Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1 We note V ar (h ; : : : ; i) = Sn V ar ( ).
hfag; fa; cgi are recoveries for B , V~ should (in some con-
0
only if B j V~prudent
v
j= , where V~prudent
v
is a re-
S
ting context, inference from preferred recoveries comes relation jM d; induced by d and is dened by B jM d;
down to inference from preferred maximal consistent if and only if Merged (f1 ; : : : ; ng) Mod( ).
subsets. The other direction of Proposition 1 states In order to characterize the decomposable n-merging
3
Among usual preference relations, we nd set inclusion: inference relations as forget relations, we need to fo-
X Y if and only if X Y , and cardinality: X Y if cus on the dierential ones, i.e., those based on a dif-
and only if jX j jY j. ferential distance, where a distance d is said to be
dierential if and only if there exists a total func- Proposition 3 Let C be the forgetting context for
tion f : 2PS ! IN satisfying (i) f(;) = 0 and (ii) h ; i s.t. F = G = G = H = ; and F = PS .
1 1 2 2
8A,B PS, if A B, then f(A) f(B), and s.t. Let vS (resp. vD ) be a preference relation on RC (B)
8!, !0 2
, d(!; !0) = f(Diff(!; !0 )). s.t. 8V~ , V~ 0 2 RC (B), V~ vS V~ 0 if and only if V V 0
2 2
(resp. V~ vD V~ 0 if and only if jV j jV 0 j). Provided
Proposition 2 f ; : : : ; ng jMd; is a decomposable
2 2
1 that is consistent, we have:
and dierential n-merging inference relation if and
only if there exists a complete preference relation v for any , S j= if and only if h ; i jCvS ;
on RC (B), induced by a ranking measure satisfy-
S
k = kc + ks + kt where kc (V ) = 3 if fc ; c ; c g V ,
0 1 2
The inference relations induced by S , D and W are kc (V ) = 0 otherwise ; ks (V ) = 3 if fs; sb; sr g V ,
forget ones since: ks(V ) = 1 if V \ fs; sb; sr g = fsb ; sr g, and ks(V ) = 0
otherwise ; kt(V ) = 2 if t 2 V , kt(V ) = 0 otherwise.
4
As evoked previously, it incorporates as well the usual
syntax-based ones. v1 =p ;
What should be concluded from such inconsistent
X
5 X
5
bases, especially when no information about the (abso-
v2 : V~ v2 V~ if and only if
0 k (V i ) k(Vi )
0
The results are synthesized in table 2. v1 is the point- v1 corresponds to inference from maximal (w.r.t.
wise inclusion relation. v2 is a merging inference re- or cardinality) consistent subsets.
lation. v5 is a maxcons inference relation. v3 and v2 (resp. v3 ) corresponds to distance-based merg-
v4 correspond to homogeneous inference relations: v3 ing where d is the Hamming distance and = +
minimizes the set of variables forgotten everywhere (resp. = max).
while v4 minimizes their cumulated cost.
v4 = the closure of p under gathering.
A second family of forget inference relations which
does not degenerate into one of the previous types of v5 = p under the standard forgetting context.
inference is obtained in the situation where reliability
between sources is a matter of topic5, as explained in Compared with the weakening by inhibition mecha-
the following example: nism at work in the coherence-based approaches, weak-
ening by variable forgetting is typically less drastic; in-
Example 2 Let be B = h ; i, with = a^b, =
1 2 1 2 deed, instead of inhibiting a whole formula { or equiv-
:a^:b. Let us consider the standard forgetting context alently, replacing it by > { it is possible to keep all its
for B . Assume that source 1. is more reliable to what consequences that are not involved in any contradic-
concerns a than to what concerns b and conversely, tion (see e.g. the piece of information c in Example
source 2. is more reliable to what concerns b than to 3). Subsequently, more information can be preserved.
what concerns a. To capture it in our framework, the
following ranking function can be considered (among 4 COMPUTATIONAL ISSUES
P (hV1; V2i) = 0(V1) + 0(V2)
other possible choices):
where 0 (Vi ) = v2Vi ki (v) and k1(a) = 2, k1(b) = 1,
k2(a) = 1, k2 (b) = 2. Then the (unique) preferred We now investigate the computational complexity of
recovery for B is hfbg; fagi and therefore we have forget inference relations. We suppose the reader fa-
B jCv a ^ :b. miliar with computational complexity (see e.g. [Pa-
padimitriou, 1994]), and especially the complexity
Finally, in order to illustrate the
exibility oered by classes NP, p2 and p2 of the polynomial hierarchy.
our framework, let us consider the two following bases: We have obtained the following results:
Example 3 Let B = h ; i, and let B 0 = h0 ; 0 i,
1 2 1 2
Proposition 4
with: 1. Given a belief base B and a forgetting context C
1 = (a _ b) ^ c 1 = a ^ b
0
for it, determining whether B is recoverable is NP-
2 = :a ^ :b 2 = :a ^ :b
0
complete.
v1 1 _ 2 a,b 2. Provided that the preference relation v on RC (B)
v2 (:a _ :b) ^ c > can be tested in polynomial time, the inference
v3 (a _ b _ c) ^ (:a _ b) a 6, b
v4 c ^ (:a _ :b) > problem associated to jCv is in p2 .
v5 c ^ (:a _ :b) > 3. If moreover v is induced by a ranking function
computable in polynomial time, the inference
5 Here, a topic simply is a propositional variable x and
problem associated to jCv is in p2.
a source i conveys some information about it as soon as
i is not independent of x, i.e., i 6 9fxg:i . For a very
dierent approach where topics are taken into account, see These results show that the gain in generality and
[Cholvy, 1995].
exibility oered by our framework does not induce
Table 2:
preference relation preferred recoveries j
that are maximal w.r.t. p
C
v
v1 V~ 5 , V~ 6 , V~ 7 , V~ 8 , V~ 9 1 ^ (s _ t)
v2 V~ 6 , V~ 9 1 ^ (s ^ :t)
v3 V~ 1 , V~ 2 , V~ 3 s_t
v4 V~ 1 , V~ 2 , V~ 6 1 ^ (s t)
v5 h;; ;; ;; F4 ; F5 i, h;; ;; F3; ;; F5i, h;; F2 ; ;; ;; ;i 1 ^ (s _ t) ^ (s ^ t ) sb ) ^ (s ^ :t ) sr )
1
subset S of f ; :::; ng, we dene V~S = hV ; : : : ; Vni
1 1 proof for Point 1 goes as follows. Let B = h ; : : : ; ni
1
where for each i 2 1 : : :n, Vi = ; if i 2 S and Vi = Fi be a belief base and let C = hF; G; H i be a forget-
otherwise. Now, we dene a preference relation ting context for B. The following nondeterministic
on consistent subsets of f ; :::; ng by X Y if
1 algorithm can be used to determine whether B is
and only if V~X v V~Y . It can then be shown that recoverable: 1. Guess n subsets V1; : : : ; Vn of V ar(B)
f ; :::; ng j8 if and only if B jCv .
1
S
and n + 1 interpretations !, !1; : : : ; !n over V ar(B);
()): Let be a preference relation over con- 2. For each i 2 1 : : :n, check that: (a) Vi Fi ; (b) for
sistent subsets of f ; :::; ng. For any vector
1 every (v; v0 ) 2 Gi , if v 2 Vi , then v0 2 Vi ; (c) !i j= i;
V~ = hV ; : : : ; Vni of subsets of PS, let SV~ be the
1
(d) ! coincides with !i on V ar(i ) n Vi .
subset of f ; :::; ng dened by SV~ = fi j Vi = ;g.
1
Due to lack of space we omit hardness (easy to
Let us now dene the preference relation v over establish) and points 2 and 3.
RC (B) by V~ v V~ 0 if and only if SV~ SV~ 0 . Note
that v satises binaricity. Now, it can be shown that
S