Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized belief bases
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between two prioritized knowledge bases by measuring both the conflict and the agreement between them. First of all, a quantity of conflict and two quantities of agreement are defined. The former is shown to be a generalization of the Dalal distance. The latter are, respectively, a quantity of strong agreement which measures the amount of information on which two belief bases “totally” agree, and a quantity of weak agreement which measures the amount of information that is believed by one source but is unknown to the other. All three quantity measures are based on the weighted prime implicant, which represents beliefs in a prioritized belief base. We then define a degree of conflict and two degrees of agreement based on our quantity of conflict and the quantities of agreement. We also consider the impact of these measures on belief merging and information source ordering.
منابع مشابه
Measuring conflict and agreement between two prioritized knowledge bases in possibilistic logic
In this paper we investigate the relationship between two prioritized knowledge bases by measuring both the conflict and the agreement between them. First of all, a quantity of conflict and two quantities of agreement are defined. The former is shown to be a generalization of the well-known Dalal distance which is the hamming distance between two interpretations. The latter are, respectively, a...
متن کاملCombining 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 کاملAdaptive Merging of Prioritized Knowledge Bases
In this paper, we propose an adaptive algorithm for merging n (n≥2) prioritized knowledge bases which takes into account the degrees of conflict and agreement among these knowledge bases. The algorithm first selects largely partially maximal consistent subsets (LPMCS) of sources by assessing how (partially) consistent the information in the subset is. Then within each of these created subsets, ...
متن کاملCombining Multiple Knowledge Bases by Negotiation: A Possibilistic Approach
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, ...
متن کاملProof Theories for Some Prioritized Consequence Relations
Handling a possibly inconsistent prioritized belief base can be done in terms of consistent subsets. Humans do not compute consistent subsets, they just start reasoning and when confronted with inconsistencies in the course of their reasoning, they may adjust their interpretation of the information. In logics this behaviour corresponds to the mechanisms of dynamic proof theories. The aim of thi...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005