1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{latexsym}
3: \textheight = 228mm \textwidth = 175mm \topmargin= -12mm
4: \oddsidemargin= -5mm \evensidemargin = -5mm \columnsep = 10mm
5: \pagestyle{empty}
6: \newcommand {\eqdef}{\equiv_{Def}}
7: \newcommand {\bg}[1]{\{#1\}}
8: \newcommand {\ra}{\rightarrow}
9: \newcommand {\gpv}{\wp\upsilon}
10: \newcommand {\sg}[1]{(#1)}
11: \newcommand {\mg}[1]{[#1]}
12: \newcommand {\bs}{\begin{sloppypar}}
13: \newcommand {\es}{\end{sloppypar}}
14: \newcommand {\maa}{\models_0}
15: \newcommand {\mi}{\models_{\cal I}}
16: \newcommand {\npr}{\mid \! \sim}
17: \newcommand {\nmic}{\not \models_{ICL}}
18: \newcommand {\pic}{\vdash_{ICL}}
19: \newcommand {\icm}[2]{{#1} \mic #2}
20: \newcommand {\nicm}[2]{{#1} \nmic #2}
21: \newcommand {\icp}[2]{{#1} \pic #2}
22: \newcommand {\icth}[1]{\pic #1}
23: \newcommand {\ic}[1]{\mic #1}
24: \newcommand {\ccm}[2]{{#1} \models #2}
25: \newcommand {\cc}[1]{\models #1}
26: \newcommand {\pf}{\bf Proof.\ \ }
27: \newcommand {\epf}{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
28: \newcommand {\spe}[3]{\mbox{$#1 |\vdash_{#2} #3$}}
29: \newcommand {\defequ}{\stackrel{cl}{\equiv}}
30: \newtheorem{myth}{Theorem}
31: \newtheorem{mylma}{Lemma}[section]
32: \newtheorem{mydef}{Definition}
33: \newtheorem{mypro}{Proposition}
34: \newtheorem{myex}{Example}
35: \newtheorem{mycro}{Corollary}
36:
37: \begin{document}
38: %\thispagestyle{empty}
39: \bibliographystyle{plain}
40:
41:
42: \title{A Modal Logic Framework for Multi-agent Belief Fusion
43: \thanks{A preliminary version of the paper has appeared in \cite{liau}.}}
44: \author{Churn-Jung Liau\\
45: Institute of Information Science\\ Academia Sinica,Taipei,
46: Taiwan\\ E-mail: liaucj@iis.sinica.edu.tw}
47: \date{}
48: %\thispagestyle{empty}
49: \maketitle
50: %\thispagestyle{empty}
51: \begin{abstract}
52: This paper is aimed at providing a uniform framework for reasoning
53: about beliefs of multiple agents and their fusion. In the first
54: part of the paper, we develop logics for reasoning about
55: cautiously merged beliefs of agents with different degrees of
56: reliability. The logics are obtained by combining the multi-agent
57: epistemic logic and multi-sources reasoning systems. Every
58: ordering for the reliability of the agents is represented by a
59: modal operator, so we can reason with the merged results under
60: different situations. The fusion is cautious in the sense that if
61: an agent's belief is in conflict with those of higher priorities,
62: then his belief is completely discarded from the merged result. We
63: consider two strategies for the cautious merging of beliefs. In
64: the first one, if inconsistency occurs at some level, then all
65: beliefs at the lower levels are discarded simultaneously, so it is
66: called level cutting strategy. For the second one, only the level
67: at which the inconsistency occurs is skipped, so it is called
68: level skipping strategy. The formal semantics and axiomatic
69: systems for these two strategies are presented. In the second
70: part, we extend the logics both syntactically and semantically to
71: cover some more sophisticated belief fusion and revision
72: operators. While most existing approaches treat belief fusion
73: operators as meta-level constructs, these operators are directly
74: incorporated into our object logic language. Thus it is possible
75: to reason not only with the merged results but also about the
76: fusion process in our logics. The relationship of our extended
77: logics with the conditional logics
78: of belief revision is also discussed.\\
79: {\bf Key Words}: Epistemic logic, multi-sources reasoning,
80: database merging, belief fusion, belief revision, multi-agent
81: systems.
82: \end{abstract}
83: \section{Introduction}
84: %*********************
85: Recently, there has been much attention on the infoglut problem in
86: information retrieval research due to the rapid growth of internet
87: information. If a keyword is input to a commonly-used search
88: engine, it is not unusual to get back a list of thousands of web
89: pages, so the real difficulty is not how to find information, but
90: how to find useful information. To circumvent the problem, many
91: software agents have been designed to do the information search
92: works. The agents can search through the web and try to find and
93: filter out information for matching the user's need. However, not
94: all internet information sources are reliable. Some web sites are
95: out-of-date, some news provide wrong information, and someone even
96: intentionally spreads rumor or deceives by anonymity. Thus an
97: important task of information search agents is how to merge so
98: much information coming from different sources according to their
99: degrees of reliability.
100:
101: In \cite{sho1}, an agent is characterized by mental attitudes,
102: such as knowledge, belief, obligation, and commitment. This view
103: of agent, in accordance with the intentional stance proposed in
104: \cite{den}, has been widely accepted as a convenient way for the
105: analysis and description of complex systems\cite{woold}. From this
106: viewpoint, each information provider can be considered as an agent
107: and the information provided by the agent corresponds to his
108: belief, so our problem is also that of merging beliefs from
109: different agents.
110:
111: The philosophical analysis of these mental attitudes has motivated
112: the development of many non-classical logical systems\cite{gab}.
113: In particular, the analysis of informational attitudes, such as
114: knowledge and belief, has been a traditional concern of
115: epistemology, a very important branch of philosophy since the
116: ancient times. To answer the basic questions such as ``What is
117: knowledge?'' ''What can we know'' and ''What are the
118: characteristic properties of knowledge?'', some formalism more
119: rigorous than natural language is needed. This results in the
120: development of the so-called epistemic logic\cite{hint}. This kind
121: of logic has attracted much attention of researchers from diverse
122: fields such as artificial intelligence(AI), economics,
123: linguistics, and theoretical computer science. Among them, the AI
124: researchers and computer scientist have elaborated some
125: technically sophisticated formalisms and applied them to the
126: analysis of distributed and multi-agent systems\cite{fag,mey1}.
127:
128: Though the original epistemic logic in philosophy is mainly about
129: the single-agent case, the application to AI and computer science
130: put its emphasis on the interaction of agents, so multi-agent
131: epistemic logic is urgently needed. One representative example of
132: such logic is proposed by Fagin et al.\cite{fag}. In their logic,
133: the knowledge of each agent is represented by a normal modal
134: operator\cite{che}, so if no interactions between agents occur,
135: this is not more than a multi-modal logic. However, the most novel
136: feature of their logic is the consideration of common knowledge
137: and distributed knowledge among a group of agents. While common
138: knowledge is the facts that everyone knows, everyone knows that
139: everyone knows, everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone
140: knows, and so on, distributed knowledge is that can be deduced by
141: pooling together the knowledge of everyone, so it is the latter
142: that really concerns the fusion of knowledge among agents.
143: However, the term ``knowledge'' is used in a broad sense in
144: \cite{fag} to cover the cases of belief and
145: information.\footnote{More precisely, the logic for belief is
146: called doxastic logic. However, here we will use the three terms
147: knowledge, belief, and information interchangeably, so epistemic
148: logic is assumed to cover all these notions.} Though it is
149: required that proper knowledge must be true, the belief of an
150: agent may be wrong, so there will be conflicts in general in the
151: beliefs to be merged. In this case, everything can be deduced from
152: the distributed beliefs due to the notorious omniscience property
153: of epistemic logic, so the merged result will be useless to
154: further reasoning.
155:
156: Instead of directly put all beliefs of the agents together, there
157: are also many sophisticated techniques for knowledge base
158: merging\cite{bar3,bar2,bar1,cho,cho4,kon3,kon1,kon2,linj2,linj1,linj3,nebel,pra1,sub}.
159: Most of the approaches treats belief fusion operators as
160: meta-level constructs, so given a set of knowledge bases, this
161: kind of fusion operators will return the merged results. Some of
162: the works propose concrete operators which can be used directly
163: in the fusion process, while the others stipulate the desirable
164: properties of reasonable belief fusion operators by postulates.
165: However, few of the approaches provides the capability of
166: reasoning about the fusion process. One of the few exceptions is
167: the work of multi-source reasoning\cite{cho}.
168:
169: Multi-source reasoning is to model the fusion process of multiple
170: databases in a modal logic. The context of the work is to merge a
171: set of databases according to a total ordering on the set to be
172: merged. Each database is a finite and satisfiable set of literals.
173: Two attitudes for merging are considered. According to the
174: suspicious attitude, if a database contains a literal inconsistent
175: with those in the databases of higher reliability, then the
176: database is completely discarded in the merged result. On the
177: other hand, according to the trusting attitude, if a literal in a
178: database is inconsistent with those in the databases of higher
179: reliability, only the literal is discarded, and other literals in
180: the database will be still considered if they are consistent with
181: those in the databases of higher reliability.
182:
183: Since multi-source reasoning is modelled in a modal logic
184: framework, it is very suitable for the integration with epistemic
185: logic. The restriction here is that each database must be a set of
186: literals in multi-source reasoning, however, in the multi-agent
187: epistemic logic, it is expected that more complex compound
188: formulas will be believed by agents. Therefore, we have to extend
189: the multi-sources reasoning to the more general case. To achieve
190: the purpose, the distributed knowledge operators in multi-agent
191: epistemic logic may help. What we have to do is to adapt the
192: multi-agent epistemic logic so that the distributed knowledge
193: among a group of agents with reliability ordering can also be
194: defined. However, since the set of facts believed by an agent is
195: at least closed under classical logical equivalence, the trusting
196: attitude does not work here. For example, if $p$ and $q$ are both
197: believed by an agent and $\neg p\vee\neg q$ is believed by another
198: agent with higher reliability, then by trusting attitude, one of
199: $p$ or $q$ should be in the merged result (assume there do not
200: exist other conflicts), however, it is obvious that the belief of
201: the first agent is equivalent to $p\wedge q$ and if it is
202: expressed in this way, then no belief of the first agent (except
203: the obvious tautology) should be included in the merged belief.
204: Thus, we will only consider the merging of beliefs according to
205: the suspicious attitude, so this approach is very cautious from
206: the viewpoint of belief fusion. However, we will show that the
207: fusion according to the trusting attitude can also be simulated in
208: our logic, though the simulation is syntax-dependent. We consider
209: two strategies for the cautious merging of beliefs. In the first
210: one, if inconsistency occurs at some level, then all beliefs at
211: the lower levels are discarded simultaneously, so it is called
212: level cutting strategy. For the second one, only the level at
213: which the inconsistency occurs is skipped, so it is called level
214: skipping strategy.
215:
216: The logics integrate multi-source reasoning into multi-agent
217: epistemic logic, so it enhance the reasoning capability of the
218: latter. However, since the fusion technique used in the logics is
219: essentially the so-called base revision in \cite{nebel}, it is too
220: cautious in some cases. Thus we would also like to consider the
221: extension of the logics with some more sophisticated fusion
222: operators proposed in the literatures. We show that the
223: multi-agent epistemic logic framework can accommodate these belief
224: fusion operators to a large extent both syntactically and
225: semantically. This means that the belief fusion operators as a
226: standard add-on of multi-agent epistemic logic should be
227: expectable.
228:
229:
230: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next
231: section, the multi-agent epistemic logic and multi-sources
232: reasoning are reviewed. Then the logics integrating cautious
233: fusion into multi-agent epistemic logic are presented. The level
234: cutting and skipping strategies are presented respectively in
235: section \ref{sec3} and \ref{sec4}. The syntax, semantics, and
236: axiomatic systems of the logics will be given. In section
237: \ref{sec5}, the basic logics are compared with their ancestors and
238: another cautious inconsistency handling technique. In section
239: \ref{sec6} and \ref{sec7} , accompanied by the brief introductions
240: of some of the most important belief fusion or revision
241: techniques, the possible extensions of our basic logics for
242: accommodating them are presented. Finally, some further research
243: directions are discussed in the concluding section.
244:
245: \section{Logical Preliminary}
246: In this section, we review the syntax, semantics and some
247: notations for multi-agent epistemic logic and multi-sources
248: reasoning.
249: \subsection{Multi-agent epistemic logic}
250: In \cite{fag}, some variants of epistemic logic systems are
251: presented. The most basic one with distributed belief is called
252: K$_n^D$ by following the naming convention in \cite{che}, with $n$
253: being the number of agents and $D$ denoting the distributed belief
254: operators. In the system, no properties except logical omniscience
255: are imposed on the agents' beliefs. Nevertheless, in the
256: following, we will assume the belief of each individual agent is
257: consistent though the collective ones of several agents may be
258: not, so the system will be KD$_n^D$ where the additional axiom D
259: is added to K$_n^D$ for ensuring the consistency of each agent's
260: belief.\footnote{Though it is well accepted that KD45$_n^D$ is
261: more appropriate for modeling of belief with positive and negative
262: introspection (axioms 4 and 5), we adopt the KD$_n^D$ system for
263: emphasizing the agents may represent databases and their beliefs
264: may be just the facts stored in the databases and their
265: consequences.}
266:
267: Assume we have $n$ agents and a set $\Phi_0$ of countably many
268: atomic propositions, then the set of well-formed formulas(wff) for
269: the logic KD$_n^D$ is the least set containing $\Phi_0$ and closed
270: under the following formation rules:\footnote{In \cite{fag}, the
271: modal operators are denoted by $K_i$ instead of $B_i$}
272: \begin{itemize}
273: \item if $\varphi$ is a wff, so are $\neg\varphi$, $B_i\varphi$,
274: and $D_G\varphi$ for all $1\leq i,j\leq n$ and nonempty $G\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$,
275: and
276: \item if $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are wffs, then $\varphi\vee\psi$ is,
277: too.
278: \end{itemize}
279: As usual, other classical Boolean connectives $\wedge$ (and),
280: $\supset$ (implication), $\equiv$ (equivalence), $\top$
281: (tautology), and $\bot$ (contradiction) can be defined as
282: abbreviations.
283:
284: The intuitive meaning of $B_i\varphi$ is ``The agent $i$ believes
285: $\varphi$.'', whereas that for $D_G\varphi$ is ``The group of
286: agents $G$ has distributed belief $\varphi$.''. The
287: possible-worlds semantics provides a general framework for the
288: modeling of knowledge and belief\cite{fag}. In the semantics, an
289: agent's belief state corresponds to the extent to which he can
290: determine what world he is in. In a given world, the belief state
291: determines the set of worlds that the agent considers possible.
292: Then an agent is said to believe a fact $\varphi$ if $\varphi$ is
293: true in all worlds in this set. Since the distributed belief of a
294: group is the result of pooling together the individual beliefs of
295: its members, this can be achieved by intersecting the sets of
296: worlds that each agent in the groups considers possible.
297:
298: Formally, a KD$_n^D$ model is a tuple $(W,({\cal B}_i)_{1\leq
299: i\leq n}, V)$, where
300: \begin{itemize}
301: \item $W$ is a set of possible worlds,
302: \item ${\cal B}_i\subseteq W\times W$ is a serial binary relation on $W$ for $1\leq i\leq n$,
303: \footnote{A relation $\cal R$ on $W$ is serial if $\forall w
304: \exists u {\cal R}(w,u)$.}
305: \item $ V:\Phi_0\ra 2^W$ is a truth assignment mapping each atomic
306: proposition to the set of worlds in which it is true.
307: \end{itemize}
308:
309: In the following, we will use some standard notations for binary
310: relations. If ${\cal R}\subseteq A\times B$ is a binary relation
311: between $A$ and $B$, we will write ${\cal R}(a,b)$ for $(a,b)\in
312: {\cal R}$ and ${\cal R}(a)$ for the subset $\{b\in B\mid {\cal
313: R}(a,b)\}$. Thus for any $w\in W$, ${\cal B}_i(w)$ is a subset of
314: $W$. Informally, ${\cal B}_i(w)$ is the set of worlds that agent
315: $i$ considers possible under $w$ according to his belief. The
316: informal intuition is reflected in the definition of satisfaction
317: relation. Let $M=(W, ({\cal B}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$ be a
318: KD$_n^D$ model and $\Phi$ be the set of wffs, then the
319: satisfaction relation $\models_M\subseteq W\times\Phi$ is defined
320: by the following inductive rules(we will use the infix notation
321: for the relation and omit the subscript $M$ for convenience):
322: \begin{enumerate}
323: \item $w\models p$ iff $w\in V(p)$ for any $p\in\Phi_0$,
324: \item $w\models\neg\varphi$ iff $w\not\models\varphi$,
325: \item $w\models \varphi\vee\psi$ iff $w\models\varphi$ or
326: $w\models\psi$,
327: \item $w\models B_i\varphi$ iff for all $u\in {\cal B}_i(w)$,
328: $u\models\varphi$,
329: \item $w\models D_G\varphi$ iff for all $u\in \bigcap_{i\in G}{\cal B}_i(w)$,
330: $u\models\varphi$.
331: \end{enumerate}
332:
333: The notion of validity is defined from the satisfaction relation.
334: A wff $\varphi$ is valid in $M$, denoted by $\models_M\varphi$, if
335: for every $w\in W$, $w\models_M\varphi$, and valid in a class of
336: models $\cal M$, written as $\models_{\cal M}\varphi$, if for all
337: $M\in{\cal M}$, $\models_M\varphi$.
338:
339: \subsection{Multi-sources reasoning}\label{ss1}
340: The context of multi-sources reasoning is the merging of $n$
341: databases. To encode the degrees of reliability of these
342: databases, the total ordering on a subset of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ is
343: used. Let ${\cal TO}_n$ denote the set of all possible total
344: orders on the subsets of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $\Phi_0$ denote a
345: finite set of atomic propositions and ${\cal L}(\Phi_0)$ be the
346: classical propositional language formed from $\Phi_0$, then the
347: set of wffs for logic FU$_n$ (originally called FUSION in
348: \cite{cho}) is the least set containing $\Phi_0$ and
349: $\{[O]\varphi: \varphi\in{\cal L}(\Phi_0), O\in {\cal TO}_n\}$ and
350: being closed under Boolean connectives. If $O$ is the ordering
351: $i_1>i_2>\cdots>i_m$ for some
352: $\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\}\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$, then the wff
353: $[O]\varphi$ means that $\varphi$ holds after merging the
354: databases $i_1,\ldots,i_m$ according to the specified ordering. In
355: this case, $O>i_{m+1}$ denotes $i_1>i_2>\cdots>i_m>i_{m+1}$.
356: Furthermore, the set $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_m\}$ is called the domain
357: of $O$ and is denoted by $\delta(O)$.
358:
359: Let $Lit(\Phi_0)$ denote the set of literals in ${\cal
360: L}(\Phi_0)$.\footnote{A literal is an atom or a negated atom.} In
361: the context of multi-sources reasoning, assume $DB_1,\ldots, DB_n$
362: are $n$ databases, where each $DB_i$ is a finite satisfiable
363: subset of $Lit(\Phi_0)$, then the informal semantics for the
364: merging databases can be given according to two attitudes. For the
365: suspicious attitude, only the case of $n=2$ is given in
366: \cite{cho}, where the definition of $DB_{1>2}$ is defined by
367: \[DB_{1>2}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
368: DB_1\cup DB_2 & {\rm if} \; DB_1\cup DB_2 \; {\rm is} \; {\rm
369: consistent},\\ DB_1 & {\rm otherwise}.
370: \end{array}
371: \right.\] On the other hand, for the trusting attitude, the
372: definition of $DB_O$ is given in the following recursive formula
373: \[DB_{O>i} = DB_O\cup\{l\in DB_i: \overline{l}\not\in DB_O\},\]
374: where $\overline{l}$ is the complementary of $l$. Then the
375: intended meaning of $[O]\varphi$ is $DB_O\models_{\rm CL}\varphi$,
376: where CL denotes classical propositional reasoning.
377:
378: Thus an FU$_n$ model is a tuple $(W,({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n},
379: V)$, where $W$ and $ V$ are as defined in KD$_n^D$ models, and
380: each ${\cal R}_i$ is a serial binary relation on $W$.\footnote{In
381: \cite{cho},it is assumed that each ${\cal R}_i$ is an equivalence
382: relation. However, since nested modalities are not allowed in
383: FU$_n$, the difference is inessential.} The clause for
384: satisfaction of the formula $[O]\varphi$ is then
385: \begin{description}
386: \item $w\models[O]\varphi$ iff for all $u\in {\cal R}_O(w)$,
387: $u\models\varphi$,
388: \end{description}
389: where ${\cal R}_O$ is defined from ${\cal R}_i$'s according to two
390: attitudes. For the suspicious attitude,
391: \[{\cal R}_{1>2}(w)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
392: {\cal R}_1(w) & {\rm if} \; {\cal R}_1(w)\cap {\cal R}_2(w)=\emptyset,\\
393: {\cal R}_1(w)\cap {\cal R}_2(w)& {\rm otherwise},
394: \end{array}
395: \right.\] for all $w\in W$. For the trusting attitude, we need
396: some auxiliary notations. Let $f:2^W\times 2^W\ra 2^{Lit(\Phi_0)}$
397: be defined as
398: \[f(S,T)=\{l\in Lit(\Phi_0): \forall w\in S(w\models
399: l)\wedge\exists w\in T(w\models l)\},\] i.e., $f(S,T)$ is the set
400: of literals true in all worlds of $S$ and some worlds of $T$. Then
401: for any $w\in W$,
402: \[{\cal R}_{O>i}(w) = {\cal R}_O(w)\cap\{u\in W: u\models\bigwedge f({\cal R}_i(w),{\cal
403: R}_O(w))\}.\] Note that if each ${\cal R}_i(w)$ denotes the set of
404: possible worlds in which the literals in $DB_i$ are all true, then
405: $f({\cal R}_i(w),{\cal R}_O(w))$ is just the set $\{l\in DB_i:
406: \overline{l}\not\in DB_O\}$, so ${\cal R}_{O>i}(w)$ is exactly the
407: set of possible worlds satisfying all literals in $DB_{O>i}$.
408:
409: An axiomatic system for FU$_n$ based on trusting attitude
410: semantics is proposed in a recent paper\cite{cho2}. One key axiom
411: of that system is as follows
412: \[[i]l\wedge\neg[O]\neg l\supset[O>i]l,\]
413: where $l$ is a literal. Thus a severe restriction of FU$_n$ is the
414: background databases $DB_i$'s can contain only literals which may
415: be not the case in general practice. Though from the semantic
416: viewpoint, there is no essential difficulty to lift the
417: restriction, however the key axiom is no longer valid when the
418: databases contain general formulas. On the other hand, for the
419: suspicious semantics, the merged database in fact contains the
420: distributed belief of the two databases if they are consistent.
421: However, since distributed belief operator is not in the language
422: of FU$_n$, the modal operator $[O]$ can only be characterized by
423: the modal operators $[i]$ for $i\in \delta(O)$. Nevertheless,
424: unless $\varphi$ is a literal, it seems difficult (if not
425: impossible) to define $D_{1,2}\varphi$ in terms of the two
426: individual agents' belief. Thus, a natural solution to merge
427: general databases in the suspicious semantics is to introduce the
428: distributed belief operators into the language of FU$_n$. This is
429: exactly what we will do in the following.
430:
431: \section{Level Cutting Strategy}\label{sec3}
432: To unify the notations from multi-agent epistemic logic and
433: multi-sources reasoning, we will use the language DBF$_n^c$ (for
434: distributed belief fusion and cutting strategy) defined as
435: follows. The wffs of DBF$_n^c$ is the least set containing
436: $\Phi_0$ and being closed under Boolean connectives and the
437: following rule:
438: \begin{itemize}
439: \item if $\varphi$ is a wff, so are $[G]\varphi$ and $[O]\varphi$
440: for any nonempty $G\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $O\in{\cal TO}_n$.
441: \end{itemize}
442: When $G$ is a singleton $\{i\}$ and $O$ is the unique total order
443: on $\{i\}$, we will use $[i]\varphi$ to denote both $[G]\varphi$
444: and $[O]\varphi$. Thus $[i]\varphi$ and $[G]\varphi$ correspond
445: respectively to $B_i\varphi$ and $D_G\varphi$ in KD$_n^D$, so
446: DBF$_n^c$ is an extension of the multi-agent epistemic logic with
447: distributed belief operators. On the other hand, $[O]\varphi$ and
448: $[i]\varphi$ are precisely those in FU$_n$, so DBF$_n^c$ is also a
449: generalization of multi-sources reasoning system. However, note
450: that nested modalities are not allowed in FU$_n$, whereas this is
451: not restricted in DBF$_n^c$ any more. Thus, for example, we can
452: include a wff $[j]\varphi$ in a database $DB_i$ which means that
453: $DB_i$ has the information that $\varphi$ is in $j$.
454:
455: Let $Q$ be a partial order on $\{1,2,\cdots,k\}$ for some $k\leq
456: n$ and ${\cal O}_Q$ be the set of all total orders on
457: $\{1,2,\cdots,k\}$ containing $Q$, then define $[Q]\varphi$ as the
458: abbreviation of $\bigwedge_{O\in{\cal O}_Q}[O]\varphi$. Thus the
459: restriction of the modalities to total orders is not essential
460: since a partial order can be replaced by the set of total orders
461: compatible with it.
462:
463: For the semantics, a DBF$_n^c$ model is just a FU$_n$ model
464: $(W,({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$. The clauses for the
465: satisfaction of wffs are defined exactly as in FU$_n$ model in
466: addition to a clause for the $[G]$ operator which is the one for
467: distributed knowledge in KD$_n^D$. However, the relation ${\cal
468: R}_O$ is now defined in an inductive way:
469: \[{\cal R}_{O>i}(w)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
470: {\cal R}_O(w)& {\rm if} \; \bigcap_{j\in \delta(O>i)}{\cal R}_j(w)=\emptyset,\\
471: {\cal R}_O(w)\cap {\cal R}_i(w)& {\rm otherwise},
472: \end{array}
473: \right.\] for any $w\in W$. Let $O=(i_1>i_2>\cdots>i_m)$ and
474: define $G_j=\{i_1,i_2\ldots,i_j\}$ for $1\leq j\leq m$ and assume
475: $k$ is the largest $j$ such that $\bigcap_{i\in G_k}{\cal
476: R}_i(w)\not=\emptyset$, then we have
477: \[{\cal R}_O(w)=\bigcap_{i\in G_k}{\cal
478: R}_i(w).\] In other words, the beliefs from the agents after the
479: level $k$ are completely discarded in the merged result. The
480: rationale behind this is if belief in level $k+1$ is not
481: acceptable, neither any belief in a less reliable level, so this
482: is a very cautious attitude to belief fusion.
483:
484: The notion of validity in DBF$_n^c$ is defined just as that for
485: KD$_n^D$. The notation $\models_{{\rm DBF}_n^c}\varphi$ denotes
486: that $\varphi$ is valid in all DBF$_n^c$ model and the subscript
487: is usually omitted if there is no confusion. The valid wffs of
488: DBF$_n^c$ can be captured by the axiomatic system in
489: Fig~\ref{lab1}.
490:
491: {\begin{figure*} \framebox[170mm]{\parbox{168mm}{
492: \begin{enumerate}
493: \item Axioms:
494: \begin{description}
495: \item P: all tautologies of the propositional calculus
496: \item G1: $([G]\varphi\wedge[G](\varphi\supset \psi))\supset [G]\psi$
497: \item G2: $\neg[i]\bot$
498: \item G3: $[G_1]\varphi\supset[G_2]\varphi$ if $G_1\subset G_2$
499: \item O1:
500: $\neg[\delta(O>i)]\bot\supset([O>i]\varphi\equiv[\delta(O>i)]\varphi)$
501: \item
502: O2: $[\delta(O>i)]\bot\supset([O>i]\varphi\equiv[O]\varphi)$
503: \end{description}
504: \item Rules of Inference:
505: \begin{description}
506: \item R1(Modus ponens, MP):\[\begin{array}{c}
507: \varphi \;\; \varphi\supset\psi\\ \hline \psi\end{array}\]
508: \item R2(Generalization, Gen): \[\begin{array}{c}\varphi\\ \hline
509: [G]\varphi\end{array}\]
510: \end{description}
511: \end{enumerate}
512: }}
513: \caption{The axiomatic system for DBF$_n^c$}\label{lab1}
514: \end{figure*}
515:
516: The axioms G1-G3 and rule R2 are those for KD$_n^D$. G1 and rule
517: R2 are properties of knowledge for perfect reasoners. They also
518: are the causes of the notorious logical omniscience problem.
519: However, it is appropriate to describe implicit information in
520: this way. G2 is the requirement that the belief of each individual
521: agent is consistent. G3 is a characteristic property of
522: distributed knowledge. The larger the subgroup, the more knowledge
523: it possesses. In \cite{fag}, another axiom related distributed
524: knowledge and individual ones is added. That is,
525: \[D_{\{i\}}\varphi\equiv B_i\varphi,\]
526: however, we do not need this because we identify $[i]\varphi$ and
527: $[\{i\}]\varphi$ which respectively correspond to $B_i\varphi$
528: and $D_{\{i\}}\varphi$ in KD$_n^D$. The two axioms O1 and O2
529: define the merged belief in terms of distributed belief in a
530: recursive way. O1 is the case when $ \bigcap_{j\in
531: \delta(O>i)}{\cal R}_i(w)\not=\emptyset$, whereas O2 is the
532: opposite case.
533:
534: The derivability in the system is defined as follows. Let
535: $\Sigma\cup\{\varphi\}$ be a subset of wffs, then $\varphi$ is
536: derivable from $\Sigma$ in the system DBF$_n^c$ , written as
537: $\Sigma\vdash_{{\rm DBF}_n^c}\varphi$, if there is a finite
538: sequence $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_m$ such that every $\varphi_i$
539: is an instance of an axiom schema, a wff in $\Sigma$, or
540: obtainable from earlier $\varphi_j$'s by application of an
541: inference rule. When $\Sigma=\emptyset$, we simply write
542: $\vdash_{{\rm DBF}_n^c}\varphi$. We will drop the subscript when
543: no confusion occurs. We have the soundness and completeness
544: results for the system DBF$_n^c$.
545: \begin{myth}\label{thm1}
546: For any wff of {\rm DBF}$_n^c$, $\models\varphi$ iff
547: $\vdash\varphi$.
548: \end{myth}
549: {\bf Proof}: The proof of all theorems and propositions can be
550: found in the appendix. $\Box$
551:
552: Some basic theorems can be derived from the system.
553: \begin{mypro}\label{prop1}
554: For any $O=(i_1>i_2>\cdots>i_m)$ and
555: $G_j=\{i_1,i_2\ldots,i_j\}(1\leq j\leq m)$, we have
556: \begin{enumerate}
557: \item
558: $\vdash(\neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot)\supset([O]\varphi\equiv[G_j]\varphi)$,
559: where the wff $[G_{j+1}]\bot$ is deleted from the antecedent when
560: $j=m$.
561: \item $\vdash([O]\varphi\wedge[O](\varphi\supset \psi))\supset [O]\psi$,
562: \item $\vdash\neg[O]\bot$,
563: \item $\begin{array}{c}\varphi\\ \hline
564: [O]\varphi\end{array}$.
565: \end{enumerate}
566: \end{mypro}
567: Proposition \ref{prop1}.1 shows that any total order can be cut
568: into a head and a tail according to some consistency level, and
569: the merged belief according to the ordering is just the
570: distributed belief of the agents from the head part. Proposition
571: \ref{prop1}.2 and \ref{prop1}.4 show that merged belief inherits
572: the properties of the distributed one since the former is
573: equivalent to the latter for the head part of the ordering.
574: Furthermore, Proposition \ref{prop1}.3 shows that belief fusion
575: keeps consistency.
576:
577: \section{Level Skipping Strategy}\label{sec4}
578: Though level cutting strategy is useful in practice, it is
579: sometimes too cautious from the viewpoint of information fusion. A
580: less cautious strategy is to skip only the agent causing
581: inconsistency and continue to consider the next level. The
582: strategy corresponds to the suspicious attitude of multi-sources
583: reasoning and has been used in belief revision by
584: Nebel\cite{nebel}. This strategy is easily obtained by modifying
585: the inductive definition of ${\cal R}_{O>i}$ as follows.
586: \[{\cal R}_{O>i}(w)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
587: {\cal R}_O(w) & {\rm if} \;{\cal R}_O(w)\cap{\cal R}_i(w)=\emptyset,\\
588: {\cal R}_O(w)\cap {\cal R}_i(w)& {\rm otherwise},
589: \end{array}
590: \right.\] for any $w\in W$.
591:
592: According to the definition, $[O>i]\varphi$ will be equivalent to
593: the distributed fusion of $[O]\varphi$ and $[i]\varphi$ when the
594: belief of $i$ is consistent with the merged belief of $O$, so to
595: axiomatize reasoning under the strategy, we must view $O$ as a
596: virtual agent and consider the distributed belief between $O$ and
597: $i$. However, to get a bit more general, we will consider the
598: distributed belief among a group of virtual agents. Thus, we
599: define the wffs of the logic DBF$_n^s$(for skipping strategy) as
600: the least set containing $\Phi_0$ and being closed under Boolean
601: connectives and the following rule:
602: \begin{itemize}
603: \item if $\varphi$ is a wff, so are $[\Omega]\varphi$ for any nonempty
604: $\Omega\subseteq{\cal TO}_n$.
605: \end{itemize}
606: When $\Omega$ is a singleton $\{O\}$, we will write $[O]\varphi$
607: instead $[\{O\}]\varphi$. If $\Omega=\{O_1,\ldots, O_m\}$ is such
608: that $|\delta(O_i)|=1$ for all $i$'s, then $[\Omega]$ is the
609: distributed belief operator among ordinary agents. Therefore, the
610: language is more general than that of DBF$_n^c$.
611:
612: For the semantics, a DBF$_n^s$ model is still a DBF$_n^c$ model,
613: however, the satisfaction clauses for $[O]$ and $[G]$ operators
614: are replaced by the following
615: \begin{description}
616: \item $w\models[\Omega]\varphi$ iff for all $u\in{\cal
617: R}_\Omega(w), u\models\varphi$,
618: \end{description}
619: where ${\cal R}_\Omega(w)=\bigcap_{O\in\Omega}{\cal R}_O(w)$ and
620: ${\cal R}_O$ is defined inductively at the beginning of the
621: section. Given this language and semantics, the valid wffs of
622: DBF$_n^s$ is capture by the axiomatic system in Fig~\ref{lab2}.
623:
624: {\begin{figure*} \framebox[170mm]{\parbox{168mm}{
625: \begin{enumerate}
626: \item Axioms:
627: \begin{description}
628: \item P: all tautologies of the propositional calculus
629: \item V1: $([\Omega]\varphi\wedge[\Omega](\varphi\supset \psi))\supset [\Omega]\psi$
630: \item V2: $\neg[i]\bot$
631: \item V3: $[\Omega_1]\varphi\supset[\Omega_2]\varphi$ if $\Omega_1\subset \Omega_2$
632: \item O1':
633: $\neg[\{O,i\}]\bot\supset([\Omega\cup\{O>i\}]\varphi\equiv[\Omega\cup\{O,i\}]\varphi)$
634: \item O2':
635: $[\{O,i\}]\bot\supset([\Omega\cup\{O>i\}]\varphi\equiv[\Omega\cup\{O\}]\varphi)$
636: \end{description}
637: \item Rules of Inference:
638: \begin{description}
639: \item R1(Modus ponens, MP):\[\begin{array}{c}
640: \varphi \;\; \varphi\supset\psi\\ \hline \psi\end{array}\]
641: \item R2'(Generalization, Gen): \[\begin{array}{c}\varphi\\ \hline
642: [\Omega]\varphi\end{array}\]
643: \end{description}
644: \end{enumerate}
645: }}
646: \caption{The axiomatic system for DBF$_n^s$}\label{lab2}
647: \end{figure*}
648: The axioms V1-V3 and rule R2' correspond to G1-G3 and R2 for
649: distributed belief, but now for virtual agents instead of ordinary
650: agents. Nevertheless, since an ordinary agent is a special case of
651: the virtual one, these in fact also cover G1-G3 and R2. O1' and
652: O2' are axioms for describing the level skipping strategy and
653: correspond exactly to the inductive definition of ${\cal
654: R}_{O>i}$, where $\Omega$ in these two axioms denote any subset
655: (empty or not) of ${\cal TO}_n$. We can still have the soundness
656: and completeness theorem.
657: \begin{myth}\label{thm2}
658: For any wff of {\rm DBF}$_n^s$, $\models\varphi$ iff
659: $\vdash\varphi$.
660: \end{myth}
661: Since operator $[O]$ is a special case of $[\Omega]$, the
662: properties \ref{prop1}.2 and \ref{prop1}.4 hold trivially for
663: DBF$_n^s$. The property \ref{prop1}.3 can be easily proved by
664: using V2, O1' and O2'. However, it is unclear whether a
665: counterpart of property \ref{prop1}.1 can be given.
666:
667: \section{Related works}\label{sec5}
668: In this section, some important works related to the
669: above-mentioned logical systems will be investigated. In the
670: preceding sections, the strong dependence of our logics on
671: multi-sources reasoning and multi-agent epistemic logic has been
672: emphasized, so we will start from the comparison with them. Then
673: we also compare DBF$_n^c$ with the possibilistic logic approach to
674: inconsistency handling which is known to be very cautious in
675: belief fusion\cite{ben1}.
676:
677: \subsection{Multi-sources reasoning}
678: Since the original motivation of multi-sources reasoning is to
679: model database merging, we will also consider the relationship of
680: our logic to multi-sources reasoning in this context. In section
681: \ref{ss1}, it is assumed that $\Phi_0$ is finite and each $DB_i$
682: is a finite satisfiable subset of $Lit(\Phi_0)$. Let $CLS(\Phi_0)$
683: be the set of clauses in ${\cal L}(\Phi_0)$\footnote{A clause is a
684: disjunction of literals.}, then in FU$_n$, each $DB_i$ is
685: characterized by a wff
686: \begin{equation}\label{eq1}
687: \begin{array}{ccl}
688: \psi_i & = &\bigwedge\{[i]l: l\in DB_i\}\wedge\\ & &
689: \bigwedge\{\neg[i]c: c\in CLS(\Phi_0),
690: DB_i\not\vdash_{CL}c\},\end{array}
691: \end{equation} and the reasoning
692: problem is to decide whether the following holds:
693: \[\models\bigwedge_{i=1}^n\psi_i\supset[O]\varphi,\]
694: for some given $O$ and $\varphi\in {\cal L}(\Phi_0)$. The formula
695: $\psi_i$ asserts not only the explicit information in $DB_i$ but
696: also the default negative information about it. However, since in
697: our logic, no restrictions are put on the wffs in databases, this
698: kind of default wffs are potentially infinite, so we will only
699: assert a weaker form of wff. Let $G$ be a subset of
700: $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, then $G$ is consistent if $\bigcup_{i\in
701: G}DB_i$ is classically consistent, otherwise, it is inconsistent.
702: A subset $G$ is a maximal consistent agent group if $G$ is
703: consistent and for any $i\not\in G$, $G\cup\{i\}$ is inconsistent.
704: Let $MCAG$ denote the class of all maximal consistent agent groups
705: and redefine $\psi_i=\bigwedge\{[i]\varphi: \varphi\in DB_i\}$,
706: then we can define the formula $\psi$ representing the databases
707: as
708: \[\psi=\bigwedge_{i=1}^n\psi_i\wedge\bigwedge_{G\in
709: MCAG}\neg[G]\bot.\] Thus the reasoning problem in our logic is to
710: decide whether $\vdash\psi\supset[O]\varphi$ holds in our system
711: for some given $O$ and $\varphi$. Let us use an example to
712: illustrate the application.
713: \begin{myex}
714: {\rm Assume there are four databases $DB_1=\{p\}, DB_2=\{q\},
715: DB_3=\{\neg p\vee\neg q\}$, and $DB_4=\{r,s\}$, where $p, q, r$,
716: and $s$ are propositional symbols, then according to the above
717: discussion,
718: \[\psi=[1]p\wedge[2]q\wedge[3](\neg p\vee\neg
719: q)\wedge[4](r\wedge s)
720: \wedge\neg[\{1,2,4\}]\bot\wedge\neg[\{1,3,4\}]\bot\wedge\neg[\{2,3,4\}]\bot.\]
721: By using level cutting strategy, we have the following reasoning
722: steps:
723: \[\begin{array}{ll}
724: 1. \psi\supset(\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\wedge[\{1,2,3\}]\bot) & G1, G3,
725: P, MP\\
726: 2.(\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\wedge[\{1,2,3\}]\bot)\supset([1>2>3>4]\varphi\equiv[\{1,2\}]\varphi)
727: & Prop \ref{prop1}.1\\ 3.
728: \psi\supset([1>2>3>4]\varphi\equiv[\{1,2\}]\varphi) & 1, 2, MP
729: \end{array}\]
730: Thus, by epistemic reasoning in KD$_n^D$, we have the results
731: $\vdash\psi\supset[O](p\wedge q)$ but
732: $\not\vdash\psi\supset[O](r\wedge s)$ when $O=1>2>3>4$. This means
733: that both databases $DB_3$ and $DB_4$ are discarded according to
734: the ordering even only $DB_3$ is in conflict with $DB_1$ and
735: $DB_2$.
736:
737: On the other hand, if the level skipping strategy is adopted. Then
738: we have the following proof.
739: \[\begin{array}{ll}
740: 1. \psi\supset\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot & V3\\
741: 2.\psi\supset([\{1>2,3\}]\bot\equiv[\{1,2,3\}]\bot) & O1', 1, P,
742: MP\\ 3.\psi\supset([\{1>2,4\}]\bot\equiv[\{1,2,4\}]\bot) & O1', 1,
743: P, MP\\ 4.\psi\supset[\{1>2,3\}]\bot & V1, V3, 2, P, MP\\
744: 5.\psi\supset\neg[\{1>2,4\}]\bot & 3, P, MP\\6.
745: [\{1>2,3\}]\bot\supset([\{1>2>3,4\}]\bot\equiv[\{1>2,4\}]\bot)&
746: O2'\\ 7.\psi\supset\neg[\{1>2>3,4\}]\bot& 4, 5, 6, P, MP\\
747: 8.\psi\supset([\{1>2,4\}]\varphi\equiv[\{1,2,4\}]\varphi)& 1, O1',
748: P, MP\\
749: 9.\psi\supset([\{1>2>3,4\}]\varphi\equiv[\{1>2,4\}]\varphi)& 4,
750: O2', P, MP\\
751: 10.\psi\supset([1>2>3>4]\varphi\equiv[\{1>2>3,4\}]\varphi)& 7,
752: O1', P, MP\\
753: 11.\psi\supset([1>2>3>4]\varphi\equiv[\{1,2,4\}]\varphi) & 8, 9,
754: 10, P, MP
755: \end{array}\]
756: Thus we have $\vdash\psi\supset[O](p\wedge q\wedge r\wedge s)$ by
757: epistemic logic, i.e. only $DB_3$ is discarded for its conflict
758: with $DB_1$ and $DB_2$. $\Box$}
759: \end{myex}
760:
761: The reasoning in the above example corresponds to the suspicious
762: attitude in merging databases. In \cite{liau}, it is shown that
763: the trusting attitude merging can also be simulated in the system
764: DBF$_n^s$, though the simulation is somewhat awkward. While the
765: simulation in \cite{liau} is restricted to the databases
766: containing only literals, here we consider the general case.
767:
768: To simulate the trusting attitude merging, recall that for a
769: partial order $Q$ and the set ${\cal O}_Q$ of all total orders
770: compatible with it, $[Q]\varphi$ is the abbreviation of
771: $\bigwedge_{O\in{\cal O}_Q}[O]\varphi$. The basic idea of the
772: simulation is to split each database containing $m$ wffs into $m$
773: sub-databases, so we have in total $\sum_{i=1}^{n}|DB_i|$
774: sub-databases. Let $DB_{ij}$ denote the $j$-th sub-database
775: obtained from the $i$-th database, then a total ordering
776: $O\in{\cal TO}_n$ is transformed into a partial ordering $Q$ on
777: the set ${\cal ID}=\{ij\mid DB_{ij}$ is a sub-database$\}$ such
778: that $i_1j_1>i_2j_2$ in $Q$ iff $i_1>i_2$ in $O$. Then the
779: databases are represented by the following wff
780: \[\psi'=\bigwedge_{ij\in{\cal ID}}\psi_{ij}\wedge\bigwedge_{G\in
781: MCAG'}\neg[G]\bot\] where $\psi_{ij}=\bigwedge\{[ij]\varphi\mid
782: \varphi\in DB_{ij}\}$ and $MCAG'$ is the class of all maximal
783: consistent agent subgroups of ${\cal ID}$. Thus, to decide whether
784: $\varphi$ is derivable from the merging of $DB_1,DB_2,\cdots,
785: DB_n$ according to a total order $O$ by the trusting attitude, we
786: only have to do the following deduction in DBF$_n^s$.
787: \[\vdash\psi'\supset[Q]\varphi\]
788:
789: The idea is illustrated in the following example.
790: \begin{myex}
791: {\rm Assume there are two databases $DB_1=\{p\vee q\}$ and
792: $DB_2=\{\neg p, \neg q\}$, then according to the reasoning in
793: DBF$_n^c$ or DBF$_n^s$, we have
794: $\vdash\psi\supset([1>2]\varphi\equiv[1]\varphi)$, where
795: $\psi=[1](p\vee q)\wedge[2]\neg p\wedge[2]\neg q$. Thus $DB_2$ is
796: completely discarded in the merging process. However, if we first
797: split $DB_2$ into two sub-databases $DB_{21}=\{\neg p\}$ and
798: $DB_{22}=\{\neg q\}$ and let $DB_{11}=DB_1$, then we have
799: $\vdash\psi'\supset([O_1](\neg p\vee\neg q)\wedge[O_2](\neg
800: p\vee\neg q)$ where $O_1= 11>21>22$, $O_2=11>22>21$, and
801: $\psi'=[11](p\vee q)\wedge[21]\neg p\wedge[22]\neg
802: q\wedge\neg[\{11,21\}]\bot\wedge\neg[\{11,22\}]\bot\wedge\neg[\{21,22\}]\bot$.
803: In other words, $\neg p\vee\neg q$ will be derivable from the
804: merging results according to the ordering $1>2$ in the original
805: databases. Note that here $\psi$ and $\psi'$ are different wffs
806: since they use different modal operators, though they essentially
807: represent the same database contents. It must also be noted that
808: the simulation is syntax-dependent since if the original second
809: database is given as $\{\neg p\wedge\neg q\}$ which is equivalent
810: to $DB_2$, then we can not split it any more. }$\Box$
811: \end{myex}
812:
813: \subsection{Multi-agent epistemic reasoning}
814: Obviously, both DBF$_n^c$ and DBF$_n^s$ are conservative
815: extensions of KD$_n^D$ in the sense that if we uniformly replace
816: the modal operators $B_i$ and $D_G$ in a wff $\varphi$ of KD$_n^D$
817: by $[i]$ and $[G]$ respectively, then $\models_{KD_{n}^D}\varphi$
818: iff the replaced wff is valid in DBF$_n^c$ or DBF$_n^s$. Thus our
819: systems can do all reasoning that KD$_n^D$ can. Furthermore, if
820: some additional axioms are added, we can turn our systems into
821: conservative extensions of other epistemic logic systems. For
822: example, if the following two axioms 4 and 5 are added, then our
823: systems can do the reasoning of KD45$_n^D$ system which is in
824: general accepted as the logic for modelling agent's beliefs.
825: \[4. [i]\varphi\supset[i][i]\varphi\]
826: \[5. \neg[i]\varphi\supset[i]\neg[i]\varphi\]
827: However, if an additional axiom T (called knowledge axiom):
828: $[i]\varphi\supset\varphi$ is added to the above-extended system,
829: then it will degenerate into the ordinary S5$_n^D$ system in the
830: sense that each wff $[O]\varphi$ is provably equivalent to
831: $[\delta(O)]\varphi$ since no conflicts may exist if what every
832: agent knows is true. In the following, let us look at some
833: examples of integrated reasoning about the multi-agent beliefs and
834: their fusion.
835: \begin{myex}{\rm
836: If a set of premises $\{\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\vee\neg[\{1,3\}]\bot,
837: [1](p\supset q), [2]p, [3]\neg q\}$ is given for three agents,
838: then it can be derived that \[\vdash_{{\rm
839: DBF}_n^s}[1>2>3]((p\wedge q)\vee(\neg p\wedge\neg q))\] and
840: \[\vdash_{{\rm
841: DBF}_n^c}[1>2>3](p\supset q).\] The wff
842: $\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\vee\neg[\{1,3\}]\bot$ says that if the beliefs
843: of agents 1 and 2 are incompatible, then those of 1 and 3 are
844: compatible, so the level skipping strategy will either accept the
845: belief of agent 2 or skip it and consequently accept that of agent
846: 3. This example shows that we can reason with the compatibility of
847: the agents' beliefs in the uniform framework of epistemic
848: reasoning and information fusion.}$\Box$
849: \end{myex}
850:
851: The next example shows that the belief about belief may play a
852: role in the fusion process.
853: \begin{myex}{\rm Assume there are two agents whose beliefs are
854: described by the following set:
855: \begin{eqnarray*}
856: & &\{[1]\neg[\{1,2\}]\bot, [1]p, [1][1]p, [1][2]q\\
857: & &[2][\{1,2\}]\bot, [2]q, [2][2]q, [2][1]p\}
858: \end{eqnarray*}
859: Then it can be shown that $[1>2]p\wedge[2>1]q$, $[1][1>2](p\wedge
860: q)\wedge[1][2>1](p\wedge q)$, and $[2][1>2]p\wedge[2][2>1]q$ are
861: derivable in both DBF$_n^s$ and DBF$_n^c$. Thus the belief of
862: agent 1 is incorrect because he wrongly believes that he is
863: consistent with agent 2, while agent 2 in fact disagrees with him
864: on the consistency between them.}$\Box$
865: \end{myex}
866:
867: Sometimes, it is possible to infer the beliefs of individual
868: agents from their merged beliefs. The next example shows a very
869: simple case.
870: \begin{myex}
871: {\rm Assume it is known that two premises $[1>2]p$ and $[2>1]\neg
872: p$ hold, then we have the following derivation in DBF$_n^c$ (where
873: Pre in the derivation means a premise).
874: \[\begin{array}{ll}
875: 1. \neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\supset([1>2]p\supset[\{1,2\}]p) & O1\\
876: 2. \neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\supset([2>1]\neg p\supset[\{1,2\}]\neg p) & O1\\
877: 3. \neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\supset([\{1,2\}]p\wedge[\{1,2\}]\neg p)& {\rm
878: Pre}, 1, 2, P, MP\\
879: 4. \neg[\{1,2\}]\bot\supset[\{1,2\}]\bot & 3, P, G1, MP, Gen\\
880: 5. [\{1,2\}]\bot & 4, P\\
881: 6. [1>2]p\supset[1]p & 5, O2, MP\\
882: 7. [2>1]\neg p\supset[2]\neg p & 5, O2, MP\\
883: 8. [1]p & {\rm Pre}, 6, MP\\
884: 9. [2]\neg p & {\rm Pre}, 7, MP\\
885: 10. [1]p\wedge[2]\neg p & 8, 9, P, MP
886: \end{array}\]
887: When there are more than two agents, the situation would become
888: more complicated. However, it is still possible to derive some
889: individual or partially merged beliefs from the totally merged
890: ones.}$\Box$
891: \end{myex}
892:
893: A research area related to both epistemic logic and belief fusion
894: is the modal logics for representing inconsistent beliefs. In
895: \cite{mey2}, an epistemic default logic is proposed for the
896: representation of inconsistent beliefs caused by default
897: reasoning. The logic is based on S5P developed in
898: \cite{mey3,mey4,mey5} for modelling the monotonic part of default
899: reasoning that deals with plausible assumptions. The basic
900: modalities of S5P consist of an S5 epistemic operator $K$ and a
901: number of K45 belief operators $P_i(1\leq i\leq n)$. A wff
902: $P_i\varphi$ means that $\varphi$ is a plausible working belief
903: according to some context or default rules. Since conflict between
904: default rules is not unusual, it is possible that
905: $P_i\varphi\wedge P_j\neg\varphi$ holds. Though $P_i$ corresponds
906: to an application context of some default rules, it can also be
907: seen as the belief operator of some agent, so in this regard, the
908: logic is like a multi-agent epistemic logic with an S5-based
909: epistemic operator for the authority. However, instead of
910: reasoning about the merging of different working beliefs in the
911: logic directly, a downward reflection approach is adopted in
912: \cite{mey2}. Since the $P_i$ operators are only applied to
913: objective wffs in \cite{mey2}, the downward reflection function
914: maps a set of S5P wffs (especially wffs of the form $P_i\varphi$)
915: into a set of non-modal formulas. Some downward reflection
916: mechanisms are employed to resolve the inconsistency between
917: working beliefs of different contexts. The one based on the
918: explicit ordering on frames is essentially similar to our cautious
919: merging. The main difference is that we take the orderings as
920: modal operators and reason about the fusion results directly in
921: the object language, while the downward reflection approach
922: consider the fusion in a meta-level.
923:
924:
925: \subsection{Inconsistency handling in possibilistic logic}
926: In \cite{ben1}, it is shown that the possibilistic logic approach
927: to database fusion is very cautious, so a natural question is how
928: the level cutting strategy is related with it. Here, we shown
929: that the inconsistency handling technique of possibilistic logic
930: can be modelled in the strategy.
931:
932: Possibilistic logic(PL) is proposed by Dubois and Prade for
933: uncertainty reasoning\cite{dp1,dp2,dp3}. The semantic basis of PL
934: is the possibility theory developed by Zadeh from fuzzy set
935: theory\cite{zad}. Given a universe $W$, a {\em possibility
936: distribution \/} on $W$ is a function $\pi : W\rightarrow[0,1]$.
937: Obviously, $\pi$ is a characteristic function of a fuzzy subset of
938: $W$. Two measures on $W$ can be derived from $\pi$. They are
939: called possibility and necessity measures and denoted by $\Pi$ and
940: $N$ respectively. Formally, $\Pi, N : 2^W\rightarrow[0,1]$ are
941: defined as
942: \[\Pi(A) = \sup_{w\in A}\pi(w),\]
943: \[N(A) = 1 - \Pi(\overline{A}),\]
944: where $\overline{A}$ is the complement of $A$ with respect to $W$.
945:
946: In \cite{dp3}, a fragment for necessity-valued formula in PL,
947: called PL1, is introduced. Each wff of PL1 is of the form
948: $(\varphi,\alpha)$, where $\varphi\in{\cal L}(\Phi_0)$ and
949: $\alpha\in(0,1]$ is a real number. The number $\alpha$ is called
950: the {\em valuation \/} or {\em weight \/} of the formula.
951: $(\varphi,\alpha)$ expresses that $\varphi$ is certain at least to
952: degree $\alpha$. Formally, a model for PL1 is given by a
953: possibility distribution $\pi$ on the set $W$ of classical truth
954: assignments for ${\cal L}(\Phi_0)$. For any $\varphi\in{\cal
955: L}(\Phi_0)$, we can define $|\varphi|$ as the set of truth
956: assignments satisfying $\varphi$ . Then, by identifying $\varphi$
957: and its truth set $|\varphi|$, a PL1 model $\pi$ satisfies
958: $(\varphi,\alpha)$, denoted by $\pi\models(\varphi,\alpha)$, if
959: $N(\varphi)\geq\alpha$. Let $\Sigma=\{(\varphi_i,\alpha_i): 1\leq
960: i\leq m\}$ be a finite set of PL1 wffs, then $\Sigma\models_{\rm
961: PL1}(\varphi,\alpha)$ if for each $\pi$,
962: $\pi\models(\varphi_i,\alpha_i)$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$ implies
963: $\pi\models(\varphi,\alpha)$. It is shown that the consequence
964: relation in PL1 can be determined completely by the least specific
965: model satisfying $\Sigma$. That is, if $\pi_\Sigma: W\ra[0,1] $ is
966: defined by
967: \[\pi_\Sigma(w)=
968: \min\{1-\alpha_i\mid w\models\neg\varphi, 1\leq i\leq m\},\] where
969: $\min\emptyset=1$, then $\Sigma\models_{\rm PL1}(\varphi,\alpha)$
970: iff $\pi_\Sigma\models(\varphi,\alpha)$.
971:
972: A special feature of PL1 is its capability to cope with partial
973: inconsistency. For $\Sigma$ defined as above, let $\Sigma^*$
974: denote the set of classical formulas $\{\varphi\mid 1\leq i\leq
975: m\}$. Then the set $\Sigma$ is said to be partially inconsistent
976: when $\Sigma^*$ is classically inconsistent. It can be easily
977: shown that $\Sigma$ is partially inconsistent iff $\sup_{w\in
978: W}\pi_\Sigma(w)<1$. Thus $\sup_{w\in W}\pi_\Sigma(w)$ is called
979: the consistency degree of $\Sigma$, denoted by $Cons(\Sigma)$, and
980: $1-Cons(\Sigma)$ is called the inconsistency degree of $\Sigma$,
981: denoted by $Incons(\Sigma)$. When $\Sigma$ is partially
982: inconsistent, it can be shown that $\Sigma\models_{\rm PL1}(\bot,
983: Incons(\Sigma))$, so for any classical wff $\varphi$, $(\varphi,
984: Incons(\Sigma))$ is a trivial logical consequence of $\Sigma$. On
985: the contrary, if $\Sigma\models_{\rm PL1}(\varphi,\alpha)$ for
986: some $\alpha>Incons(\Sigma)$, then $\varphi$ is called a
987: nontrivial consequence of $\Sigma$.
988:
989: To model the nontrivial deduction of PL1, we assume that the
990: weights of the wffs are drawn from a finite subset ${\cal
991: V}=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$ of $(0,1]$. Without loss of
992: generality, we can assume $\alpha_1>\cdots>\alpha_n$. Let us
993: define $n$ databases from $\Sigma$ as
994: $DB_i=\{\varphi\mid(\varphi,\alpha_i)\in\Sigma\}$ for $1\leq i\leq
995: n$. It can easily be seen that when each $DB_i$ is classically
996: consistent, then for any $\varphi\in{\cal L}(\Phi_0)$, $\varphi$
997: is a nontrivial consequence of $\Sigma$ iff $\vdash_{{\rm
998: DBF}_n^c}\psi\supset[1>2>\cdots>n]\varphi$, where $\psi$ is the
999: formula representing the databases.
1000:
1001: \section{Incorporating Other Fusion Operators}\label{sec6}
1002: While we adopt a modal logic approach to belief fusion, there have
1003: been also a lot of works on knowledge merging by using meta-level
1004: operators\cite{bar3,bar2,bar1,kon3,kon1,kon2,linj2,linj1,linj3,pra1,sub}.
1005: In the meta-level approach, a merging operator is in general used
1006: to combine a set of knowledge bases $T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k$, where
1007: each knowledge base is a theory in some logical langauge. The main
1008: difference between our approach and theirs is that the belief
1009: fusion operators are incorporated into the object language in our
1010: logic, so we can reason not only with the merged results but also
1011: about the fusion process. However, the suspicious attitude used in
1012: our logic may be too cautious in some cases. Thus our logic
1013: should also be extended to accommodate these more sophisticated
1014: knowledge merging operators both syntactically and semantically.
1015: In the following, we will describe these operators briefly and
1016: discuss some possible extensions of our logic for incorporating
1017: them into the modal language.
1018:
1019: In the presentation below, we will extensively use the notions of
1020: pre-order. Let $S$ be a set, then a pre-order over $S$ is a
1021: reflexive and transitive binary relation $\leq$ on $S$. A
1022: pre-order over $S$ is called total (or connected) if for all
1023: $x,y\in S$, either $x\leq y$ or $y\leq x$ holds. We will write
1024: $x<y$ as the abbreviation of $x\leq y$ and $y\not\leq x$. For a
1025: subset $S'$ of $S$, $\min(S',\leq)$ is defined as the set $\{x\in
1026: S'\mid\forall y\in S', y\not<x\}$.
1027:
1028: \subsection{Combination by maximal consistency} One of the
1029: earliest approaches to knowledge merging is to manipulate the
1030: maximal consistent subsets of the union of the component
1031: databases. In \cite{bar3,bar2,bar1}, knowledge bases with
1032: integrity constraints are combined by a meta-level combination
1033: operator to form a new knowledge base. While in \cite{bar2,bar1},
1034: logic programs and default logic theories are considered which
1035: have different semantics than the classical logic, the basic idea
1036: for combining first-order theories in \cite{bar3} can be carried
1037: out in our logic. In \cite{bar3}, a combination operator $C$ maps
1038: a set of knowledge bases $\{T_1,\cdots, T_k\}$ and a set of
1039: integrity constraints $IC$ into a new knowledge base
1040: $C(T_1,\cdots,T_k, IC)$ which can be roughly considered as the
1041: disjunction of maximally consistent subsets of $T_1\cup
1042: T_2\cup\cdots\cup T_k$ with respect to $IC$.
1043:
1044: Unlike our fusion operators which correspond to total orders on
1045: the agents, the combination operator assumes all knowledge bases
1046: are equally important, so there are no priorities among them,
1047: though the priority is obviously given to the integrity
1048: constraints. Therefore, by using the partial order fusion
1049: operators, we can analogously model the combination operator in
1050: our logic. Let us consider $n$ agents where the belief of agent 1
1051: is the set $IC$ and each sentence in $T_1\cup T_2\cup\cdots\cup
1052: T_k$ is exactly represented as the belief of one agent in
1053: $\{2,\cdots, n\}$, then for the partial order
1054: $Q=\{1>2,1>3,\cdots,1>n\}$, the modal operator $[Q]$ can produce
1055: the same result as the combination operator $C$. Note that just
1056: like the simulation of trusting attitude multi-sources reasoning
1057: in our logic, the maximally consistent combination is also
1058: syntax-dependent.
1059:
1060:
1061: In \cite{kon3}, it is argued that the maximally consistent
1062: combination lacks many desirable properties of knowledge merging.
1063: This is due to the fact that the source of information is lost in
1064: the combination process. Some improvements based on the selection
1065: of some maximally consistent subsets instead of all ones are then
1066: proposed to circumvent the problem. Three approaches are suggested
1067: according to the difference of the selection functions. The first
1068: selects from the set of maximally consistent subsets those
1069: consistent with the most knowledge bases, the second selects those
1070: that have least difference (in terms of number of sentences) with
1071: the knowledge bases, and the third selects those that fit the
1072: knowledge bases on a maximum number of sentences. Though these
1073: improvements indeed satisfy the desirable logical properties
1074: argued by the author, they are all syntactical operator and lack a
1075: model-theoretic semantic characterization. Furthermore, since the
1076: second and the third improvements are based on the comparison of
1077: cardinalities of sets of wffs, they works only for finite
1078: knowledge bases. This makes it difficult to incorporate these
1079: improved combination operators into our logic where each agent's
1080: beliefs are closed under logical consequence. Fortunately, there
1081: are other elegant merging operators with the desirable logical
1082: properties which can be incorporated into our framework, so we
1083: will consider some of them in the following sections.
1084:
1085:
1086: Yet another syntax-based approach is to remove the wffs causing
1087: inconsistency. In \cite{ben1}, this approach is explored when
1088: only local ordering between the wffs is given. However, the
1089: approach is more algorithmic and it seems not appropriate to
1090: incorporate it into our framework.
1091:
1092: \subsection{Combination by meta-information}
1093: In the combination by maximal consistency, it is assumed that no
1094: information about how to combine the knowledge bases is available.
1095: However, sometimes the users can provide valuable meta-information
1096: about the combination process, such as the reliability of the
1097: component databases, the user's preference, or the interaction of
1098: different databases, etc. In \cite{pra1}, a kind of priorities
1099: between sets of propositional atoms is represented and the
1100: combination is made according to the prioritized information. In
1101: fact, our fusion operators (either total orders or partial ones)
1102: also encode a kind of priorities. The main difference is that our
1103: priorities are between agents while theirs are between the sets of
1104: propositions believed by the agents. However, since transitivity
1105: is not required for the priority relation in \cite{pra1}, there
1106: may exist cyclic priorities (i.e., $x>y$ and $y>x$ holds
1107: simultaneously). In such cases, there would not be combined
1108: knowledge bases satisfying the priorities. Furthermore, since the
1109: knowledge bases in \cite{pra1} are just sets of propositional
1110: atoms, the approach applies only to deduction-free relational
1111: databases and lacks the capability of reasoning about the
1112: inter-relationship between the knowledge bases.
1113:
1114: A more flexible way for specifying the meta-information is
1115: proposed in \cite{sub}. In that work, a set of local databases
1116: $DB_1, \cdots, DB_n$ is combined with a supervisory knowledge base
1117: $S$. Intuitively, $S$ contains conflict resolution information.
1118: Since the databases are expressed in a very rich language, the
1119: supervisory knowledge base can specify complex relations between
1120: local databases. The language is called annotated logic and is
1121: constructed from some base language and a set of annotations.
1122: These annotations can denote the truth values for many-valued
1123: logic, timestamps, uncertainties, etc., so the expressive power of
1124: annotated logic is quite rich. In the framework, the local
1125: databases are just sets of sentences in the annotated logic,
1126: whereas the supervisory knowledge base contains sentences in
1127: another annotated logic where each atom is indexed by a subset of
1128: $\{1,2,\cdots, n, {\bf s}\}$.
1129:
1130: To compare the framework in \cite{sub} with our logic, let us
1131: assume the only annotations are the classical truth values
1132: $\{{\bf t},{\bf f}\}$, so the annotated logic reduces to the
1133: classical one. In this simplified case, the annotations can be
1134: simply removed and each local database contains logic program
1135: clauses of the form
1136: \[p_0 \leftarrow p_1 ,\cdots, p_m, {\bf
1137: not} p_{m+1},\cdots, {\bf not}p_{m+k}\] where for all $0\leq i\leq
1138: m+k$, $p_i$ is an atomic formula in classical logic, whereas the
1139: supervisory knowledge base $S$ contains indexed clauses of the
1140: form
1141: \begin{equation}\label{eq2}p_0:\{{\bf s}\}\leftarrow
1142: p_1:D_1,\cdots, p_m:D_m, {\bf not}(p_{m+1}:D_{m+1}),\cdots, {\bf
1143: not}(p_{m+k}:D_{m+k})\end{equation} where for all $1\leq i\leq
1144: m+k$, $D_i\subseteq\{1,2,\cdots, n, {\bf s}\}$. The intended
1145: meaning of $p:D_i$ is that the databases in $D_i$ jointly say that
1146: $p$ is true. The meaning is specified by a combination axiom
1147: scheme which is equivalent to
1148: \begin{equation}\label{eq3}p:D\leftarrow\bigvee_{\emptyset\subset D'\subset D}p:D'\end{equation}
1149: in our simplified case. For each local data base $DB_i$, the
1150: amalgamation transform of $DB_i$, $AT(DB_i)$, is defined as the
1151: result of replacing each clause $p_0 \leftarrow p_1 ,\cdots, p_m,
1152: {\bf not} p_{m+1},\cdots, {\bf not}p_{m+k}$ in $DB_i$ by
1153: \begin{equation}\label{eq4}p_0:\{i\} \leftarrow p_1:\{i\} ,\cdots, p_m:\{i\}, {\bf
1154: not} (p_{m+1}:\{i\}),\cdots, {\bf
1155: not}(p_{m+k}:\{i\})\end{equation} Consequently, the {\em amalgam
1156: \/} of $(DB_1,\ldots, DB_n, S)$ is defined as the amalgamated
1157: knowledge base \[S\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^n AT(DB_i)\cup\;\mbox{\rm
1158: Combination axioms}\].
1159:
1160: Though the semantics of the amalgamated knowledge base is given
1161: according to that of logic program, so not comparable with that of
1162: classical logic. However, the idea of supervisory knowledge base
1163: can be easily realized in the multi-agent epistemic logic (and so
1164: in our logic). In fact, the clause in (\ref{eq2}) can be
1165: translated into our logic as
1166: \[\bigwedge_{1\leq i\leq m}[D_i]p_i\wedge\bigwedge_{m+1\leq i\leq
1167: m+k}[D_i]\neg p_i\supset[{\bf s}]p_0,\] whereas the combination
1168: axiom (\ref{eq3}) is a special case of the axioms G3 or V3 in our
1169: systems. Though the annotated logic provides a far richer
1170: expressive power in the representation of objective knowledge than
1171: our systems and the supervisory knowledge base can express
1172: conflict resolution information among local databases, the
1173: framework in \cite{sub} still lacks the capability of reasoning
1174: about mutual information. Contrarily, each agent can easily reason
1175: about the beliefs of other agents in our logic. For example, it is
1176: possible to say that agent $i$ believes that if agent $j$ believes
1177: $\varphi$, then agent $k$ would also do. This somewhat reflects
1178: the essential difference between the modal logic approach and the
1179: meta-level ones to the belief fusion.
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183: \subsection{Merging by majority}\label{sec:major}
1184: Though the maximal consistent combination resolves the conflicts
1185: between knowledge bases, it does not reflect the view of the
1186: majority. For example, if three knowledge bases $T_1=\{\varphi\},
1187: T_2=\{\varphi\}$, and $T_3=\{\neg\varphi\}$ are combined by the
1188: maximal consistent combination rule, the result would be just a
1189: knowledge base containing the tautology. However, if the majority
1190: view is taken into account, then the result would be
1191: $\{\varphi\}$. In \cite{linj2}, a merging operator reflecting the
1192: views of majority is proposed for knowledge bases consisting of
1193: finite propositional sentences. Since the propositional language
1194: is assumed finite there, the so-called Dalal distance between
1195: two interpretations of the language is used\cite{dal}. It is
1196: defined as the number of atoms whose valuations differs in the two
1197: interpretations. Let $dist(w,w')$ denote the Dalal distance
1198: between two interpretations $w$ and $w'$, then the distance from
1199: $w$ to a theory $T$, denoted by $dist(w,T)$, is defined as
1200: \begin{equation}\label{eq5}
1201: dist(w,T)=\min\{dist(w,w')\mid w'\models T\}. \end{equation} Given
1202: a set of knowledge bases $T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k$ to be merged, a
1203: total pre-order $\preceq_{\{T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k\}}$ is defined on
1204: the set of interpretations by
1205: \begin{equation}\label{eq6}w\preceq_{\{T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k\}} w' \;\; {\rm iff}\;\;
1206: \sum_{i=1}^k dist(w,T_i)\leq \sum_{i=1}^k
1207: dist(w',T_i)\end{equation} Then the merged result $Merge(T_1,
1208: T_2,\cdots, T_k)$ is the theory whose models are all
1209: interpretations minimal with respect to the order $\preceq_{\{T_1,
1210: T_2,\cdots, T_k\}}$.
1211:
1212: In \cite{linj3}, a set of postulates for characterizing the
1213: merging function is presented and its corresponding
1214: model-theoretic characterization is also given. It is then shown
1215: that $Merge$ is indeed a function satisfying the postulates. In
1216: \cite{linj1}, the function $Merge$ is further generalized for the
1217: application in weighted knowledge bases. Let $wt:\{T_1,
1218: T_2,\cdots, T_k\}\ra R^+$ is a weight function which assigns to
1219: each component knowledge base a positive real number, then the
1220: total pre-order in (\ref{eq6}) is changed into
1221: \begin{equation}\label{eq7}w\preceq_{(\{T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k\},wt)} w' \;\; {\rm iff}\;\;
1222: \sum_{i=1}^k dist(w,T_i)\cdot wt(T_i)\leq \sum_{i=1}^k
1223: dist(w',T_i)\cdot wt(T_i)\end{equation} Then the merged result
1224: $Merge(T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k, wt)$ is the theory whose models are
1225: all interpretations minimal with respect to the order
1226: $\preceq_{(\{T_1, T_2,\cdots, T_k\},wt)}$.
1227:
1228: Since the weighted version of the merging function is more
1229: general, we will consider the extension of our logic for the
1230: weighted merging operator. First, a new class of modal operators
1231: $[M(G, wt)]$ for any nonempty $G\subseteq\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ and
1232: weight function $wt: G\ra R^+$ is added to our logic language.
1233: Then the semantics for the new modal operators is defined by
1234: extending a possible world model to $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq
1235: n}, V, \mu)$, where $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$ is a
1236: DBF$_n^s$ (or DBF$_n^c$) model, whereas $\mu: W\times W\ra
1237: R^+\cup\{0\}$ is a distance metric function between possible
1238: worlds satisfying $\mu(w,w)=0$ and $\mu(w,w')=\mu(w',w)$.
1239:
1240: It must be noted that our possible worlds are more than the truth
1241: assignments of the propositional symbols, so it is inappropriate
1242: to define the distance between two possible worlds by merely
1243: enumerating the number of atoms whose valuations differs in the
1244: two worlds. However, it is assumed a distance metric between
1245: possible worlds can be defined just as in the semantics of
1246: conditional logic\cite{nute,sm}. To give the semantics of the new
1247: operators, we first define the distance from a possible world $w$
1248: to the belief state of an agent $i$ in the possible world $u$ by
1249: \begin{equation}\label{eq8}
1250: dist_u(w,i)=\inf\{\mu(w,w')\mid (u,w')\in{\cal R}_i\}.
1251: \end{equation}
1252: Then a total pre-order $\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u$ on the possible worlds
1253: is defined for each possible world $u$ and modal operator $[M(G,
1254: wt)]$
1255: \begin{equation}\label{eq9}w\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u w' \;\; {\rm iff}\;\;
1256: \sum_{i\in G} dist_u(w,i)\cdot wt(i)\leq \sum_{i\in G}
1257: dist_u(w',i)\cdot wt(i).\end{equation} The most straightforward
1258: definition for the satisfaction of the wff $[M(G,wt)]\varphi$ is
1259: \[u\models[M(G,wt)]\varphi \;\; \mbox{\rm iff for all}
1260: \;\;w\in {\cal R}_{M(G,wt)}(u), w\models\varphi,\] where ${\cal
1261: R}_{M(G,wt)}$ is a binary relation over the possible worlds such
1262: that ${\cal R}_{M(G,wt)}(u)=\min(W,\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u)$. However,
1263: since for infinite $W$, the set $\min(W,\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u)$ may
1264: be empty, the definition may result in $u\models[M(G,wt)]\bot$ in
1265: some cases. Alternatively, since $\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u$ is a total
1266: pre-order, it is just like the a system-of-spheres in the
1267: semantics of conditional logic\cite{nute}, so we can define the
1268: satisfaction of the wff $[M(G,wt)]\varphi$ by
1269: \[u\models[M(G,wt)]\varphi \;\; \mbox{\rm iff there exists}\;\;
1270: w_0 \;\; \mbox{\rm such that for all}\;\;w\preceq_{(G,wt)}^u w_0 ,
1271: w\models\varphi.\]
1272:
1273: An alternative approach to do majority merging is to employ the
1274: graded modal logic in \cite{mey6,hoek}. In the logic, a set of
1275: modal operators $K_m$, where $m$ is a natural number, is in place
1276: of the ordinary epistemic or doxastic operators. In the single
1277: agent case, a modal formula $K_m\varphi$ means that in all
1278: possible worlds the agent considers possible, there are at most
1279: $m$ worlds at which $\varphi$ is false. By the abbreviations,
1280: $M_m\varphi\equiv\neg K_m\neg\varphi$, $M!_0\varphi\equiv
1281: K_0\neg\varphi$, and $M!_m\varphi\equiv(M_{m-1}\varphi\wedge\neg
1282: M_m\varphi)$, it can be seen that $M!_m\top\wedge
1283: K_{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor}\varphi$ means the wff $\varphi$ is
1284: true at more than half of the worlds. By generalizing this kind of
1285: graded modal operators for distributed belief fusion, we can
1286: consider the modal operators $[G]_r$ for any real number $r$ and
1287: subset of agents $G$. The semantics for $[G]_r\varphi$ is
1288: interpreted in the multi-agent epistemic logic model such that
1289: \begin{center}
1290: $w\models[G]_r\varphi$ iff $\frac{|\{u\models\varphi\mid
1291: u\in\cup_{i\in G}{\cal R}_i(w)\}|}{|\cup_{i\in G}{\cal
1292: R}_i(w)|}>r$.
1293: \end{center}
1294: Then $[G]_c$ for some threshold $c\geq 0.5$ can be taken as the
1295: fusion operator which merges the beliefs of agents in $G$.
1296: However, it must be noted that the majority considered in the
1297: graded modal logic is the majority of possible worlds instead of
1298: that of agents. Furthermore, by using the cardinality of sets of
1299: possible worlds in the definition, the semantic models are
1300: restricted to finite ones. To lift the restriction, some numerical
1301: measures, such as the probability, should be added to the models.
1302:
1303: \subsection{Arbitration}
1304: The notion of distance measure between possible worlds is also
1305: used in another type of merging operator, called
1306: arbitration\cite{lib1,rev2,rev1}. Arbitration is the process of
1307: settling a conflict between two or more persons. The first version
1308: of arbitration operator between knowledge bases is proposed in
1309: \cite{rev2} via the so-called model-fitting operators. The
1310: postulates for model-fitting operators and its semantic
1311: characterization are given and then arbitration is defined as a
1312: special kind of model-fitting operators.
1313:
1314: In \cite{rev1}, the arbitration operator is further generalized so
1315: that it is applicable to the weighted knowledge bases. A set of
1316: postulates is also directly used in characterizing the
1317: arbitration between a weighted knowledge base and a regular one. A
1318: weighted knowledge base in \cite{rev1} is defined as a mapping
1319: $\tilde{K}$ from model sets to nonnegative real number and a
1320: regular knowledge base is just a finite set of propositional
1321: sentences. A generalized loyal assignment is then defined as a
1322: function that assigns for each weighted knowledge base $\tilde{K}$
1323: a pre-order $\leq_{\tilde{K}}$ between propositional sentences
1324: such that some conditions are satisfied for the pre-orders.
1325: Finally, the arbitration of a weighted knowledge base $\tilde{K}$
1326: by a regular knowledge base $K'$ is defined as
1327: \[\tilde{K}\triangle K'=\min(K',\leq_{\tilde{K}}),\]
1328: where $\min(K',\leq_{\tilde{K}})$ is the set of sentences in $K'$
1329: which is minimal according to the ordering $\leq_{\tilde{K}}$.
1330: However, this kind of arbitration is obviously syntax-dependent.
1331: For example, if $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ is two propositional
1332: sentences such that $\varphi_1<_{\tilde{K}}\varphi_2$, then
1333: $\tilde{K}\triangle
1334: \{\varphi_1,\varphi_2\}=\{\varphi_1\}\not=\tilde{K}\triangle
1335: \{\varphi_1\wedge\varphi_2\}=\{\varphi_1\wedge\varphi_2\}$ though
1336: the two knowledge bases $\{\varphi_1, \varphi_2\}$ and
1337: $\{\varphi_1\wedge\varphi_2\}$ are semantically equivalent.
1338:
1339: An alternative, seemingly more natural, characterization for
1340: arbitration is given in \cite{lib1} without resorting to the
1341: model-fitting operators. A knowledge base in that work is
1342: identified with the set of propositional models for it, thus the
1343: semantic characterization for this kind of arbitration is given by
1344: assigning to each subset of models $A$ a binary relation $\leq_A$
1345: over the set of model sets satisfying the following conditions
1346: (the subscript is omitted when it means all binary relations of
1347: the form $\leq_A$)
1348: \begin{enumerate}
1349: \item transitivity: if $A\leq B$ and $B\leq C$ then $A\leq C$
1350: \item if $A\subseteq B$ then $B\leq A$
1351: \item $A\leq A\cup B$ and $B\leq A\cup B$
1352: \item $B\leq_A C$ for every $C$ iff $A\cap B\not=\emptyset$
1353: \item $A\leq_{C\cup D}B\Leftrightarrow\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1354: C\leq_{A\cup B} D \;\; and \;\; A\leq _C B \;\; or\\
1355: D\leq_{A\cup B} C \;\; and \;\; A\leq _D B
1356: \end{array}
1357: \right.$
1358: \end{enumerate}
1359: Then the arbitration between two sets of models $A$ and $B$ is
1360: defined as
1361: \begin{equation}\label{eq10}
1362: A\triangle B=\min(A,\leq_B)\cup\min(B,\leq_A)
1363: \end{equation}
1364: Note that though the relation $\leq_A$ is defined between sets of
1365: models, in the definition of the arbitration, only $\leq_A$
1366: between singletons is used. Thus by slightly abusing the notation,
1367: $\leq_A$ may also denote an ordering between models.
1368:
1369: To incorporate the arbitration operator of \cite{lib1} into our
1370: langauge, we must first note that according to (\ref{eq10}), the
1371: arbitration is commutative but not necessarily associative. Thus,
1372: the arbitration operator should be a binary one between two
1373: agents. We can add a class of modal operators for arbitration into
1374: our logic just as in the case of majority merging. However, to be
1375: more expressive, we will also consider the interaction between
1376: arbitration and other epistemic operators, so we define the set of
1377: {\em arbitration expressions \/} over the agents recursively as
1378: the smallest set containing $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ and closed under
1379: the binary operators $+, \cdot$, and $\triangle$. Here $+$ and
1380: $\cdot$ correspond respectively to the distributed belief and the
1381: so-called ``everybody knows'' operators in multi-agent epistemic
1382: logic\cite{fag}. Then our language can be extended to include a
1383: new class of modal operators $[a]$ where $a$ is an arbitration
1384: expressions. Note that it has been shown that the only associative
1385: arbitration satisfying postulates 7 and 8 of \cite{lib1} is
1386: $A\triangle B=A\cup B$, so if $\triangle$ is an associative
1387: arbitration satisfying those postulates, then $[a\triangle
1388: b]\varphi$ is reduced to $[a\cdot b]\varphi$ which is in turn
1389: equivalent to $[a]\varphi\wedge[b]\varphi$.
1390:
1391: For the semantics, a model is extended to $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq
1392: i\leq n}, V, \leq)$, where $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$
1393: is a DBF$_n^s$ (or DBF$_n^c$) model, whereas $\leq$ is a function
1394: assigning to each subset of possible worlds $A$ a binary relation
1395: $\leq_A\subseteq 2^W\times 2^W$ satisfying the above-mentioned
1396: five conditions. Note that the first two conditions imply that
1397: $\leq_A$ is a pre-order over $2^W$. Then for each arbitration
1398: expression, we can define the binary relations ${\cal
1399: R}_{a\triangle b}, {\cal R}_{a\cdot b}$ and ${\cal R}_{a+b}$ over
1400: $W$ recursively by
1401: \begin{equation}\label{eq11}{\cal
1402: R}_{a\triangle b}(w)=\min({\cal R}_a(w),\leq_{{\cal
1403: R}_b(w)})\cup\min({\cal R}_b(w),\leq_{{\cal
1404: R}_a(w)})\end{equation}
1405: \begin{equation}\label{eq12}{\cal R}_{a+b}={\cal R}_a\cap {\cal R}_b\end{equation}
1406: \begin{equation}\label{eq13}{\cal R}_{a\cdot b}={\cal R}_a\cup {\cal R}_b\end{equation}
1407: Thus the satisfaction for the wff $[a]\varphi$ is defined as
1408: \[u\models[a]\varphi \;\; \mbox{\rm iff for all}
1409: \;\;w\in {\cal R}_a(u), w\models\varphi.\] Note that the
1410: distributed belief operator $[G]$ can be equivalently defined as
1411: an abbreviation of $[i_1+(i_2+\cdots(i_{k-1}+i_k))]$ if
1412: $G=\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_k\}$.
1413:
1414: By this kind of modal operators, the postulates 2-8 of \cite{lib1}
1415: can be translated into the following axioms:
1416: \begin{enumerate}
1417: \item $[a\triangle b]\varphi\equiv[b\triangle a]\varphi$
1418: \item $[a\triangle b]\varphi\supset[a+b]\varphi$
1419: \item $\neg[a+b]\bot\supset([a+b]\varphi\supset[a\triangle
1420: b]\varphi)$
1421: \item $[a\triangle b]\bot\supset[a]\bot\wedge[b]\bot$
1422: \item $([a\triangle(b\cdot c)]\varphi\equiv[a\triangle
1423: b]\varphi)\vee ([a\triangle(b\cdot c)]\varphi\equiv[a\triangle
1424: c]\varphi)\vee ([a\triangle(b\cdot c)]\varphi\equiv[(a\triangle
1425: b)\cdot(a\triangle c)]\varphi)$
1426: \item $[a]\varphi\wedge[b]\varphi\supset[a\triangle b]\varphi$
1427: \item $\neg[a]\bot\supset\neg[ a+(a\triangle b)]\bot$
1428: \end{enumerate}
1429: However, since the set of possible worlds $W$ may be infinite in
1430: our logic, the minimal models in (\ref{eq11}) may not exist, so
1431: the axioms 4 and 7 are not sound with respect to the semantics. To
1432: make them sound, we must add the following limit
1433: assumption\cite{arlo} to the binary relations $\leq_A$ for any
1434: $A\subseteq W$:
1435: \begin{center}
1436: for any nonempty $U\subseteq W$, $\min(U,\leq_A)$ is nonempty.
1437: \end{center}
1438: It must be noted that the axioms listed above are not yet complete
1439: for the logic with arbitration operators. In fact, the search of a
1440: complete axiomatization for the modal logic of arbitration
1441: expressions is of independent interest by itself and can be the
1442: further research direction. The brief presentation here just shows
1443: that the modal logic approach can provides a uniform framework
1444: for integrating the epistemic reasoning and different knowledge
1445: merging operators into the object logic level.
1446:
1447: \subsection{General merging}\label{sec:merg}
1448: In \cite{kon1}, an axiomatic framework unifying the majority
1449: merging and arbitration operators is presented. A set of
1450: postulates common to majority and arbitration operators is first
1451: proposed to characterize the general merging operators and then
1452: additional postulates for differentiating these two are considered
1453: respectively. In the framework, a knowledge base is also a finite
1454: set of propositional sentences. The general merging operator is
1455: defined as a mapping from a multi-set(also called a
1456: bag)\footnote{A multi-set (or bag) is a collection of elements
1457: over some domain which allows multiple occurrences of elements.}
1458: of knowledge base (called a knowledge set) to a knowledge base.
1459: Thus the arbitration operator defined via the approach can merge
1460: more than two knowledge bases whereas the arbitration operator in
1461: \cite{lib1} is defined only for two knowledge bases. The merging
1462: operator is denoted by $\triangle$, so for each knowledge set $E$,
1463: $\triangle(E)$ is a knowledge base. Two equivalent semantic
1464: characterizations are also given for the merging operators. One of
1465: them is based on the so-called syncretic assignment. A syncretic
1466: assignment maps each knowledge set $E$ to a pre-order $\leq_E$
1467: over interpretations such that some conditions reflecting the
1468: postulated properties of the merging operators must be satisfied.
1469: Then $\triangle(E)$ is the knowledge base whose models are the
1470: minimal interpretations according to $\leq_E$.
1471:
1472: This logical framework is further extended to dealing with
1473: integrity constraints in \cite{kon2}. Let $E$ be a knowledge set
1474: and $\varphi$ is a propositional sentence denoting the integrity
1475: constraints, then the merging of knowledge bases in $E$ with
1476: integrity constraint $\varphi$, $\triangle_\varphi(E)$, is a
1477: knowledge base which implies $\varphi$. The models of
1478: $\triangle_\varphi(E)$ is characterized by
1479: $\min(Mod(\varphi),\leq_E)$, i.e., the minimal models of $\varphi$
1480: with respect to the ordering $\leq_E$. $\triangle_\varphi(E)$ is
1481: called IC merging operator. According to the semantics, it is
1482: obvious that $\triangle(E)$ is a special case of IC merging
1483: operator $\triangle_\top(E)$. It is also shown that when $E$
1484: contains exactly one knowledge base, the operator is reduced to
1485: the AGM revision operator proposed in \cite{agm}. Thus IC merging
1486: is general enough to covering the majority merging, arbitration
1487: and AGM revision operator.
1488:
1489: To realize the IC merging operators in the modal logic framework,
1490: we will extend the syntax of our logic with the following
1491: formation rule:
1492: \begin{itemize}
1493: \item if $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are wffs, then for any nonempty
1494: $G\subseteq\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, $[\triangle_\varphi(G)]\psi$ is also
1495: a wff.
1496: \end{itemize}
1497: For the naming convenience, we will call a subset of possible
1498: worlds a belief state. Let ${\cal U}=\{U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_k\}$
1499: denote a multi-set of belief states, then $\bigcap{\cal
1500: U}=U_1\cap\cdots U_k$. For the semantics, a possible world model
1501: is extended to $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V, \leq)$, where
1502: $(W, ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$ is a DBF$_n^s$ (or
1503: DBF$_n^c$) model, whereas $\leq$ is an assignment mapping each
1504: multi-set of belief states ${\cal U}$ to a total pre-order
1505: $\leq_{\cal U}$ over $W$ satisfying the following conditions:
1506: \begin{enumerate}
1507: \item If $w, w'\in\bigcap{\cal U}$, then $w\leq_{\cal U}w'$
1508: \item If $w\in\bigcap{\cal U}$ and $w'\not\in\bigcap{\cal U}$
1509: then $w<_{\cal U}w'$
1510: \item For any $w\in U_1$, there exists $w'\in U_2$, such that
1511: $w'\leq_{\{U_1,U_2\}} w$, where $U_1$ and $U_2$ are two belief
1512: states
1513: \item If $w\leq_{{\cal U}_1}w'$ and $w\leq_{{\cal U}_2}w'$, then
1514: $w\leq_{{\cal U}_1\sqcup{\cal U}_2}w'$, where $\sqcup$ denotes the
1515: union of two multi-sets
1516: \item If $w<_{{\cal U}_1}w'$ and $w\leq_{{\cal U}_2}w'$, then
1517: $w<_{{\cal U}_1\sqcup{\cal U}_2}w'$
1518: \end{enumerate}
1519: For a sub-group of agents $G$ and a possible world $u$, let us
1520: define a total pre-order $\leq_G^u$ over $W$ as follows:
1521: \[w\leq_G^u w'\;\;{\rm iff}\;\; w\leq_{\{{\cal R}_i(u)\mid i\in G\}}w'.\]
1522: Then a possible world $u$ satisfies the wff
1523: $[\triangle_\varphi(G)]\psi$ in the model, i.e.\
1524: $u\models[\triangle_\varphi(G)]\psi$, iff
1525: \begin{description}
1526: \item (i) there are no possible worlds in $W$ satisfying $\varphi$, or
1527: \item (ii) there exists $w_0\in W$ such that $w_0\models\varphi$ and for
1528: any $w\leq_G^u w_0$, $w\models\varphi\supset\psi$.
1529: \end{description}
1530:
1531: Though we can incorporate the general merging operator into the
1532: modal logic framework, we should not overlook the difference
1533: between the meta-level merging operators and the modal ones.
1534: First, in the meta-level approach, the knowledge set consists of a
1535: multi-set of objective sentences, whereas in the modal operator
1536: $[\triangle_\varphi(G)]$, $G$ is a set of agents whose belief may
1537: contains subjective sentences or beliefs of other agents. Second,
1538: the integrity constraint can only be the objective sentences in
1539: \cite{kon2} whereas $\varphi$ may be arbitrary complex wff of our
1540: extended language. Finally, instead of selecting the minimal
1541: models from those of $\varphi$, since the set of possible worlds
1542: may be infinite in our case, we adopt the system-of-spheres
1543: semantics as that in section \ref{sec:major} for the modal
1544: operator $[\triangle_\varphi(G)]$.
1545:
1546: \section{Belief Change and Conditional Logic}\label{sec7}
1547: \subsection{Incorporating belief revision operators}
1548: Unlike knowledge merging, where the component knowledge bases are
1549: equally important, belief change is a kind of asymmetry operators,
1550: where the new information always outweighs the old one. The main
1551: belief change operators are belief revision and update. They are
1552: characterized by different postulates\cite{agm,kat1,kat2}. In
1553: \cite{kat1}, a uniform model-theoretic framework is provided for
1554: the semantic characterization of the revision and update
1555: operators. In their works, a knowledge base is a finite set of
1556: propositional sentences, so it can also be represented by a single
1557: sentence(i.e., the conjunction of all sentences in the knowledge
1558: base).
1559:
1560: For the revision operator, it is assumed that there is a total
1561: pre-order $\leq_\psi$ over the propositional interpretations for
1562: each knowledge base $\psi$. The revision operators satisfying the
1563: AGM postulates in \cite{agm} are exactly those that select from
1564: the models of the new information $\varphi$ the minimal ones with
1565: respect to the ordering $\leq_\psi$. More precisely, let $\psi$ be
1566: a knowledge base and $\varphi$ denote the new information, then
1567: the result of revising $\psi$ by $\varphi$, denoted by
1568: $\psi\circ\varphi$, will have the set of models
1569: \[Mod(\psi\circ\varphi)=\min(Mod(\varphi),\leq_\psi).\]
1570:
1571: As for the update operator, assume for each propositional
1572: interpretation $w$, there exists some partial pre-order $\leq_w$
1573: over the interpretations for closeness to $w$, then update
1574: operators select for each model $w$ in $Mod(\psi)$ the set of
1575: models from $Mod(\varphi)$ that are closest to $w$. The updated
1576: theory is characterized by the union of all such models. That is,
1577: \[Mod(\psi\diamond\varphi)=\bigcup_{w\in
1578: Mod(\psi)}\min(Mod(\varphi),\leq_w)\] where $\psi\diamond\varphi$
1579: is the result of updating the knowledge base $\psi$ by $\varphi$.
1580:
1581: Both belief revision and update may occur in the observation of
1582: the new information $\varphi$. For the belief revision, it is
1583: assumed that the world is static, so if the new information is
1584: incompatible with the agent's original beliefs, then the agent may
1585: have wrong belief about the world. Thus he will try to accommodate
1586: the new information by minimally changing his original beliefs.
1587: However, for the belief update, it is assumed that the observation
1588: may be due to the dynamic change of the outside world, so the
1589: agent's belief may be out-of-date, though it may be totally
1590: correct for the original world. Thus the agent will assume the
1591: possible worlds are those resulting from the minimal change of the
1592: original world. In \cite{bou5}, a generalized update model is
1593: proposed which combines aspects of revision and update. It is
1594: shown that a belief update model will be inadequate without
1595: modelling the dynamic aspect (i.e.\ the events causing the update)
1596: in the same time. Since the dynamic change of the external worlds
1597: does not play a role in the belief fusion process, we would not
1598: try to model the belief update in our logic, so in what follows,
1599: we will concentrate on the belief revision operator.
1600:
1601:
1602: Let us now consider the possibility of incorporating the belief
1603: revision operator into our logic. In addition to the original
1604: meaning of revising a knowledge base $\psi$ by new information
1605: $\varphi$, there is an alternative reading for the revision
1606: operator. That is, we can consider $\circ$ as a prioritized
1607: belief fusion operator which gives the priority to its second
1608: argument\cite{sho2}. In the context of knowledge base revision,
1609: these two interpretations are essentially equivalent. However,
1610: from the perspective of our logic in multi-agents systems, they
1611: may be quite different. Roughly speaking, $i\circ\varphi$ will
1612: denote the result of revising the beliefs of agent $i$ by new
1613: information $\varphi$, whereas $i\circ j$ is the result of merging
1614: the beliefs of agents $i$ and $j$ by giving priority to $j$. More
1615: formally, an revision expression will be defined inductively as
1616: follows:
1617: \begin{itemize}
1618: \item If $1\leq i, j\leq n$ and $\varphi$ is a wff, then $i\circ j$ and $i\circ\varphi$ are
1619: revision expressions.
1620: \item If $r$ is a revision expression, $1\leq i\leq n$ and $\varphi$ is a wff, then $r\circ i$
1621: and $r\circ\varphi$ are revision expressions.
1622: \end{itemize}
1623: The syntactic rule is extended to include the modal operators
1624: $[r]$ for any revision expression $r$, so $[r]\varphi$ would be a
1625: wff if $\varphi$ is. To interpret the modal operator in our
1626: semantic framework, a possible world model is extended to $(W,
1627: ({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V, \leq)$, where $(W, ({\cal
1628: R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$ is a DBF$_n^s$ (or DBF$_n^c$) model,
1629: whereas $\leq$ is an assignment mapping each belief state (i.e.\
1630: subset of possible worlds) $U$ to a total pre-order $\leq_U$ over
1631: $W$ such that (i) if $w, w'\in U$, then $w\leq_U w'$ and (ii)~if
1632: $w\in U$ and $w'\not\in U$, then $w<_U w'$. Let $S\cdot U$ denote
1633: the sequence $(U_1,U_2,\cdots, U_k, U)$ if $S=(U_1,U_2,\cdots,
1634: U_k)$ is a sequence of belief state, then the assignment $\leq$ is
1635: extended to sequences of belief states in the following way (we
1636: assume $\leq_{(U)}=\leq_U$):
1637: \begin{enumerate}
1638: \item $w<_{S\cdot U}w'$ if $w\in U$ and $w'\not\in U$
1639: \item $w\leq_{S\cdot U}w'$ iff $w\leq_S w'$ when $w,w'\in U$ or $w,w'\not\in U$
1640: \end{enumerate}
1641: For each wff $\varphi$, let the truth set of $\varphi$, denoted by
1642: $|\varphi|$, be defined as $\{w\in W\mid w\models\varphi\}$. For
1643: each possible world $u$, define a function mapping any agent $i$
1644: and revision expression $r$ into a sequence of belief states
1645: $u(i)$ and $u(r)$ as follows:
1646: \begin{enumerate}
1647: \item $u(i)=({\cal R}_i(u))$
1648: \item $u(r\circ i)=u(r)\cdot{\cal R}_i(u)$
1649: \item $u(r\circ\varphi)=u(r)\cdot|\varphi|$
1650: \end{enumerate}
1651: Then the truth condition for the wff $[r\circ\varphi]\psi$ is
1652: $u\models[r\circ\varphi]\psi$ iff
1653: \begin{description}
1654: \item (i) there are no possible worlds in $W$ satisfying $\varphi$, or
1655: \item (ii) there exists $w_0\in W$ such that $w_0\models\varphi$ and for
1656: any $w\leq_{u(r)} w_0$, $w\models\varphi\supset\psi$.
1657: \end{description}
1658: Analogously, $u\models[r\circ i]\psi$ iff there exists $w_0\in
1659: {\cal R}_i(u)$ such that for any $w\leq_{u(r)} w_0$, if $w\in
1660: {\cal R}_i(u)$, then $w\models\psi$. It can be seen that
1661: $[i\circ\varphi]\psi$ is equivalent to
1662: $[\triangle_\varphi(\{i\})]\psi$ in section \ref{sec:merg}
1663: according to the semantics.
1664:
1665: \subsection{Relationship with conditional logic}
1666: There have been also various attempts in formalizing the belief
1667: change process by modal logic or conditional logic
1668: systems\cite{bou1,bou2,bou3,bou4,nir,ryan,seg}. For example, in
1669: \cite{bou2}, a modal logic CO$^*$ is proposed for modelling the
1670: belief revision. CO$^*$ is an extension of the logic CO proposed
1671: in \cite{bou1}. In CO$^*$, revision of a theory by a sentence is
1672: represented using a conditional connective. The connective is not
1673: primitive, but rather defined using two unary modal operators
1674: $\Box$ and $\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\Box}$. The modal operators are
1675: interpreted with respect to a total pre-order $R$ over the
1676: possible worlds which is assumed to rely on a background theory
1677: $K$. Thus $w\models\Box\varphi$ iff $\varphi$ is true in all
1678: possible worlds which are as plausible as $w$ given the theory $K$
1679: and $w\models\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\Box}\varphi$ iff $\varphi$ is
1680: true in all possible worlds which are less plausible than $w$
1681: given $K$. By defining $\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\Box}\varphi$
1682: as $\Box\varphi\wedge\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\Box}\varphi$ and
1683: $\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\Diamond}\varphi$ as
1684: $\neg\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\Box}\neg\varphi$, the conditional
1685: $\varphi\stackrel{KB}{\ra}\psi$ is defined as
1686: \[\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\Box}\neg\varphi\vee
1687: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\Diamond}(\varphi\wedge\Box(\varphi\supset\psi)),\]
1688: where $KB$ is a finite representation of the theory $K$. Since
1689: there is only one global ordering $R$ in CO$^*$ model which is
1690: associated with the background theory, the logic is appropriate
1691: only for reasoning about the revision of a single theory $K$. On
1692: the other hand, our logic allows the reasoning about revisions of
1693: many agents' belief states. Furthermore, since the ordering $R$ in
1694: CO$^*$ model is global, $\varphi\stackrel{KB}{\ra}\psi$ is true in
1695: a world iff it is true in all worlds, thus no iterated revisions
1696: are allowed in the model. In \cite{bou4}, this restriction is
1697: lifted by allowing the revision of the ordering $R$ to $R'$ at the
1698: same time. The idea is to move the most plausible $\varphi$-models
1699: with respect to $R$ to the most plausible level of $R'$ and keep
1700: the other parts of $R$ unchanged. Our assignment of a total
1701: pre-order to a sequence of belief states is basically based on the
1702: same idea. However, while the definition of \cite{bou4} presumes
1703: the existence of the minimal models for any propositional
1704: formulas, we do not need such assumption.
1705:
1706: In \cite{nir}, a logic with conditional and epistemic operators is
1707: used in the reasoning of belief revision. The conditional and
1708: epistemic sentences are interpreted in an abstract belief change
1709: system (BCS). The basic components of a BCS are a set of belief
1710: states and a belief change function mapping each belief state and
1711: sentence of some base language into a new belief state. In a more
1712: concrete preferential interpretation, each belief state $s$ is
1713: interpreted as a subset of possible world $K(s)$ and a pre-order
1714: $\preceq_s$ over the possible worlds is associated with it. In
1715: this regard, $\preceq_s$ corresponds to $\leq_{K(s)}$ in our
1716: semantic models and the conditional wff $\varphi>\psi$ in the
1717: logic ${\cal L}^>$ of \cite{nir} is roughly equivalent to our wff
1718: $[i\circ\varphi]\psi$ for some fixed agent $i$. However, since in
1719: ${\cal L}^>$, the antecedent $\varphi$ of a conditional is
1720: restricted to a wff in the base language $\cal L$, it does not
1721: allow the epistemic wffs of the form $B\varphi$. It is argued that
1722: the antecedent must be observable whereas conditional wffs are
1723: unobservable, so we should not allow conditional wffs in the
1724: antecedent. However, from the multi-agent systems perspective, one
1725: agent may learn the beliefs of other agents by communication, so
1726: we should not exclude the flexibility. Another significant
1727: difference is that the BCS allows only revision of a belief state
1728: by a sentence, while in our system, the prioritized fusion of two
1729: belief states held by two agents are also incorporated.
1730:
1731: A dynamic doxastic logic for belief revision is proposed in
1732: \cite{seg} and further developed in \cite{seg1}. By using the
1733: notations of \cite{seg}, the doxastic operator $B$ and two kinds
1734: of dynamic modal operators $[+\varphi]$ and $[-\varphi]$ for
1735: propositional wff $\varphi$ are taken as the basic constructs of
1736: the language. The operators $[+\varphi]$ and $[-\varphi]$
1737: corresponds respectively to the expansion and contraction
1738: operators in AGM theory. Thus the revision operator
1739: $[\circ\varphi]$ is defined as $[-(\neg\varphi)][+\varphi]$
1740: according to the so-called Levi's identity\cite{agm}. The wffs of
1741: the language are interpreted with respect to a hypertheory. A
1742: hypertheory $H$ is a set of subsets of possible worlds linearly
1743: ordered by inclusion. A hypertheory is similar to the widening
1744: ranked model defined in \cite{lehm}. However, the latter assumes
1745: that the subsets of models are indexed by natural numbers. A
1746: hypertheory is said to be replete if the set of all possible
1747: worlds $W$ is in $H$. From the hypertheory $H$, a pre-order
1748: $\leq_H$ over $W$ can be defined as follows:
1749: \begin{center}
1750: $w'\leq_H w$ iff for any $U\in H$, if $w\in U$, then there exists
1751: $U'\in H$ such that $U'\subseteq U$ and $w'\in U'$.
1752: \end{center}
1753: When $H$ is replete, the pre-order defined in this way is total.
1754: When the wffs $[+\varphi]\psi$ and $[-\varphi]\psi$ are evaluated
1755: with respect to a hypertheory $H$, it causes evaluation of $\psi$
1756: in some revised hypertheory $H'$, so the semantics are essentially
1757: equivalent to that proposed in \cite{bou4}, though the revisions
1758: of the corresponding pre-order are somewhat different in the two
1759: approaches. Therefore, as the proposal of \cite{bou4}, the logic
1760: allows only reasoning about the belief revision of a single agent
1761: by some new information and the prioritized fusion of multi-agent
1762: beliefs can not be represented in such logic.
1763:
1764: \subsection{Alternative representations of belief states}
1765: In our presentation above, we assume an agent's belief states are
1766: represented as a subset of possible worlds, i.e.\ ${\cal R}_i(w)$
1767: is the belief state of agent $i$ in world $w$. However, some more
1768: fine-grained representations have been also proposed, such as
1769: total pre-orders over the set of possible worlds
1770: \cite{bou4,dar,lehm,seg}, ordinal conditional functions
1771: \cite{bou5,spo,will}, possibility
1772: distributions\cite{ben2,dp5,dp4}, belief functions\cite{smet} and
1773: pedigreed belief states\cite{sho2}. Perhaps, the most popular
1774: representation among them is an ordering of the possible worlds.
1775: While a set of possible worlds can be seen as the minimal worlds
1776: with respect to a given ordering, it is claimed that the fusion
1777: of two orderings is more general than the revision of an ordering
1778: by a set of possible worlds\cite{sho2}. Thus it is shown that AGM
1779: revision is in fact a special case of the fusion operator in
1780: \cite{sho2}. Indeed, in our extended models, the assignment $\leq$
1781: has mapped each subset of possible worlds to a total pre-orders
1782: between worlds. However, to fully utilize the semantic power of an
1783: ordering, the logic language should be extended further to cover
1784: the conditional connectives. Since the purpose of the present
1785: paper is to integrate the belief fusion operators into the
1786: epistemic reasoning framework, this extension is beyond its scope.
1787: Nevertheless, the further development of logical systems
1788: incorporating the fusion operators based on fine-grained
1789: representations of belief states should be a very interesting
1790: research direction.
1791:
1792:
1793: \section{Conclusions and Further Researches}
1794: The main contribution of the paper is the integration of belief
1795: fusion operators into the multi-agent epistemic logic. We first
1796: propose two basic logical systems for reasoning about the
1797: cautiously merged beliefs of multiple agents and then extend them
1798: to cover more sophisticated and adventurous fusion and revision
1799: operators.
1800:
1801: The basic systems are cautious in the sense that if an information
1802: source is in conflict with other more reliable ones, then the
1803: information from that source is totally discarded. The two systems
1804: correspond to two different strategies of discarding the
1805: information sources. For level cutting strategy, if an information
1806: source is to be discarded, then all those less reliable than it
1807: are also discarded without further examination. On the other hand,
1808: for level skipping strategy, only the level under conflict is
1809: skipped, and the next level will be considered independent of
1810: those discarded before it. Thus, level skipping strategy is
1811: relatively less cautious than the level cutting one and indeed, we
1812: can simulate the trusting attitude multi-sources reasoning in
1813: \cite{cho} by level skipping strategy.
1814:
1815: Then some of the most important knowledge base merging approaches
1816: are reviewed and it is shown that many fusion operators proposed
1817: in those approaches can be incorporated into our logic. While most
1818: of the knowledge base merging research takes the fusion process as
1819: a meta-level operator, our approach incorporate them into the
1820: object logic directly. Therefore, it is possible to integrate the
1821: belief fusion operators into the multi-agent epistemic logic. What
1822: we can benefit from the epistemic logic is the capability to
1823: reasoning with not only the beliefs about the objective world but
1824: also the beliefs about beliefs.
1825:
1826: In the discussion of the belief fusion logic, for simplicity, we
1827: do not distinguish belief and information. However, in a genuine
1828: agent systems, an agent's belief may be different than the
1829: information he sends to or receives from other agents. Thus, in
1830: general, we should have a set of modal operators $[j]_i$ such
1831: that $[j]_i\varphi$ means that agent $i$ receives the information
1832: $\varphi$ from $j$. In particular, $[i]_i\varphi$ may represent
1833: the observation of agent $i$ himself, which should be the most
1834: reliable information source for $i$. Then agent $i$ may form his
1835: belief by fusing the information he received from different agents
1836: according to the degrees of trust he has on other agents. The
1837: fusion may be represented by the operators $[O]_i$. If we consider
1838: $[j]_i\varphi$ as the communication of message $\varphi$ from $j$
1839: to $i$, then we have a general framework for reasoning about
1840: agent's belief and communication. In such a framework, we can
1841: discuss the problems like deception of agent. For example,
1842: $[O]_i\varphi\wedge[i]_j\neg\varphi$ may mean that agent $i$
1843: deceives to agent $j$ by telling $j$ the negation of what he
1844: believes. In \cite{liau2}, an application of our basic systems to
1845: reasoning about beliefs and trusts of multiple agents has been
1846: proposed along this direction. However, more works remain to be
1847: done for the real applications. These applications may also
1848: benefit from some fundamental works on multi-agent belief
1849: revision\cite{drag1,drag2,drag3,gall,tenn}.
1850:
1851: From a more foundational viewpoint, though we have proposed some
1852: extensions of the basic systems for accommodating the belief
1853: fusion operators both syntactically and semantically, the complete
1854: axiomatization of these extended logics remain to be found. To be
1855: practically useful, other proof methods more suitable for
1856: automated theorem proving should be also developed.
1857:
1858: In a recent paper, it is shown that the multi-sources reasoning
1859: can be applied to deontic logic under conflicting
1860: regulations\cite{cho1}. Essentially, this is to merge conflicting
1861: regulations according to the priorities of them analogously to the
1862: fusion of information. However, inherited from the restriction of
1863: FU$_n$, it is also required that each regulation to be merged must
1864: be a set of deontic literals. Now, by the systems developed here,
1865: it is expected that the general forms of regulations can also be
1866: merged.
1867:
1868: A real difficulty in the application of our logic to model the
1869: database merging reasoning is the representational problem of the
1870: databases. In the discussion of section \ref{sec5}, we suggest to
1871: find all maximal consistent agent groups in advance and add the
1872: wff $\bigwedge_{G\in MCAG}\neg[G]\bot$ to the representation. This
1873: is a rather time-consuming work. In practice, we can omit this
1874: part and check the consistency of some agent groups when it is
1875: necessary during the course of proof. Even further, we can
1876: consider the implementation of the logic with some non-monotonic
1877: reasoning techniques\cite{anto} so that only the explicit
1878: information in the databases have to be represented by the wffs.
1879: This will be investigated in the further research.
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883: \bibliography{bibfile}
1884:
1885: \appendix
1886: \section{Proof of the Proposition and Theorems}
1887: \subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1}}
1888: \begin{enumerate}
1889: \item By induction on $m=|\delta(O)|$:
1890: \begin{description}
1891: \item $m=1$: this is trivial since we identify $[i_1]\varphi$ and
1892: $[\{i_1\}]\varphi$ in our language.
1893: \item assume this result holds for all $m\leq k$.
1894: \item $m=k+1$: there are two cases:
1895: \begin{description}
1896: \item $j=m$:
1897: $\vdash\neg[G_j]\varphi\supset([O]\varphi\equiv[G_j]\varphi)$ is
1898: just an instance of axiom O1,
1899: \item $j<m$: let $O$ be written as $O'>i_m$ where
1900: $O'=i_1>\ldots>i_k$, then this proof is as follows:
1901: \[\begin{array}{ll}
1902: 1. \neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot\supset[G_m]\bot & G3, m\geq
1903: j+1\\ 2. [G_m]\bot\supset([O]\varphi\equiv[O']\varphi) & O2\\ 3.
1904: \neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot\supset
1905: ([O]\varphi\equiv[O']\varphi) & 1,2,P, MP\\ 4.
1906: \neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot\supset
1907: ([O']\varphi\equiv[G_j]\varphi) & \mbox{\rm ind. hyp.}\\ 5.
1908: \neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot\supset([O]\varphi\equiv[G_j]\varphi)
1909: & 3, 4, P, MP
1910: \end{array}
1911: \]
1912: \end{description}
1913: \end{description}
1914: \item By induction on $|\delta(O)|$: if $|\delta(O)|=1$, this is
1915: an instance of G1. Assume this holds for modal operator $[O]$, let
1916: us consider the proof for $[O>i]$. Let $p$ and $G$ denote
1917: respectively $[\delta(O>i)]\bot$ and $\delta(O>i)$
1918: \[\begin{array}{ll}
1919: 1. [O>i]\varphi\supset(\neg p\supset[G]\varphi) & O1\\ 2.
1920: [O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(\neg
1921: p\supset[G](\varphi\supset\psi)) & O1\\ 3.
1922: [O>i]\varphi\supset(p\supset[O]\varphi) & O2\\ 4.
1923: [O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(p\supset[O](\varphi\supset\psi))
1924: & O2\\ 5. [O>i]\varphi\wedge[O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(\neg
1925: p\supset[G]\psi) &1, 2, G1, P, MP\\ 6.
1926: [O>i]\varphi\wedge[O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(
1927: p\supset[O]\psi) &3, 4, \mbox{ \rm ind. hyp., } P, MP\\ 7.
1928: [O>i]\varphi\wedge[O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(\neg
1929: p\supset[O>i]\psi) &5, O1, P, MP\\ 8.
1930: [O>i]\varphi\wedge[O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset(
1931: p\supset[O>i]\psi) &6, O2, P, MP\\ 9.
1932: [O>i]\varphi\wedge[O>i](\varphi\supset\psi)\supset[O>i]\psi &7, 8,
1933: P, MP
1934: \end{array}
1935: \]
1936: \item By induction on $|\delta(O)|$: if $|\delta(O)|=1$, this is
1937: an instance of G2. Assume we have $\vdash\neg[O]\bot$, then the
1938: proof of $\vdash\neg[O>i]\bot$ is as follows:
1939: \[\begin{array}{ll}
1940: 1. \neg[\delta(O>i)]\bot\supset([O>i]\bot\supset[\delta(O>i)]\bot)
1941: & O1\\ 2. [\delta(O>i)]\bot\supset([O>i]\bot\supset[O]\bot) & O2\\
1942: 3. [O>i]\bot\supset[\delta(O>i)]\bot & 1, P, MP\\ 4.
1943: [O>i]\bot\supset([\delta(O>i)]\bot\supset[O]\bot) & 2, P, MP\\ 5.
1944: [O>i]\bot\supset[O]\bot & 3, 4, P, MP\\ 6. \neg[O]\bot & \mbox{\rm
1945: ind. hyp.}\\ 7. \neg[O>i]\bot & 5, 6, P, MP
1946: \end{array}
1947: \]
1948: \item By induction on $|\delta(O)|$: if $|\delta(O)|=1$, this is
1949: an instance of Gen rule. Assume it is the case for modal operator
1950: $[O]$, let us consider the proof for $[O>i]$
1951: \[\begin{array}{ll}
1952: 1. \varphi & \mbox{\rm Assumption}\\ 2. [O]\varphi & \mbox{\rm
1953: Ind. Hyp.}\\ 3. [\delta(O>i)]\varphi & Gen\\ 4.
1954: [O>i]\varphi\equiv([\delta(O>i)]\varphi\vee[O]\varphi) & O1, O2,
1955: P, MP\\ 5. [O>i]\varphi & 2, 3, 4, P, MP
1956: \end{array}
1957: \]
1958: \end{enumerate}
1959: $\Box$
1960:
1961: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}}
1962: The proof of the theorem is based on that for S5$_n^D$ in
1963: \cite{fag,fag1}. As usual, the verification of the soundness part
1964: is a routine checking, so we focus on the completeness part. Let
1965: $\cal L$ denote a logical system. A wff $\varphi$ is $\cal
1966: L$-inconsistent if its negation $\neg\varphi$ can be proved in
1967: $\cal L$. Otherwise, $\varphi$ is $\cal L$-consistent. A set
1968: $\Sigma$ of wffs is said to be $\cal L$-inconsistent if there is a
1969: finite subset $\{\varphi_1,\ldots, \varphi_k\}\subseteq\Sigma$
1970: such that the wff $\varphi_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\varphi_k$ is $\cal
1971: L$-inconsistent; otherwise, $\Sigma$ is $\cal L$-consistent. A
1972: maximal $\cal L$-consistent set of wffs ($\cal L$-MCS) is a
1973: consistent set $\chi$ of wffs such that whenever $\psi$ is a wff
1974: not in $\chi$, then $\chi\cup\{\psi\}$ is $\cal L$-inconsistent.
1975:
1976: On the other hand, $\varphi$ is $\cal L$-satisfiable iff there
1977: exists a $\cal L$ model $M$ and a possible world $w$ such that
1978: $w\models_M\varphi$, otherwise $\varphi$ is $\cal
1979: L$-unsatisfiable. Sometimes the prefix $\cal L$ will be omitted
1980: without confusion. To prove the completeness, we will show that
1981: every DBF$_n^c$-consistent wff is DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable.
1982:
1983: Let ${\cal I}={\cal TO}_n\cup 2^{\{1,2\ldots,n\}}-\{\emptyset\}$
1984: be the set of all modal operators for the language DBF$_n^c$. A
1985: {\em pseudo \/} DBF$_n^c$ structure is a tuple $(W,({\cal
1986: R}^*_I)_{I\in{\cal I}}, V)$ where $W$ and $V$ are defined as in
1987: DBF$_n^c$ models and each ${\cal R}^*_I$ is a binary relation on
1988: $W$. Furthermore,it is required that ${\cal R}^*_{\{i\}}$ is a
1989: serial relation for each $1\leq i\leq n$. The satisfaction clauses
1990: for DBF$_n^c$ wffs in pseudo structures are defined as usual, so
1991: for example, we have $w\models[O]\varphi$ iff for $u\in{\cal
1992: R}^*_O(w)$, $u\models\varphi$. What make difference is that in a
1993: pseudo structures, each ${\cal R}^*_I$ is considered as an
1994: independent relation instead of the intersection of other
1995: individual ones. A pseudo structure $M^*$ is called a pseudo model
1996: if all wffs provable in DBF$_n^c$ are valid in $M^*$. A
1997: DBF$_n^c$ wff $\varphi$ is pseudo satisfiable if there exists a
1998: pseudo model $M^*$ and a possible world $w$ such that
1999: $w\models_{M^*}\varphi$.
2000:
2001: The following two results will be proved:
2002: \begin{mylma}\label{lma1}
2003: \begin{enumerate}
2004: \item If $\varphi$ is DBF$_n^c$-consistent, then $\varphi$ is pseudo
2005: DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable.
2006: \item If $\varphi$ is pseudo DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable, then it is DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable.
2007: \end{enumerate}
2008: \end{mylma}
2009:
2010: The first result is proved by a standard canonical model
2011: construction procedure. A canonical pseudo structure
2012: $M^*=(W,({\cal R}_I)^*_{I\in{\cal I}}, V)$ is defined as follows
2013: \begin{itemize}
2014: \item $W=\{w_\chi\mid\chi$ is a DBF$_n^c$-MCS$\}$, in other words, each possible world corresponds
2015: precisely to a DBF$_n^c$-MCS.
2016: \item ${\cal R}^*_I(w_{\chi_1},w_{\chi_2})$ iff
2017: $\chi_1/I\subseteq\chi_2$ for all $I\in\cal I$, where
2018: $\chi_1/I=\{\varphi\mid[I]\varphi\in\chi_1\}$.
2019: \item $V:\Phi_0\ra 2^W$ is defined by $V(p)=\{w_\chi\mid
2020: p\in\chi\}$.
2021: \end{itemize}
2022:
2023: The most important result for such construction is the truth
2024: lemma.
2025: \begin{mylma}[Truth lemma]\label{lma2}
2026: For any wff $\varphi$ and DBF$_n^c$-MCS $\chi$, we have
2027: $w_\chi\models_{M^*}\varphi$ iff $\varphi\in\chi$.
2028: \end{mylma}
2029: {\bf Proof}: By induction on the structure of the wff, the only
2030: interesting case is the wff of the form $[I]\psi$ for some
2031: $I\in{\cal I}$. By definition, $w_\chi\models_{M^*}[I]\psi$ iff
2032: for all $w_{\chi'}\in {\cal R}^*_I(w_\chi)$,
2033: $w_{\chi'}\models_{M^*}\psi$ iff for all $\chi/I\subseteq\chi'$,
2034: $\psi\in\chi'$ (by induction hypothesis) iff
2035: $\chi/I\cup\{\neg\psi\}$ is inconsistent iff $[I]\psi\in\chi$ when
2036: $[I]$ is a normal modal operator\cite{che}. However, by the axioms
2037: P and G1, rules MP and Gen, and propositions \ref{prop1}.2 and
2038: \ref{prop1}.4, both kinds of modal operators $[O]$ and $[G]$ are
2039: normal ones. $\Box$
2040:
2041: Since every DBF$_n^c$-MCS contains all wffs provable in DBF$_n^c$,
2042: by the truth lemma, all provable wffs are valid in $M^*$.
2043: Furthermore, by axiom G2, each ${\cal R}^*_{\{i\}}$ is serial for
2044: $1\leq i\leq n$. Thus $M^*$ is indeed a pseudo model. If $\varphi$
2045: is DBF$_n^c$-consistent, then there exists an MCS $\chi$
2046: containing $\varphi$, so by the truth lemma,
2047: $w_\chi\models_{M^*}\varphi$, i.e., $\varphi$ is pseudo
2048: DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable. This proves the first part of lemma
2049: \ref{lma1}.
2050:
2051: Note that if $|{\cal I}|=m$, then a pseudo model is in fact a
2052: model for the multi-agent epistemic logic K$_m$\cite{fag}. The
2053: logic K$_m$ has $m$ modal operators corresponding to the knowledge
2054: or belief of $m$ independent agents. Admittedly, $m$ may be a very
2055: large number, however, it does not matter for the current purpose.
2056: What is important is that it can be shown that without loss of
2057: generality, we can assume a pseudo model is tree-like. The detail
2058: definition of a tree-like model and the proof that each pseudo
2059: model can be ``unwound'' into a tree-like one verifying the same
2060: set of valid wffs are rather technical and can be found in
2061: (\cite{fag1},pp.354) and (\cite{fag},Exercise 3.30). What is
2062: needed here is the property that in a tree-like model, if
2063: $I\not=J$, then ${\cal R}^*_I\cap{\cal R}^*_J=\emptyset$.
2064:
2065: Thus, from now on, we can assume that if $\varphi$ is
2066: DBF$_n^c$-consistent, then $\varphi$ is pseudo
2067: DBF$_n^c$-satisfiable in a tree-like model $M^*=(W,({\cal
2068: R}^*_I)_{I\in{\cal I}}, V)$. The next step is to construct a
2069: DBF$_n^c$ model $M=(W,({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}, V)$ from $M^*$
2070: by defining ${\cal R}_i=\bigcup_{i\in G}{\cal R}^*_G$. Note that
2071: ${\cal R}_i$ is serial since ${\cal R}_i\supseteq{\cal
2072: R}^*_{\{i\}}$ which is serial by the definition of pseudo models.
2073: From the definition, we can prove the following lemma.
2074: \begin{mylma}\label{lma3}
2075: For any $w\in W$ and wff $\varphi$, $w\models_{M^*}\varphi$ iff
2076: $w\models_{M}\varphi$.
2077: \end{mylma}
2078: {\bf Proof}: By induction on the structure of $\varphi$, the basis
2079: and classical cases are easy since both models have the same truth
2080: assignment function $V$. For the modal cases, if
2081: $\varphi=[G]\psi$, then $w\models_{M}[G]\psi$ iff for all
2082: $u\in\bigcap_{i\in G}{\cal R}_i(w)$, $u\models_{M}\psi$ iff for
2083: all $u\in\bigcup_{G'\supseteq G}{\cal R}^*_{G'}(w)$,
2084: $u\models_{M^*}\psi$ (by the definition of ${\cal R}_i$, the
2085: tree-likeness of $M^*$, and the induction hypothesis) iff
2086: $w\models_{M^*}\bigwedge_{G'\supseteq G}[G']\psi$ (by definition
2087: of satisfaction in pseudo model $M^*$) iff $w\models_{M^*}[G]\psi$
2088: (since axiom G3 is valid in $M^*$).
2089:
2090: If $\varphi=[O]\psi$, then since proposition \ref{prop1}.1 is both
2091: valid in $M^*$ (by definition of pseudo models) and $M$ (by
2092: soundness), and by the case for modal operators $[G]$, we can find
2093: a $j$ such that $w$ satisfies the wff
2094: $\neg[G_j]\bot\wedge[G_{j+1}]\bot$ (or just $\neg[G_j]\bot$ in
2095: case of $j=|\delta(O)|$) in both $M$ and $M^*$, so it can be shown
2096: that $w\models_{M}[O]\psi$ iff $w\models_{M}[G_j]\psi$ iff
2097: $w\models_{M^*}[G_j]\psi$ iff $w\models_{M^*}[O]\psi$. $\Box$
2098:
2099: This finishes the proof for the second part of lemma \ref{lma1}
2100: and by combining the two parts, we have proved the completeness
2101: theorem for DBF$_n^c$.
2102:
2103: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}
2104: The proof is very analogous to the previous one. What is different
2105: is that we do not have a counterpart for proposition \ref{prop1}.1
2106: in the system DBF$_n^s$. First, a pseudo DBF$_n^s$ structure is
2107: analogously defined as a tuple $(W,({\cal
2108: R}_\Omega)_{\emptyset\not=\Omega\subseteq{\cal TO}_n}, V)$ and it
2109: is required that ${\cal R}_{\{i\}}$ is serial for all $1\leq i\leq
2110: n$. Then a pseudo DBF$_n^s$ model is a pseudo DBF$_n^s$ structure
2111: in which all wffs provable in DBF$_n^s$ are valid.
2112:
2113: We still have to prove the following lemma.
2114: \begin{mylma}\label{lma4}
2115: \begin{enumerate}
2116: \item If $\varphi$ is DBF$_n^s$-consistent, then $\varphi$ is pseudo
2117: DBF$_n^s$-satisfiable.
2118: \item If $\varphi$ is pseudo DBF$_n^s$-satisfiable, then it is DBF$_n^s$-satisfiable.
2119: \end{enumerate}
2120: \end{mylma}
2121:
2122: The first part of the lemma is proved exactly in the same way as
2123: in lemma \ref{lma1}. It can also be obtained that if $\varphi$ is
2124: DBF$_n^s$-consistent, then $\varphi$ is pseudo
2125: DBF$_n^s$-satisfiable in a tree-like model $M^*=(W,({\cal
2126: R}^*_\Omega)_{\emptyset\not=\Omega\subseteq{\cal TO}_n}, V)$.
2127:
2128: However, the proof of the second part is somewhat different. Let
2129: us define the {\em level \/} of a modal operator $\Omega$ as
2130: $l(\Omega)=\max_{O\in\Omega}|\delta(O)|$ and the {\em length \/}
2131: of $\Omega$ as $\sharp(\Omega)=$ the number of elements $O$ in
2132: $\Omega$ such that $|\delta(O)|=l(\Omega)$. Then we define a
2133: function $Ag^*:W\times (2^{{\cal
2134: TO}_n}-\{\emptyset\})\ra(2^{\{1,2,\ldots,n\}}-{\emptyset})$ from
2135: the model $M^*$ by
2136: \[Ag^*(w,\Omega)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2137: \bigcup_{O\in\Omega}Ag^*(w,\{O\}) & {\rm if} \;|\Omega|>1,\\
2138: Ag^*(w,\{O\})\cup\{i\}& {\rm if} \; \Omega=\{O>i\} \; {\rm and} \;
2139: w\models_{M^*}\neg[\{O,i\}]\bot,\\ Ag^*(w,\{O\})& {\rm if} \;
2140: \Omega=\{O>i\} \; {\rm and} \; w\models_{M^*}[\{O,i\}]\bot,\\
2141: \{i\}& {\rm if} \; \Omega=\{i\},
2142: \end{array}
2143: \right.\] Note that since $Ag^*(w,\Omega)$ is a subset of agents,
2144: it can also be used as a modal operator of level 1. We can now
2145: construct a DBF$_n^s$ model $M=(W,({\cal R}_i)_{1\leq i\leq n},
2146: V)$ from $M^*$ such that ${\cal R}_i=\bigcup_{l(\Omega)=1,
2147: i\in\Omega}{\cal R}^*_\Omega$.
2148: \begin{mylma}\label{lma5}
2149: \begin{enumerate}
2150: \item For all $w\in W$, modal operators $\Omega$, and wffs $\varphi$, we have
2151: $w\models_{M^*}[\Omega]\varphi\equiv[Ag^*(w,\Omega)]\varphi$.
2152: \item ${\cal R}_\Omega(w)=\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2153: Ag^*(w,\Omega)\subseteq\Omega'\}$ for all $w\in W$ and modal
2154: operators $\Omega$, where ${\cal R}_\Omega$ is defined in section
2155: \ref{sec4}.
2156: \end{enumerate}
2157: \end{mylma}
2158: {\bf Proof}:
2159: \begin{enumerate}
2160: \item By induction on the level of $\Omega$:
2161: \begin{description}
2162: \item The basis case $l(\Omega)=1$: then by definition,
2163: $Ag^*(w,\Omega)=\Omega$, so the result holds trivially.
2164: \item Assume the result holds for all $\Omega$ such that
2165: $l(\Omega)\leq k$,
2166: \item $l(\Omega)=k+1$: by induction on the length of $\Omega$:
2167: \begin{description}
2168: \item $\sharp(\Omega)=1$: let $\Omega=\{O>i\}\cup\Omega_1$, where
2169: $l(\Omega_1)\leq k$, then $Ag^*(w,\Omega)=Ag^*(w,\{O>i\})\cup
2170: Ag^*(w,\Omega_1)=Ag^*(w,\{O\})\cup
2171: Ag^*(w,\Omega_1)\cup\{i\}=Ag^*(w,\Omega_2)$ if
2172: $w\models_{M^*}\neg[\{O,i\}]\bot$ and $=Ag^*(w,\{O\})\cup
2173: Ag^*(w,\Omega_1)=Ag^*(w,\Omega_3)$ if
2174: $w\models_{M^*}[\{O,i\}]\bot$, where
2175: $\Omega_2=\{O,i\}\cup\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_3=\{O\}\cup\Omega_1$.
2176: Since $l(\Omega_2)=l(\Omega_3)=k$, then by induction hypothesis,
2177: we have
2178: $w\models_{M^*}[\Omega_i]\varphi\equiv[Ag^*(w,\Omega_i)]\varphi$
2179: for $i=2,3$, so by axioms O1' and O2' (recall that all axioms are
2180: valid in a pseudo model),
2181: $w\models_{M^*}[\Omega]\varphi\equiv[Ag^*(w,\Omega)]\varphi$ no
2182: matter whether $w\models_{M^*}[\{O,i\}]\bot$ or not.
2183: \item Assume the result holds for all $\Omega$ such that
2184: $\sharp(\Omega)\leq t$:
2185: \item $\sharp(\Omega)=t+1$: the induction step is completely the
2186: same as in the basis case except that
2187: $l(\Omega_2)=l(\Omega_3)=k+1$ but
2188: $\sharp(\Omega_2)=\sharp(\Omega_3)=t$.
2189: \end{description}
2190: \end{description}
2191: \item By induction on $l(\Omega)$:
2192: \begin{description}
2193: \item $l(\Omega)=1$: then $Ag^*(w,\Omega)=\Omega$ and by
2194: definition in section \ref{sec4}
2195: \begin{eqnarray*}
2196: {\cal R}_\Omega(w)& = &\bigcap_{i\in\Omega}{\cal R}_i(w)\\
2197: &=&\bigcap_{i\in\Omega}\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2198: i\in\Omega'\}\\
2199: &=&\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2200: \Omega\subseteq\Omega'\}\\
2201: &=&\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2202: Ag^*(w,\Omega)\subseteq\Omega'\}
2203: \end{eqnarray*}
2204: \item Assume the result holds for $l(\Omega)\leq k$.
2205: \item $l(\Omega)=k+1$: there are two cases
2206: \begin{description}
2207: \item $|\Omega|=1$: let $\Omega=\{O>i\}$, then by definition in
2208: section \ref{sec4}, we have
2209: \[{\cal R}_\Omega(w)={\cal R}_{O>i}(w)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2210: {\cal R}_O(w) & {\rm if} \;{\cal R}_O(w)\cap{\cal R}_i(w)=\emptyset,\\
2211: {\cal R}_O(w)\cap {\cal R}_i(w)& {\rm otherwise},
2212: \end{array}
2213: \right.\] where by the induction hypothesis and the definitions of
2214: $Ag^*$ and ${\cal R}_i(w)$,
2215: \[{\cal R}_O(w)=\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2216: Ag^*(w,\{O\})\subseteq\Omega'\}\]
2217: \[{\cal R}_O(w)\cap{\cal R}_i(w)=\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2218: Ag^*(w,\{O,i\})\subseteq\Omega'\}.\] On the other hand, by the
2219: result of first part, let $\Omega_1=Ag^*(w,\{O,i\})$, then
2220: $w\models_{M^*}[\{O,i\}]\bot$ iff $w\models_{M^*}[\Omega_1]\bot$
2221: iff $w\models_{M^*}[\Omega']\bot$ for all $\Omega'$ such that
2222: $l(\Omega')=1$ and $\Omega_1\subseteq\Omega'$ (by axiom V3) iff
2223: ${\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)=\emptyset$ for all such $\Omega'$ iff
2224: ${\cal R}_O(w)\cap{\cal R}_i(w)=\emptyset$. Thus, by the
2225: definition of $Ag^*$,
2226: \[Ag^*(w,\Omega)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2227: Ag^*(w,\{O\})& {\rm if} {\cal R}_O(w)\cap{\cal R}_i(w)=\emptyset\\
2228: Ag^*(w,\{O,i\})& {\rm otherwise}
2229: \end{array}
2230: \right.\] and the result follows immediately.
2231: \item $|\Omega|>1$: by definition
2232: \begin{eqnarray*}
2233: {\cal R}_\Omega(w) &= &\bigcap_{O\in\Omega}{\cal R}_O(w)\\
2234: &=&\bigcap_{O\in\Omega} \bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2235: Ag^*(w,\{O\})\subseteq\Omega'\}\\
2236: &=&\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge \bigcup_{O\in\Omega}Ag^*(w,\{O\})\subseteq\Omega'\}\\
2237: &=&\bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2238: Ag^*(w,\Omega)\subseteq\Omega'\}
2239: \end{eqnarray*}
2240: \end{description}
2241: \end{description}
2242: \end{enumerate}
2243: $\Box$
2244:
2245: Finally, we can prove the counterpart of lemma \ref{lma3} for
2246: DBF$_n^s$
2247: \begin{mylma}\label{lma6}
2248: For any $w\in W$ and wff $\varphi$, $w\models_{M^*}\varphi$ iff
2249: $w\models_{M}\varphi$.
2250: \end{mylma}
2251: {\bf Proof}: By induction on the structure of $\varphi$, the only
2252: interesting case is $\varphi=[\Omega]\psi$,
2253: \begin{eqnarray*}
2254: w\models_{M^*}[\Omega]\psi & \Leftrightarrow &
2255: w\models_{M^*}[Ag^*(w,\Omega)]\psi\mbox{ \rm (lemma
2256: \ref{lma5}.1)}\\
2257: & \Leftrightarrow & w\models_{M^*}[\Omega']\psi \mbox{ \rm for
2258: all } \Omega' \mbox{ \rm such that } l(\Omega')=1 \mbox{ \rm and }
2259: Ag^*(w,\Omega)\subseteq\Omega'\mbox{ \rm (V3)}\\
2260: & \Leftrightarrow & u\models_{M^*}\psi, \forall u\in \bigcup\{{\cal R}^*_{\Omega'}(w)\mid l(\Omega')=1\wedge
2261: Ag^*(w,\Omega)\subseteq\Omega'\}\\
2262: & \Leftrightarrow & u\models_{M}\psi, \forall u\in{\cal
2263: R}_{\Omega}(w)\mbox{ \rm (induction hypothesis and lemma
2264: \ref{lma5}.2)}\\
2265: & \Leftrightarrow & w\models_{M}[\Omega]\psi
2266: \end{eqnarray*}$\Box$
2267:
2268: This completes the proof of the second part of lemma \ref{lma4}
2269: and the completeness theorem for DBF$_n^s$.
2270:
2271:
2272:
2273:
2274: \end{document}
2275: