)

  10. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press (1988)

  11. Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pp. 83–95 (1988)

  12. Grove, A.: Two modellings for theory change. J. Philos. Logic 17, 157–170 (1988)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S.O. (ed.): Theoria. Special Issue on Non-Prioritized Belief Revision, vol. 63, nos. 1–2. Wiley (1997)

  14. Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Update operations: a review. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’98), pp. 13–17 (1998)

  15. Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 115(1), 107–138 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52, 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press (1992)

  18. Konieczny, S.: Belief base merging as a game. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 14(3), 275–294 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: DA2 merging operators. Artif. Intell. 157(1–2), 49–79 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Logic based merging. J. Philos. Logic 40(2), 239–270 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Confluence operators. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’08), pp. 272–284 (2008)

  23. Lang, J.: Belief update revisited. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07), pp. 2517–2522 (2007)

  24. Lehmann, D., Magidor, M., Schlechta, K.: Distance semantics for belief revision. J. Symb. Log. 66(1), 295–317 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Liberatore, P., Schaerf, M.: Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 10(1), 76–90 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meyer, T., Foo, N., Zhang, D., Kwok, R.: Logical foundations of negotiation: Outcome, concession and adaptation. In: Proceedings of the American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’04), pp. 293–298 (2004)

  28. Meyer, T., Foo, N., Zhang, D., Kwok, R.: Logical foundations of negotiation: Strategies and preferences. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’04), pp. 311–318 (2004)

  29. Revesz, P.Z.: On the semantics of arbitration. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 7(2), 133–160 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Schlechta, K., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Distance semantics for belief revision. In: Proceedings of: Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Tark VI, pp. 137–145 (1996)

  31. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 91(4), 293–315 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang, D., Foo, N., Meyer, T., Kwok, R.: Negotiation as mutual belief revision. In: Proceedings of the American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’04), pp. 317–322 (2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Lens (CRIL), CNRS UMR 8188, Université d’Artois, Lens, France

    Sébastien Konieczny

  2. Centro Interdisciplinario de Lógica y Álgebra (CILA), Departamento de Matemáticas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela

    Ramon Pino Pérez

Authors
  1. Sébastien Konieczny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramon Pino Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Konieczny.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this work was published in [22]. This paper is an extended and revised version of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P. Confluence operators and their relationships with revision, update and merging. Ann Math Artif Intell 69, 73–101 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9340-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9340-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation