Exploring the rationality of some syntactic merging operators (extended version) by José Luis Chacón and Ramón Pino Pérez
Most merging operators are defined by semantics methods which have very high computational complexity. In order to have operators with a lower computational complexity, some merging operators defined in a syntactical way have be proposed. In this work we define some syntactical merging operators and exploring its rationality properties. To do that we constrain the belief bases to be sets of formulas very close to logic programs and the underlying logic is defined through forward chaining rule (Modus Ponens). We propose two types of operators: arbitration operators when the inputs are only two bases and fusion with integrity constraints operators. We introduce a set of postulates inspired of postulates LS, proposed by Liberatore and Shaerf and then we analyzed the first class of operators through these postulates. We also introduce a set of postulates inspired of postulates KP, proposed by Konieczny and Pino P\’erez and then we analyzed the second class of operators through these postulates.
Another paper on logic based merging.
I created a separate tag, “merging operators,” to distinguish this from the merging we experience with TMDM based topic maps.
The merging here refers to merging of beliefs to form a coherent view of the world.
A topic map, not subject to other constraints, can “merge” data about a subject that leads to different inferences or is even factually contradictory.
Even if logical consistency post-merging isn’t your requirement, this is a profitable paper to read.
I will see what other resources I can find on logic based merging.