Combining Multiple Knowledge Bases by Negotiation: A Possibilistic Approach
نویسندگان
چکیده
A negotiation model consists of two functions: a negotiation function and a weakening function. A negotiation function is defined to choose the weakest sources and these sources will weaken their point of view using a weakening function. However, the currently available belief negotiation models are based on classical logic, which make it difficult to define weakening functions. In this paper, we define a prioritized belief negotiation model in the framework of possibilistic logic. The priority between formulae provides us with important information to decide which beliefs should be discarded. The problem of merging uncertain information from different sources is then solved by two steps. First, beliefs in the original knowledge bases will be weakened to resolve inconsistencies among them. This step is based on a prioritized belief negotiation model. Second, the knowledge bases obtained by the first step are combined using a conjunctive operator or a reinforcement operator in possbilistic logic.
منابع مشابه
Combining multiple prioritized knowledge bases by negotiation
Recently, several belief negotiation models have been introduced to deal with the problem of belief merging. A negotiation model usually consists of two functions: a negotiation function and a weakening function. A negotiation function is defined to choose the weakest sources and these sources will weaken their point of view using a weakening function. However, the currently available belief ne...
متن کاملA Split-Combination Method for Merging Inconsistent Possibilistic Knowledge Bases
In this paper, a new method for merging multiple inconsistent knowledge bases in the framework of possibilistic logic is presented. We divide the fusion process into two steps: one is called the splitting step and the other is called the combination step. Given several inconsistent possibilistic knowledge bases (i.e. the union of these possibilistic bases is inconsistent), we split each of them...
متن کاملManaging Inconsistent Possibilistic Knowledge Bases by An Argumentation Approach
Inconsistent knowledge bases usually are regarded as an epistemic hell that have to be avoided at all costs. However, many times it is di cult or impossible to stay away of managing inconsistent knowledge bases. In this paper, we introduce an argumentation-based approach in order to manage inconsistent possibilistic knowledge bases. This approach will be exible enough for managing inconsistent ...
متن کاملProduct-based Causal Networks and Quantitative Possibilistic Bases
In possibility theory, there are two kinds of possibilistic causal networks depending if possibilistic conditioning is based on the minimum or on the product operator. Similarly there are also two kinds of possibilistic logic: standard (min-based) possibilistic logic and quantitative (product-based) possibilistic logic. Recently, several equivalent transformations between standard possibilistic...
متن کاملAn Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case
An important problem in the management of knowledge-based systems is the handling of inconsistency. Inconsistency may appear because the knowledge may come from different sources of information. To solve this problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category merges the different bases into a unique base, and the second category of approaches, such as argumentation, accepts...
متن کامل