Skip to main content

“Not impossible” vs. “guaranteed possible” in fusion and revision

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2143))

Abstract

In daily life we have two kinds of knowledge at our disposal, pieces of information ruling out what is known to be impossible on the one hand, and case reports pointing out things which are indeed possible.The fusion of the first type of information is basically conjunctive, while it is disjunctive in the other case. The second type of information has been largely neglected by the logical tradition. Both types can be pervaded with uncertainty.The paper first describes how the two types of information can be accommodated in the possibility theory and in the evidence theory frameworks. Then it is shown how the existence of the two types of information can shed new light on the revision of a knowledge base when receiving new information.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Besnard Ph. and Cordier M. O. (1999) Explications causales. Journées Nationales sur la Modélisation du Raisonnement (JNMR-1999), Paris, 22–23 mars 1999, http://wvvvv.irit.fr/GDRI3-ModRais/articlesJNMR.html.

  2. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1998) Possibility theory: qualitative and quantitative aspects. In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol. 1, D.M. Gabbay and Ph. Smets (series eds.), Kluwer, 169–226.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dubois D., Hajek P., and Prade H. (2000) Knowledge-driven versus data-driven logics. J. of Logic, Language and Information, 9, 65–89.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Dubois D., Lang J., and Prade H. (1994) Possibilistic logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol.3 (D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, J.A. Robinson, D. Nute, eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, 1994, 439–513.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1986) A set-theoretic view of belief functions-Logical operations and approximation by fuzzy sets. Int. J. General Systems, 12, 193–226

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1987) The principle of minimum specificity as a basis for evidential reasoning. In: Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (B. Bouchon, R.R. Yager, eds.), Springer Verlag, LNCS no 286, 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1992) Possibility theory as a basis for preference propagation in automated reasoning. Proc. of the 1st IEEE Inter. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE’92), San Diego, Ca., March 8–12, 1992, 821–832.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1992) Belief change and possibility theory. In Belief Revision. (Gärdenfors P., ed.), 142–182.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dubois D. and Prade H. (1998) A synthetic view of belief revision with uncertain inputs in the framework of possibility theory. Int J. Approx. Reas., 17, 295–324.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubois DT. and Prade H.T. (1999) Positive and negative evidence. A fancy IRIT report, 7p., presented at Ph. Smets’ retirement party day, Brussels, April 23.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in Flux.. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shafer G. (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, N.J.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Smets Ph. (1990) The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model. IEEE Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12, 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smets Ph. (1993) Belief functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized bayesian theorem. Inter. J. of Approximate Reasoning, 9, 1–35.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Smets. Ph. and Kennes. R. (1994) The transferable belief model. Artificial Intelligence, 66, 191–234.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Smets Ph. (1995) The canonical decomposition of a weighted belief. Proc. of the 14th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95). Montreal, August 20–25, 1995, 1896–1901.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ughetto L., Dubois D. and Prade H. (1999) Implicative and conjunctive fuzzy rules. A tool for reasoning from knowledge and examples. Proc. 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), Orlando, July 18–22, 1999, Morgan and Kaufman, 214–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P. (2001). “Not impossible” vs. “guaranteed possible” in fusion and revision. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42464-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44652-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics