Belief revision deals with the problem of modelling the dynamics of knowledge in intelligent systems, that is, how the beliefs of a cognitive agent are modified in some dynamic scenarios. In this paper we present a first approach to credibility-limited multiple belief base revision, that is, a way of non prioritized belief revision where i) epistemic states are represented by belief bases, ii) epistemic inputs are represented by finite sets and iii) the epistemic input is bounded to credible beliefs. This paper tries to advance in constructive methods, postulates and representation theorems for this new kind of revision operators.

People are becoming increasingly more connected to each other as social networks continue to grow both in number and variety, and this is true for autonomous software agents as well. Taking them as a collection, such social platforms can be seen as one complex network with many different types of relations, different degrees of strength for each relation, and a wide range of information on each node. In this context, social media posts made by users are reflections of the content of their own individual (or local) knowledge bases; modeling how knowledge flows over the network—or how this can possibly occur—is therefore of great interest from a knowledge representation and reasoning perspective. In this article, we provide a formal introduction to the network knowledge base model, and then focus on the problem of how a single agent’s knowledge base changes when exposed to a stream of news items coming from other members of the network. We do so by taking the classical belief revision approach of first proposing desirable properties for how such a local operation should be carried out (theoretical characterization), arriving at three different families of local operators, exploring concrete algorithms (algorithmic characterization) for two of the families, and proving properties about the relationship between the two characterizations (representation theorem). One of the most important differences between our approach and the classical models of belief revision is that in our case the input is more complex, containing additional information about each piece of information.

Knowledge bases in the form of ontologies are receiving increasing attention as they allow to clearly represent both the available knowledge, which includes the knowledge in itself and the constraints imposed to it by the domain or the users. In particular, Datalog± ontologies are attractive because of their property of decidability and the possibility of dealing with the massive amounts of data in real world environments; however, as it is the case with many other ontological languages, their application in collaborative environments often lead to inconsistency related issues. In this paper we introduce the notion of incoherence regarding Datalog± ontologies, in terms of satisfiability of sets of constraints, and show how under specific conditions incoherence leads to inconsistent Datalog± ontologies. The main contribution of this work is a novel approach to restore both consistency and coherence in Datalog± ontologies. The proposed approach is based on kernel contraction and restoration is performed by the application of incision functions that select formulas to delete. Nevertheless, instead of working over minimal incoherent/inconsistent sets encountered in the ontologies, our operators produce incisions over non-minimal structures called clusters. We present a construction for consolidation operators, along with the properties expected to be satisfied by them. Finally, we establish the relation between the construction and the properties by means of a representation theorem. Although this proposal is presented for Datalog± ontologies consolidation, these operators can be applied to other types of ontological languages, such as Description Logics, making them apt to be used in collaborative environments like the Semantic Web.

Over the years, inconsistency management has caught the attention of researchers of different areas. Inconsistency is a problem that arises in many different scenarios, for instance, ontology development or knowledge integration. In such settings, it is important to have adequate automatic tools for handling conflicts that may appear in a knowledge base. We introduce an approach to consolidation of belief bases based on a refinement of kernel contraction that accounts for the relation among kernels using clusters instead. We define cluster contraction-based consolidation operators contraction by falsum on a belief base using cluster incision functions, a refinement of kernel incision functions.

Abstract This article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.

Argument Theory Change (ATC) applies classic belief change concepts to the area of argumentation. This intersection of fields takes advantage of the definition of a Dynamic Abstract Argumentation Framework, in which an argument is either active or inactive, and only in the former case it is taken into consideration in the reasoning process. ATC identifies how the framework has to be modified in order to achieve warrant for a certain argument. The present article copes with this matter by defining a revision operator based on activation of arguments, i.e., recognizing the knowledge that is missing.

Abstract. Five types of constructions are introduced for non-prioritized belief revision, i.e., belief revision in which the input sentence is not always accepted. These constructions include generalizations of entrenchment-based and sphere-based revision. Axiomatic characterizations are provided, and close interconnections are shown to hold between the different constructions.