Synthese

, Volume 165, Issue 2, pp 203–223 | Cite as

Majority merging by adaptive counting

Article

Abstract

The present paper introduces a belief merging procedure by majority using the standard format of Adaptive Logics. The core structure of the logic ADM c (Adaptive Doxastic Merging by Counting) consists in the formulation of the conflicts arising from the belief bases of the agents involved in the procedure. A strategy is then defined both semantically and proof-theoretically which selects the consistent contents answering to a majority principle. The results obtained are proven to be equivalent to a standard majority operator for bases with partial support.

Keywords

Belief merging Adaptive logics Majority merging Dynamic reasoning Multi-agent reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C.E., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baral C., Kraus S., Minker J., Subrahmanian V.S. (1992) Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Computational Intelligence 8: 45–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batens D. (1999) Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In: Orłowska E.(eds) Logic at work.. Essays dedicated to the memroy of Helena Rasiowa. Physica Verlag (Springer), Heidelberg, pp 445–472Google Scholar
  4. Batens, D. (2001). A general characterization of adaptive logics. Logique & Analyse, 173–175, 45–68.Google Scholar
  5. Batens, D. (2007). A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. In Logica universalis 1 (pp. 221–242). Basel/Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Batini C., Lenzerini M. (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4): 323–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benferhat S., Dubois D., Prade H. (1999) Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study, Part 1: The flat case. Studia Logica 58(1): 17–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan G. (2001) Collective coherence?. International Review of Law and Economics 21(2): 197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgida, A., & Imielinski, T. (1984). Decision making in committees—a framework for dealing with incon sistency and non-monotonicity. In Proceedings Nonmonotonic Reasoning Workshop (pp. 21–32).Google Scholar
  10. Chapman B. (1998) More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 293–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman B. (2002) Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1(3): 337–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cholvy, L., & Hunter, T. (1997). Fusion in logic: A brief overview. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to reasoning with Uncertainty. Lectures Notes in Computer Science, 1244, 86–95.Google Scholar
  13. Dalal, M. (1988). Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88) (pp. 475–479).Google Scholar
  14. de Rijke, M. (1994). Meeting some neighbours: A dynamic modal logic meets theories of change and knowledge representation. In J. V. Eijck & A. Visser (Eds.), Logic and information flow (pp. 170–196). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dietrich F., List C. (2007) Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Economics and Philosophy 23(3): 269–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elmagarmid, A., Rusinliewicz, M., & Sheth, A. (1999). Management of heterogeneous and autonomous database systems. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  17. Gabbay, D., Pigozzi, G., & Rodrigues, O. (2006). Belief revision, belief merging and voting. In G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Games and Decision Theory (LOFT06) (pp. 169–176).Google Scholar
  18. Gochet P., Gribomont P. (2003) Epistemic logic. In: Gabbay D.M., Woods J.(eds) Handbook of the history and philosophy of logic.. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 99–195Google Scholar
  19. Halpern J., Moses Y. (1992) A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence 52: 319–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, W. (Ed.). (1995). Modern database systems: The object model, interoperability and beyond. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2002) Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5): 773–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1986) Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1993) The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review 81: 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liberatore, P., & Schaerf, M. (1995). Arbitration: A commutative operator for belief revision. In Proceedings of the Second World Conference on the Fundamentals of Articial Intelligence (pp. 217–228).Google Scholar
  25. Liberatore P., Schaerf M. (1998) Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10: 76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin, J., & Mendelzon, A. O. (1999). Knowledge base merging by majority. In Dynamic worlds: From the frame problem to knowledge management (pp. 195–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Pigozzi G. (2006) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: An argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2): 285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Primiero, G. (2007). Belief merging based on adaptive interaction. In A Meeting of the Minds, Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction (LORI) 2007, Beijing, China, Texts in Computer Science (Vol. 8, pp. 315–320). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Primiero, G. (2008). Aggregating collective judgements by selecting disagreements. Paper presented at LOFT08, 8th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Primiero, G., & Meheus, J. (2008a). Adaptive arbitration by variant counting on commutative bases with weights. In Proceedings of the FUSION08, 11th International Conference on Information Fusion (pp. 1374–1380).Google Scholar
  31. Primiero, G., & Meheus, J. (2008b). Quasi-merging and pure-arbitration on information for the family of adaptive logics ADM. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic and Intelligent Interaction, ESSLLI2008 (pp. 21–30).Google Scholar
  32. Revesz P.Z. (1997) On the semantics of arbitration. Journal of Algebra and Computation 7(2): 133–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Satoh, K. (1988). Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (pp. 455–462).Google Scholar
  34. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2006). Dynamic epistemic logic, Synthese Library Series (Vol. 337). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations