Advertisement

Argumentation Framework for Merging Stratified Belief Bases

  • Trong Hieu Tran
  • Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen
  • Quang Thuy Ha
  • Ngoc Trinh Vu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9621)

Abstract

This paper introduces a new approach for belief merging by using argumentation technique. The key idea is to organize each belief merging process as a game in which participating agents use argumentation technique to debate on their own belief bases to achieve consensus i.e. a common belief base. To this end, we introduce a framework for merging belief by argumentation in which an argumentation-based belief merging protocol is proposed and a set of intuitive and rational postulates to characterize the merging results is introduced. Several logical properties of the family of argumentation-based belief merging operators are also pointed out and discussed.

Keywords

Argumentation Belief merging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was fully supported by Science and Technology Development Fund (B) from Vietnam National University, Hanoi under grant number QG.14.13 (2014–2015).

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 45(2), 321–340 (2007). Eighth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeza-Yates, R.A., Ribeiro-Neto, B.A.: Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press Addison-Wesley, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Possibilistic merging and distance-basedfusion of propositional information. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 217–252 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth, R.: A negotiation-style framework for non-prioritised revision. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK 2001, pp. 137–150. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf. Fusion 7, 19–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Marquis, P.: On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Amo, S., Carnielli, W.A., Marcos, J.: A logical framework for integrating inconsistent information in multiple databases. In: Eiter, T., Schewe, K.-D. (eds.) FoIKS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2284, pp. 67–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif.Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: A numerical approach to the merging of argumentation networks. In: Fisher, M., van der Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA XIII 2012. LNCS, vol. 7486, pp. 195–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Da2 merging operators. Artif. Intell. 157, 49–79 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P.: Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. J. Logic Comput. 12(5), 773–808 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 83, 363–378 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyer, T., Lee, K., Booth, R.: Knowledge integration for description logics. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2005, vol. 2, pp. 645–650. AAAI Press (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murray, K.S.: Learning as knowledge integration. Technical report, Austin, TX, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olfati-Saber, R., Fax, J.A., Murray, R.M.: Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proc. IEEE 95(1), 215–233 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qi, G., Du, J., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Merging knowledge bases in possibilistic logic by lexicographic aggregation. In: Grünwald, P., Spirtes, P. (eds.) UAI , Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Catalina Island, CA, USA, 8–11 July 2010, pp. 458–465. AUAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Merging stratified knowledge bases under constraints. In: AAAI, pp. 281–286 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Qi, G., Liu, W., Bell, D.A.: Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158(23), 2535–2551 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reddy, M.P., Prasad, B.E., Reddy, P.G., Gupta, A.: A methodology for integration of heterogeneous databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 6(6), 920–933 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ren, W., Beard, R., Atkins, E.: A survey of consensus problems in multi-agent coordination. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1859–1864, June 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revesz, P.Z.: On the semantics of arbitration. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 7, 133–160 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaw, M.J., Subramaniam, C., Tan, G.W., Welge, M.E.: Knowledge management and data mining for marketing. Decis. Support Syst. Knowl. Manage. Support Decis. Making 31(1), 127–137 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sliwko, L., Nguyen, N.T.: Using multi-agent systems and consensus methods for information retrieval in internet. Int. J. Intell. Inf. Database Syst. (IJIIDS) 1(2), 181–198 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B.: An axiomatic model for merging stratified belief bases by negotiation. In: Nguyen, N.-T., Hoang, K., Jȩdrzejowicz, P. (eds.) ICCCI 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7653, pp. 174–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tran, T.H., Nguyen, N.T., Vo, Q.B.: Axiomatic characterization of belief merging by negotiation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–27, June 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B., Kowalczyk, R.: Merging belief bases by negotiation. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6881, pp. 200–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tran, T.H., Vo, Q.B., Nguyen, T.H.K.: On the belief merging by negotiation. In: Jedrzejowicz, P., Jain, L.C., Howlett, R.J., Czarnowski, I. (eds.) 18th International Conference in Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, KES 2014, Gdynia, Poland, 15–17 September 2014, vol. 35, Procedia Computer Science, pp. 147–155. Elsevier (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, D.: A logic-based axiomatic model of bargaining. Artif. Intell. 174, 1307–1322 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trong Hieu Tran
    • 1
  • Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen
    • 2
  • Quang Thuy Ha
    • 1
  • Ngoc Trinh Vu
    • 3
  1. 1.Vietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Electricity Power University of VietnamHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.Vietnam Petroleum InstitueHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations