Advertisement

On the Definition of Essential and Contingent Properties of Subjective Belief Bases

  • Ebrahim Bagheri
  • Ali A. Ghorbani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5317)

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce several features of subjective belief bases from both individualistic and collective perspectives and hence provide suitable essential and contingent properties for such belief bases. Essential properties reflect the attributes of a belief base being considered in vacuum, whereas contingent properties of a belief base reveal its characteristics with regards to the rest of its peer belief bases. Subjective belief bases employ values from Subjective logic, a type of probabilistic logic that explicitly takes uncertainty and belief ownership into account, to represent the priority information of the formula in each belief base. We show that subjective belief bases are a generalization of prioritized belief bases whose formula are annotated with their degree of necessity from possibilistic logic. We also discuss the role of essential and contingent properties in defining suitable belief base ordering functions.

Keywords

Belief Base Belief Function Possibility Distribution Propositional Formula Possibilistic Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. Information Fusion 7(1), 19–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadoli, M., Donini, F.M.: A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Commun. 10(3-4), 137–150 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In: AAAI 1988, pp. 475–479 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic. In: Handbook of logic in AI and log. prog., pp. 439–513 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Higashi, M., Klir, G.J.: Measures of uncertainty and information based on possibility distributions. International Journal of General Systems 9(1), 43–58 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higashi, M., Klir, G.J.: On the notion of distance representing information closeness: Possibility and probability distributions. International Journal of General Systems 9(2), 103–115 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: AAAI 2004, pp. 269–274 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jenhani, I., Ben Elouedi, Z., Benferhat, S., Mellouli, K.: Information affinity: A new similarity measure for possibilistic uncertain information. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 840–852. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jøsang, A.: A logic for uncertain probabilities. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9(3), 212–279 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konieczny, S.: Belief base merging as a game. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 14(3), 275–294 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Quantifying information and contradiction in propositional logic through test actions. In: IJCAI, pp. 106–111 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kroupa: Measure of divergence of possibility measures. In: 6th Workshop on Uncertainty Processing (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    List, C., Goodin, R.E.: Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3), 277–306 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, W.: Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif. Intell. 170(11), 909–924 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, W.: Measuring conflict between possibilistic uncertain information through belief function theory. In: Almási, G.S., Caşcaval, C., Wu, P. (eds.) KSEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4382, pp. 265–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, W., Qi, G., Bell, D.A.: Adaptive merging of prioritized knowledge bases. Fundam. Inform. 73(3), 389–407 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.: Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158(23), 2535–2551 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized belief bases. In: IJCAI, pp. 552–557 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogova, G.L., Nimier, V.: Reliability in information fusion: Literature survey. In: International conference on Information Fusion, pp. 1158–1165 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yager, R.R.: On the dempster-shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf. Sci. 41(2), 93–137 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebrahim Bagheri
    • 1
  • Ali A. Ghorbani
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations