See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221393284

Distance Based Merging: A General Framework and some Complexity Results.

Conference Paper · July 2002

Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
72 47

3 authors, including:

Sébastien Konieczny Pierre Marquis

French National Centre for Scientific Research Université d'Artois
131 PUBLICATIONS   3,304 CITATIONS    214 PUBLICATIONS   3,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Belief Revision Games View project

AMANDE - Advanced Multilateral Argumentation for DEliberation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pierre Marquis on 22 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Distan e-based Merging: A General Framework
and some Complexity Results

Sebastien Konie zny Jer^ome Lang Pierre Marquis

IRIT IRIT CRIL / Universite d'Artois
Universite Paul Sabatier Universite Paul Sabatier rue de l'Universite - S.P. 16
31602 Toulouse Cedex - Fran e 31602 Toulouse Cedex - Fran e 62307 Lens - Fran e
konie znyirit.fr langirit.fr marquis ril.univ-artois.fr

Abstra t { Some integrity onstraints IC en oded as a propo-

sitional formula. IC represents some ommon
We present in this paper a new framework knowledge on whi h all sour es agree (e.g. some
for propositional merging. Distan e-based physi al onstraints, norms, et .).
merging operators, parameterized by a dis-
tan e between interpretations and two aggre- The purpose of merging E is to hara terize a for-
gation fun tions, are introdu ed. Many dis- mula (or a set of formulas) 4IC (E ), onsidered as the
tan es and aggregation fun tions an be used overall knowledge from the m sour es given the in-
and many merging operators already dened tegrity onstraints IC . Re ently, several families of
in the literature (in luding both model-based su h merging operators have been dened and hara -
ones and syntax-based ones) an be re overed terized in a logi al way [Revesz, 1997; Lin and Mendel-
as spe i distan e-based operators. Both zon, 1999; Liberatore and S haerf, 1998; Konie zny
logi al and omplexity properties of distan e- and Pino Perez, 1999; Benferhat et al., 2000℄. Among
based merging operators are studied. An them are the so- alled model-based merging operators
important result is that (under very weak [Revesz, 1997; Lin and Mendelzon, 1999; Liberatore
assumptions) query entailment from merged and S haerf, 1998; Konie zny and Pino Perez, 1999℄
bases is \only" at the rst level of the poly- where the models of 4IC (E ) are dened as the mod-
nomial hierar hy when any of our distan e- els of IC whi h are preferred a ording to some ri-
based operators is used. As a by-produ t, terion depending on E . Often, su h preferen e infor-
omplexity results for several existing merg- mation take the form of a total pre-order on inter-
ing operators are derived as well. pretations, indu ed by a notion of distan e d(!; E )
between an interpretation ! and the knowledge set
E . d(!; E ) is typi ally dened by aggregating the dis-
1 INTRODUCTION tan es d(!; Ki) for every Ki. Usually, model-based
Belief merging is an important issue of many AI elds merging operators takes only into a ount onsistent
(see [Blo h and Hunter, 2001℄ for a panorama of ap- knowledge bases Ki. Other merging operators are
syntax-based ones [Baral et al., 1991; Baral et al., 1992;
pli ations of data and knowledge fusion). Konie zny, 2000℄. They areSmbased on the sele tion of
Although parti ular requirements an be asked for some onsistent subsets of i=1 Ki. This renders pos-
ea h appli ation, several pie es of information are usu- sible to take into a ount in onsistent knowledge bases
ally brought into play when propositional base merging Ki and to in orporate some additional preferen e in-
is on erned. In the following: formation into the merging pro ess1 but the pri e to
be paid is to give some importan e to the syntax of
{ A knowledge set E = fK1; : : : ; Kng is a nite knowledge bases. Moreover, sin e they are based on
multi-set of knowledge bases, where ea h knowl- the set-theoreti union Smi=1 Ki of the bases, su h op-
edge base Ki represents the set of beliefs from erators usually do not take into a ount the frequen y
sour e i. Ea h Ki is a propositional formula, or Indeed, as in belief revision, giving some importan e
more generally, a nite set of propositional formu-
1

to the syntax of Ki is a way to spe ify (impli itly but in

las 'i;j en oding the expli it beliefs from sour e a heap way w.r.t. representation) that expli it beliefs are
i. preferred to impli it beliefs [Nebel, 1989; Hansson, 1998℄.
of ea h expli it pie es of belief into the merging pro- 2 FORMAL PRELIMINARIES
ess (the fa t that 'i;j is believed in one sour e only or
in the m sour es under onsideration is not onsidered We onsider a propositional language P ROPP S built
relevant, whi h is often ounter-intuitive2). up from a nite set P S of propositional symbols in the
In this paper, a new framework for dening propo- usual way. An interpretation is a total fun tion from
sitional merging operators is provided. A family of P S to BOOL = f0; 1g. The set of all interpretations
merging operators parametrized by a distan e d be- is denoted W . An interpretation ! is a model of a
tween interpretations and two aggregation fun tions f formula i it makes it true in the usual lassi al truth
and g is presented. These parameters are used to de- fun tional way. Provided that ' is a formula from
ne a notion of distan e between an interpretation and P ROPP S , Mod(') denotes the set of models of ', i.e.,
a knowledge set E in a two-step fashion. Like in exist- Mod(') = f! 2 W j ! j= 'g.
ing model-based approa hes to merging, the models of A knowledgeVbase Ki is said to be onsistent i the
the merging of E given some integrity onstraints IC onjun tion Ki of its formulas is onsistent. Simi-
are exa tly the models of IC that are as lose as pos- larly, a knowledge set E is said to be onsistent i the
sible to E with respe t to the distan e. Moreover, the onjun tion V E of its knowledge bases is onsistent.
rst aggregation step enables to take into a ount the Two knowledge bases K1 and VK2 are said to be logi-
syntax of knowledge bases within the merging pro ess. ally equivalent (K1  K2) i K1  V K2, and two
This allows to handle in onsistent ones in a satisfying knowledge sets E1 and E2 are said to be equivalent
way. (E1  E2 ) i there is a bije tion between E1 and E2
The ontribution of this work is many fold. First, our su h that ea h knowledge base of E1 is logi ally equiv-
framework is general enough to en ompass almost all alent to its image in E2 . t denotes the multi-set union.
model-based merging operators as spe i ases. In For every knowledge set E and for every integer n, E n
addition, despite the model-theoreti ground of our denotes the multi-set obtained by \unioning" E with
approa h, several syntax-based merging operators pro- itself n times.
vided so far in the literature an be aptured as well. The omplexity results we give in this paper refer
We show that, by imposing few onditions on the pa- to some omplexity lasses whi h we now brie y re-
rameters, several logi al properties that are expe ted all (see [Papadimitriou, 1994℄ for more details), espe-
when merging operators are onsidered, are already ially the lasses
p2 and p2 [Eiter and Gottlob, 1992;
satised. Wagner, 1987℄ from the polynomial hierar hy PH, as
Another very strong feature oered by our framework well as the lass BH2 from the Boolean hierar hy (see
is that query entailment from 4IC (E ) is guaranteed [Papadimitriou, 1994℄). Given a problem a, we denote
to lay at the rst level of the polynomial hierar hy pro- by a its omplement. We assume the reader familiar
vided that d, f and g an be omputed in polynomial with the lasses P, NP et oNP and we now introdu e
time. A ordingly, improving the generality of the the following three lasses lo ated at the rst level of
model-based merging operators framework through an the polynomial hierar hy:
additional aggregation step does not result in a om- { BH2 (also known as DP) is the lass of all lan-
plexity shift. guages L su h that L = L1 \ L2, where L1 is in
We spe i ally fo us on some simple families of dis- NP and L2 in oNP. The anoni al BH2 - omplete
tan es and aggregation fun tions. By letting the pa- problem is sat{unsat: given two propositional
rameters d, f and g vary in these respe tive sets, sev- formulas ' and , h'; i is in sat{unsat if and
eral merging operators are obtained; some of them only if ' is onsistent and is in onsistent.
were already known and are thus re overed as spe i
ases in our framework, and others are new operators. {
p2 = PNP is the lass of all languages that an be
In any ase, we investigate the logi al properties and re ognized in polynomial time by a Turing ma-
identify the omplexity of ea h operator under on- hine equipped with an NP ora le, where an NP
sideration. As a by-produ t, the omplexity of several ora le solves whatever instan e of a problem NP
model-based merging operators already pointed out so in unit time.
far is also identied. { p2 =
p2 [O(log n)℄) is the lass of all languages
The full proofs of the results given in this arti le an that an be re ognized in polynomial time by a
be found in [Konie zny et al., 2001℄. Turing ma hine using a number of NP ora les
bounded by a logarithmi fun tion of the size of
2
See [Konie zny, 2000℄ for one step in that dire tion. the input data.
Note that the following in lusions hold: where
NP [ oNP  BH2  p2 
p2  PH. d(!; E ) = g(d(!; K1 ); : : : ; d(!; Kn))
3 DISTANCE-BASED MERGING
and for every Ki = f'i;1 ; : : : ; 'i;ni g
d(!; Ki ) = f (d(!; 'i;1 ); : : : ; d(!; 'i;ni )):
3.1 THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK
Formulas appearing in a knowledge base Ki an have
Dening a merging operator in our framework simply various possible meanings, for instan e:
onsists in setting three parameters: a distan e d and
two aggregation fun tions f and g. Let us rst make { pie es of information provided by the sour e i:
pre ise what su h notions mean in this paper: when merging several beliefs stemming from dif-
ferent sour es (sensors or experts, for example);
Denition 1 (distan es) Let d be a total fun tion
from W  W to IN s.t. (1) for every !1 , !2 2 { pie es of information pertaining to a riterion i:
W , d(!1 ; !2 ) = d(!2 ; !1) and (2) d(!1 ; !2 ) = 0 i when evaluating alternatives with respe t to dif-
!1 = !2 . Su h a d is alled a distan e between in- ferent riteria;
3
terpretations . d indu es a distan e between any in- { elementary goals expressed by the agent i: when
terpretation ! and any formula ' given by d(!; ') = aggregating individual preferen es in a group de-
min! j=' d(!; !0).
0
ision making ontext { see [Lafage and Lang,
2000℄. In this ase, the formulas 'i;j are no longer
Denition 2 (aggregation fun tions) Let f be a beliefs but preferen es (whi h does not prevent us
total fun tion asso iating a nonnegative integer to ev- from using the same merging operators).
ery nite tuple of nonnegative integers and s.t.
The reason why we use two (generally distin t) aggre-
{ f is non-de reasing in ea h argument4 , and gation fun tions f and g is that both aggregation steps
are of dierent nature. The rst step is an intra-sour e
{ f satises (minimality) : for every n- aggregation: f aggregates s ores w.r.t. the elementary
uple (x1 ; : : : ; xn ) of nonnegative integers, (expli it) pie es of information ontained in ea h Ki
f (x1 ; : : : ; xn ) = 0 i x1 = : : : = xn = 0, and (it allows, in parti ular, to take in onsistent knowledge
bases into a ount). The se ond step is an inter-sour e
{ for every nonnegative integer x1 , f (x1 ) = x1 . aggregation: g aggregates the \f -aggregated s ores"
pertaining to the dierent sour es.
f is alled an aggregation fun tion5 . Interestingly, few onditions are imposed on d, f , and
g. As we will see in the next se tion, many distan es
We are now in position to dene our distan e-based and aggregation fun tions an be used. Often, the
merging operators: aggregation fun tions f and g are required to be sym-
metri (i.e., no priority is given to some expli it beliefs
Denition 3 (distan e-based merging operators) in a knowledge base, and no priority is given to some
Let d be a distan e between interpretations and f and knowledge bases in a knowledge set). However, this
g be two aggregation fun tions. For every knowledge ondition is not mandatory here and this is important
set E = fK1; : : : ; Kn g and every integrity onstraint when some preferen e information is available, espe-
IC , 4d;f;gIC (E ) is dened in a model-theoreti al way ially when all sour es i are not equally reliable. For
by: instan e, the weighted sum aggregation fun tion an
Mod(4d;f;g
be used to give rise to (non-symmetri ) merging oper-
IC (E )) = f! 2 Mod(IC ) j d(!; E ) is minimalg ators.
3
We slightly abuse words here, sin e d is only a pseudo- Let us stress that, ontrarily to usual model-based op-
distan e (triangular inequality is not required). erators, our denition allows in onsistent knowledge
4
I.e., if x  y, then f (x ; : : : ; x; : : : ; xn )  bases to take (a non-trivial) part in the merging pro-
f (x ; : : : ; y; : : : ; xn ).
1

The aggregation fun tion f an take arbitrarily many ess.

1
5

arguments; more formally, a \fun tion" f is an family Example 1 Assume for example that we want to
f = ffn j n 2 INg of n-ary fun tions from IN to IN.
Slightly abusing notations, we write f (x ; : : : ; xn ) instead merge E = fK1; K2 ; K3; K4 g under the integrity on-
of fn (x ; : : : ; xn ) sin e this an never be ambiguous. straints IC = >, where
1
1
 { K1 = fa; b; ; a ! :bg, 3.2 INSTANCIATING OUR
FRAMEWORK
{ K2 = fa; bg, Let us now instantiate our framework and fo us on
some simple families of distan es and aggregation fun -
{ K3 = f:a; :bg, tions.
Denition 4 (some distan es) Let !1 , !2 2W be
{ K4 = fa; a ! bg. two interpretations.

In this example, K1 knows that holds; sin e this { The drasti distan e dD is dened by
dD (!1 ; !2 ) = 0 if !1 = !2 ,
pie e of information is not involved in any ontra- 1 otherwise
di tion, it an prove sensible to be ondent in K1
about the truth of . Model-based merging opera- { The Hamming distan e dH is dened by
tors an not handle this situation: in onsistent knowl- dH (!1 ; !2) = jfx 2 P S j !1 (x) 6= !2(x)gj
edge bases an not be taken into a ount. Thus, pro- { Let q be a total fun tion from P S to IN . The
vided that the Hamming distan e between interpre- weighted Hamming distan e dHq indu ed by q is
tations is onsidered, the operator 4 [Revesz, 1997;
Lin and Mendelzon, 1999; Konie zny and Pino Perez, dened by P
dHq (!1 ; !2 ) = x2P S j !1 (x)=6 !2(x) q(x)
1999℄ gives a merged base whose models are: fa; b; : g
and fa; b; g; the operator 4Gmax [Konie zny and Pino These distan es satisfy the requirements imposed in
Perez, 1999℄ gives a merged base whose models are: Denition 3.
f:a; b; : g, f:a; b; g, fa; :b; : g, and fa; :b; g. In
any of these two ases, nothing an be said about The Hamming distan e is the most usual distan e on-
the truth of in the merged base, whi h is ounter- sidered in model-based merging6. It is very simple to
intuitive sin e no argument against it an be found in express, but one has to keep in mind that it is very
the input. sensitive to the representation language of the problem
Syntax-based operators render possible the exploita- (i.e., the hoi e of propositional symbols) and that nu-
tion of in onsistent knowledge bases, but they do not merous others distan es an be used. Weighted Ham-
are about the distribution of information. Consider ming distan es are relevant when some propositional
the two standard syntax-based operatorsS[Baral et al.,
symbols are known as more important than others.
1992℄, sele ting the maximal subsets of mi=1 Ki (one Denition 5 (some aggregation fun tions)
w.r.t. set in lusion and the other one w.r.t. ardinal-
ity). On the previous example, the rst one returns { Let q be a total fun tion from f1; : : : ; ng to IN
a merged base equivalent to and the se ond one to s.t. q(1) = 1 whenever n = 1. The weighted sum
^:a. So, a is in the result for none of these two oper- WSq indu ed by q is dened by WSq (e1 ; : : : ; en ) =
ators, whereas a holds in three over four input bases. P
i=1 q (i)ei .
n
Our distan e-based operators a hieve a ompromise { Let q be a total fun tion from f1; : : : ; ng to IN s.t.
between model-based operators and syntax-based op- q(1) = 1 whenever n = 1, and q(1) 6= 0 in any
erators, by taking into a ount the way information is
distributed and by taking advantage of the informa- P
ase. The ordered weighted sum OWSq indu ed by
q is dened by OWSq (e1 ; : : : ; en ) = ni=1 q(i)e(i)
tion stemming from in onsistent knowledge bases. For where  is a permutation of f1 : : : ng s.t. e(1) 
instan e, our operator 4dD;sum;sum ( f. Se tion 3.2) e(2)  : : :  e(n) .
gives a merged base whose single model is fa; b; g, and
4dD ;sum;lex returns a merged base whose models are q is a weight fun tion, that gives to ea h formula (resp.
f:a; b; g and fa; :b; g. So, with any of these two op-
erators, we an dedu e that holds after the merging. knowledge base) 'i (resp. Ki) of index i its weight q(i)
Moreover, these operators exhibit typi al merging be- denoting the formula (resp. knowledge base) reliabil-
haviours. The rst one is a majority operator: sin e ity. With the slight dieren e that q is normalized (but
three of four bases agree on a, a holds in the result. without requiring that q(1) = 1 whenever n = 1), the
The se ond one is an arbitration operator; being more latter family is well-known in multi- riteria de ision
onsensual, it gives that only one of a or b holds, to be 6
In this ontext, it is also alled Dalal distan e [Dalal,
as lose as possible to ea h of the knowledge bases. 1988℄.
 4dD ;max;max = >
4 dD ;max;sum ,4 , 4dH ;max;sum
dD ;max;lex = a^b
4dD ;sum;max = :b
4dD ;sum;sum = (:a ^ :b) _ (a ^ b ^ )
4dD ;sum;lex = :a ^ :b
4Hd ;sum;max , 4dH ;sum;lex = a ^ :b ^
4Hd ;max;max ; 4dH ;max;lex = (:a ^ b ^ ) _ (a ^ :b ^ )
4dH ;sum;sum = a^
Figure 1: Example 2

making under the terminology \Ordered Weighted Av- theory). Noti eably, the usual aggregation fun tions
erages" (OWAs) [Yager, 1998℄. When q(i) = 1 for ev- used in these elds are all polynomially omputable,
ery i 2 1 : : : n, WSq is the usual sum (and OWSq as whi h makes the following omplexity results appli a-
well). When q(1) = 1 and q(2) = : : : = q(n) = 0 then ble when instantiating f and g with these fun tions.
OWSq (e1 ; : : : ; en) = max(e1 ; : : : ; en ). Note that fun tions su h as the purely utilitarian
For the se ond aggregation step g, it is relevant to on- sum or weighted sum allow for ompensations between
sider the well-known leximax ordering whi h ompares s ores (and lead to majority-like operators), while the
two ve tors of s ores by fo using on the largest s ores egalitarian fun tions max and lex do not.
of ea h ve tor, and in ase of equality, on the se ond By letting the parameters d, f and g vary in these re-
largest s ores, and so on. For the sake of homogeneity, spe tive sets, several merging operators are obtained;
we reformulate the leximax ordering so as to ompare some of them were already known and are thus re ov-
aggregated s ores rather than ve tors of s ores. This ered as spe i ases in our framework, and others are
an be done thanks to a spe i aggregation fun tion new operators. Thus,V4dD;max;max is the basi merg-
OW Sq : ing operator, giving E ^ IC if onsistent and IC
Denition 5.1 (leximax) otherwise. 4dD;max;sum is the drasti merging oper-
Let M be an upper bound of the s ores d(!; Ki )7 , i.e., ator whi h amounts to sele t the models of IC sat-
for any ! we have d(!; Ki ) < M . Now, let q(i) = isfying the greatest number of knowledge bases from
M n i for all i. The rank order on ve tors of s ores E . It is equivalent to the drasti majority operator
indu ed by OWSq is the leximax ordering, abbreviated as dened in [Konie zny, 2000℄ when working with de-
by lex8 . du tively losed knowledge bases. 4dD;sum;sum or-
responds to the interse tion operator of [Konie zny,
Using the leximax aggregation for the rst aggregation 2000℄. 4dD;WSq ;max orresponds to an operator used
step (f ) would also be possible, but leads to rather in [Lafage and Lang, 2000℄ in a group de ision ontext.
lengthy te hni al tri ks to be dened properly in ase When singleton knowledge bases are onsidered 9 { re-
where the se ond aggregation fun tion g is not purely all that in this ase f is irrelevant { every 4dH ;f;max
ordinal (i.e., g dierent from max and leximax) and we operator is a 4Max operator [Revesz, 1997℄, every
ignore this possibility here (see the long version of the 4dH ;f;sum operator is a 4 operator [Revesz, 1997;
paper [Konie zny et al., 2001℄). Lin and Mendelzon, 1999; Konie zny and Pino Perez,
1999℄, and every 4dH ;f;lex operator is a 4GMax oper-
All these fun tions satisfy the requirements imposed in ator [Konie zny and Pino Perez, 1999℄. Still with sin-
Denition 3; all of them are symmetri but weighted gleton knowledge bases, taking d = dD and f = WSq ,
sum (ex ept when q is uniform). 4dH ;f;WSq is a penalty-based merging (where one
Many other possible hoi es for f and g an be found minimizes the sum of the penalties q(i) atta hed to
in the literature of multi- riteria de ision making (and the Ki's) [Pinkas, 1995℄, and taking d = dD and
to a smaller extent in the literature of group de ision f = W MAXq (dened by W MAXq (x1 ; : : : ; xn ) =
maxi=1:::n min(q(i); xi )) we get10 a possibilisti merg-
For instan e, when d = dH and f = max
7
P we an hoose ing operator [Benferhat et al., 2000℄.
M = jP S j + 1; when d = dH and f = we an hoose
M = jP S j + 1.
2 9
Or, equivalently, when ea h Ki is repla ed by fV Ki g
Namely,
8
0 0 we have> e0 OWS q (e ; : : : ; en )  before merging.
OWSq (e ; : : : ; en ) i (e ) or (e = e0 and
1
10
The s ales used for s ores are dierent but it is obvious
e > e0 ) or et .
1 (1) 0 (1) (1) 0 (1)

(2) 0 (2) to show that this dieren e has no impa t.

 Table 1: 4dH ;sum;lex Operator
a ^ b ^ a ! :b a ^ b :a ^ :b :b a a ! b K1 K2 K3 K4 E
(0; 0; 0) 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 3210
(0; 0; 1) 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 2210
(0; 1; 0) 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2211
(0; 1; 1) 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2111
(1; 0; 0) 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 2111
(1; 0; 1) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1111
(1; 1; 0) 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 3200
(1; 1; 1) 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3100

We will now illustrate the behaviour of these dierent point in this framework is that, unlike lassi al model-
operators on an example. based merging operators, the onne tor \;" is not the
same that the onne tor \^".
Example 2 Consider the following knowledge set
E = fK1; K2 ; K3 ; K4g that we want to merge under
the integrity onstraints IC = >. 4 COMPUTATIONAL
COMPLEXITY
{ K1 = fa ^ b ^ ; a ! :bg,
Let us now turn to the omplexity issue. We obtained
{ K2 = fa ^ bg, the following result:
{ K3 = f:a ^ :b; :bg, Proposition 1 Let 4d;f;g be a distan e-based merg-
{ K4 = fa; a ! bg. ing operator. Given a knowledge set E and two for-
mulas IC and :
The result of the merging of E a ording to the dier-
ent operators with d 2 fdD ; dH g, f 2 fmax; sumg and { If d, f and g are omputable in polynomial time,
g 2 fmax; sum; lexg under no onstraints (i.e. IC= IC (E ) j=  holds is
then determining whether 4d;f;g
>) is indi ated gure 1. See table 1 for an example in
p2 .
of al ulation with the 4dH ;sum;lex operator. In this
table the interpretation (1; 0; 0) for example is the one { If d, f and g are omputable in polynomial time
mapping a to true and b and to false. The result of and are polynomially bounded, then determining
the merging 4d>H ;sum;lex (E ) is the interpretation that IC (E ) j=  holds is in 2 .
whether 4d;f;g p

is the losest to E , that is the one at a distan e 1111,

i.e. the one mapping a and to true and b to false. A sket h of proof is given in the Appendix. See
[Konie zny et al., 2001℄ for a detailed proof.
The wide variety of obtained results show the degree
of freedom given by this framework. This example il- As shown by the previous proposition, improving
lustrates several aspe ts of merging operators : the the generality of the model-based merging operators
knowledge base K1 is not onsistent, but it is the only framework through an additional aggregation step
base that gives an information about , so it an be does not result in a omplexity shift (the de ision prob-
sensible to take as true in the result of the merging. lem for query entailment is still at the rst level of PH).
K3 is logi ally equivalent to :a ^ :b, but repla ing We have also identied the omplexity of query entail-
K3 by this formula would lead to dierent results for ment from a merged base for the following distan e-
merging. Syntax is relevant for distan e-based merg- based merging operators:
ing operators sin e one has to onsider that dierent
formulae of a same base are distin t reasons to believe Proposition 2 Given a knowledge set E and two for-
in a same information. Taking syntax into a ount is mulas from P ROPP S IC and , the omplexity of
important from the point of view of representation of IC (E ) j=  is reported in Tables 2, 3 and 4 (when
4d;f;g ?
beliefs (or goals), but the operators an then \ hoose" X is a omplexity lass, X - means X - omplete).
to take or not this information into a ount. So the
 Table 2: Complexity results (d = dD ) Table 4: Complexity results (d = dHq )
f=g max sum lex WSq OWSq f=g max sum lex WSq OWSq
max BH2 - p2p- pp2 -
p2p - pp2 - max
-
p
2p
-
p
2p
-
p
2p
-
p
2p
p2p -
sum p2 - p2 -
p

2p -
2p -
2p - sum
-
2p
-
2p
-
2p
-
2p
2p -
WSq
2p-
p2 -
2p -
2p -
2p - WSq
- 2p
-
2p
-
2p
- 2p
2p -
OWSq 2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 - OWSq
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -

Table 3: Complexity results (d = dH ) stead of ardinality and \lo ated" at the 2nd level of
f=g max sum lex WSq OWSq PH) annot be en oded in polynomial time as distan e-
based operators (unless PH ollapses).
max p2p- p2p-
p2p -
p2p-
p2p -
sum 2 - 2 -
2p -
2p-
2p -
WSq
p2p -
p2p -
2p -
2p-
2p - 5 LOGICAL PROPERTIES
OWSq
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 - Sin e we aim at investigating the logi al properties of
our family of merging operators, a set of properties
must rst be onsidered as a base line. In [Konie zny
Sket hes of the proofs are given in the Appendix and Pino Perez, 1999℄, a study of logi al properties
(again, see [Konie zny et al., 2001℄ for fully detailed that \good" merging operators should satisfy (in the
proof). It is worth adding that in the ase d = dHq , ase where all the knowledge bases are equally reli-

p2 -hardness still holds whenever E is a singleton fK g, able) is arried on. The following set of postulates was
K is a singleton f'g and ' is a onjun tion of variables proposed:
(in this ase, neither f nor g plays a signi ant role in
the elaboration of the distan e to E ). As to the ase Denition 6 (IC merging operators) Let E , E1 ,
d = dH ,
p2 -hardness still holds when ea h expli it E2 be knowledge sets, K1 , K2 be onsistent knowledge
belief is a onjun tion of variables, and p2 -hardness bases, and IC , IC1 , IC2 be formulas from P ROPP S .
results hold whenever E is a singleton fK g, K is a 4 is an IC merging operator i it satises the follow-
singleton f'g and ' is a onjun tion of variables. ing postulates:
Looking at the tables above, we an observe that the (IC0) 4IC (E ) j= IC
hoi e of the distan e d has a great in uen e on the (IC1) If IC is onsistent, then 4IC (E ) is onsistent
omplexity results. Thus, whenever d = dH or d = V E is onsistent with IC , then
dHq , the omplexity results for inferen e from a merged
4IC (E )  V E ^ IC
(IC2) If
base oin ide whenever f (or g) is a WSq fun tion or
a OWSq fun tion. This is no longer the ase when
d = dD is onsidered. (IC3) If E1  E2 and IC1  IC2 , then
Together with Proposition 1, the omplexity of many 4IC1 (E1 )  4IC2 (E2 )
model-based merging operators already pointed out in (IC4) If K1 j= IC and K2 j= IC , then 4IC (K1 t
the literature are derived as a by-produ t of the pre- K2 ) ^ K1 is onsistent i 4IC (K1 t K2 ) ^ K2
vious omplexity results. To the best of our knowl- is onsistent
edge, the omplexity of su h operators has not been (IC5) 4IC (E1 ) ^ 4IC (E2 ) j= 4IC (E1 t E2 )
identied up to now11, hen e this is an additional on- (IC6) If 4IC (E1 ) ^ 4IC (E2 ) is onsistent , then
tribution of this work. We an also note that, while 4IC (E1 t E2 ) j= 4IC (E1 ) ^ 4IC (E2 )
the omplexity of our distan e-based operators is not
very high (rst level of PH, at most), nding out sig- (IC7) 4IC1 (E ) ^ IC2 j= 4IC1^IC2 (E )
ni ant tra table restri tions seems a hard task sin e
intra tability is still the ase in many restri ted sit- (IC8) If 4IC1 (E ) ^ IC2 is onsistent, then
uations. Finally, our results show that some syntax- 4IC1^IC2 (E ) j= 4IC1 (E )
based merging operators (based on set in lusion in- Two sub- lasses of IC merging operators have also
11
However, (4 (E ) j= ) 2
an be re-
dH ;sum;sum ? p been dened. Majority operators that aim at resolving
IC
overed from a omplexity result given in [Liberatore and
2
on i ts by listening the majority wishes, and arbitra-
S haerf, 2000℄, page 151. tion operators that have a more onsensual behaviour:
Denition 7 (majority and arbitration) A ma- Con erning the operators examined in the previous
jority operator is an IC merging operator that satises se tion, we have identied the following properties:
the following majority postulate:
Proposition 5 4d;f;g satises the logi al properties
(Maj) 9n 4IC (E1 t E2 n ) j= 4IC (E2 ) stated in Tables 5 and 6. Sin e all these operators are
An arbitration operator is an IC merging operator that already known to satisfy (IC0), (IC1), (IC2), (IC7)
satises the following postulate: and (IC8) ( f. Proposition 3), we avoid repeating su h
4IC1 (K1 )  4IC2 (K2 ) 9
> postulates here. For more readability, postulate (ICi)
(Arb) IC 4IC1 ,:IC2 (K1 t K2 )  (IC1 , :IC2 ) = ) is noted i and M (resp. A) stands for (Maj) (resp.
1 6j= IC2 > (Arb)).
IC2 6j= IC1
;
4IC1 _IC2 (K1 t K2 )  4IC1 (K1 )
Table 5: Logi al properties (d = dD )
See [Konie zny and Pino Perez, 2002; Konie zny and f=g max sum lex WSq
Pino Perez, 1999℄ for more explanations about those max 3,4,5,A 3,4,5,6,M,A 5,6,M
two postulates and the behaviour of the two sub- sum 5,A 5,6,M 5,6,A 5,6,M
lasses.
WSq OWSq 5,A 5,6,M 5,6,A 5,6,M
We have the following result:
Proposition 3 4d;f;g satises (IC0), (IC1), (IC2),
(IC7), (IC8). The other postulates are not satised in Table 6: Logi al properties (d = dH or d = dHq )
the general ase.
f=g max sum lex WSq
Clearly enough, it is not the ase that every distan e- max 5,A 5,6,M 5,6,A 5,6,M
based merging operator is an IC merging operator (not sum 5,A 5,6,M 5,6,A 5,6,M
satisfying some postulates is deliberate sin e we want WSq OWSq 5,A 5,6,M 5,6,A 5,6,M
to give some importan e to the syntax in order to take
into a ount in onsistent knowledge bases). Let us in-
trodu e some properties to be satised by aggregation The tables above show our operators to exhibit dier-
fun tions f : ent properties. We remark that among our operators,
only 4dD;max;sum satises all listed properties. Fail-
1) f (x1 ; : : : ; xn ) = 0 i x1 = : : : = xn = 0 ing to satisfy (IC3) (irrelevan e to the syntax) in many
(minimality) ases is not surprising, sin e we want to allow our oper-
ators to take syntax into a ount. (IC4) imposes that,
2) If '1 ^ : : : ^ 'n is onsistent, then when merging two knowledge bases, if the result is on-
f (d(w; '1 ); : : : ; d(w; 'n )) = f (d(w; '1 ^ : : : ^ 'n )) sistent with one knowledge base, it has to be onsistent
(and) with the other one { this fairness postulate is irrele-
vant when working with non-symmetri operators (so,
3) For any permutation , f (x1 ; : : : ; xn ) = unsurprisingly, it is not satised for g = WSq ). This
f ((x1 ; : : : ; xn )) (symmetry) postulate is not satised by any operator for whi h d
4) If f (x1 ; : : : ; xn )  f (y1 ; : : : ; yn ), then is Hamming distan e sin e ardinalities of the knowl-
f (x1 ; : : : ; xn ; z )  f (y1 ; : : : ; yn; z ) ( omposition)
edge bases have an in uen e on f , and more gener-
ally, it is hardly satisable when working with syntax-
5) If f (x1 ; : : : ; xn ; z )  f (y1 ; : : : ; yn ; z ), then dependent operators. (IC5) and (IC6) are related to
f (x1 ; : : : ; xn )  f (y1 ; : : : ; yn ) (de omposition) Pareto dominan e in so ial hoi e theory and are really
important for multi-sour e aggregation; so it is worth
Now, if one wants to re over the full set of postulates noting that almost all operators satisfy them (only op-
(IC0)-(IC8): erators for whi h g = max do not satisfy (IC6)).
We do not put the operators with g = OWSq in the ta-
Proposition 4 A distan e-based merging operator bles be ause they gather many aggregation fun tions
4d;f;g satises (IC0)-(IC8) if and only if the fun tion and so they do not satisfy a lot of logi al properties.
f satises (minimality) and (and), and the fun tion g Moreover, some properties (as (IC5) and (IC6)) re-
satises (minimality), (symmetry), ( omposition) and quire to be able to ope with knowledge sets of dier-
(de omposition). ent sizes, whereas g = OWSq operators have to spe ify
exa tly the size of the knowledge sets. It is possible Proof : It is suÆ ient to onsider the following
to generalize the denition of those operators to ope non-deterministi algorithm:
with these ases but it is out of the s ope of this paper.
1. guess an interpretation ! and N interpretations
!i;j (i = 1::m, j = 1::ni ) over V ar(E [ fIC g),
6 CONCLUSION
where N = i=1::nni is the total number of for-
mulas 'i;j in E ;
The major ontribution of this paper is a new frame-
work for propositional merging. It is general enough to 2. he k that ! j= IC and that !i;j j= 'i;j for all
en ompass many existing operators (both model-based i = 1::m and all j = 1::ni ;
ones and syntax-based ones) and to enable the deni- 3. ompute d(!; !i;j ) for all i and all j ;
tion of many new operators (symmetri or not). Both
the logi al properties and the omputational proper- 4. ompute d(!; Ki) for all i;
ties of the merging operators pertaining to our frame-
work have been investigated. Some of our results are 5. ompute d(!; E ) and he k that d(!; E )  k.
large-s ope ones in the sense that they make sense un-
der very weak onditions on the three parameters that This algorithm runs in polynomial time in the size of
must be set to dene an operator in our framework. the input (E , IC and k represented in binary) sin e
By instantiating our framework and onsidering sev- d, f , g are omputable in polynomial time.
eral distan es and aggregation fun tions, more rened 
results have also been obtained.
This work alls for several perspe tives. One of them Lemma 2 If for all ! 2 W the value of d(!; E ) is
onsists in analyzing the properties of the distan e- bounded by the value h(jE j + jIC j) (where h is a fun -
based operators that are a hieved when some other tion with values in IN) then the value min!j=IC d(!; E )
aggregation fun tions or some other distan es are on- an be omputed using dlog h(jE j + jIC j)e alls to an
sidered. For instan e, suppose that a olle tion of for- NP ora le.
mulas of interest (topi s) is available. In this situation,
the distan e between !1 and !2 an be dened as the Proof : min = min!j=IC d(!; E ) an be omputed
number of relevant formulas on whi h !1 and !2 diers using binary sear h on f0; : : : ; h(jE j + jIC j)g with
(i.e., su h that one of them satises the formula and at ea h step a all to an NP ora le to he k whether
the other one violates it). Several additional distan es min!j=IC d(!; E )  k (that is in NP from lemma 1).
ould also be dened and investigated (see e.g. [Lafage Sin e a binary sear h on f0; : : : ; h(jE j + jIC j)g needs
and Lang, 2001℄ for distan es based on Choquet inte- at most dlog h(jE j + jIC j)e steps, the result follows.
gral). 
A knowledgements  Point 1. of Proposition 1
If d, f and g are omputable in polynomial time,
The third author has been partly supported by the then for every knowledge set E and every ! 2 W ,
IUT de Lens, the Universite d'Artois, the Region the binary representation of d(!; E ) is bounded by
Nord/Pas-de-Calais under the TACT-TIC proje t, p(jE j + jIC j), where p is a polynomial. Hen e, the
and by the European Community FEDER Program. value of d(!; E ) is bounded by 2p(jEj+jICj). From
lemma 2, we an on lude that min an be omputed
using a polynomial number of alls to an NP ora le.
Appendix: Proof sket hes of the Now, let E be a knowledge set, IC be a formula, k
omplexity results be an integer and  be a formula, it an be shown
that the problem of determining whether there
Sket h of Proof of Proposition 1 : These results exists a model ! of IC su h that d(!; E ) = k and
are onsequen es of the two following lemmata: su h that ! 6j=  is in NP. So we an show that
IC (E ) 6j=  using rst a polynomial number of
4d;f;g
Lemma 1 Let k be an integer; if d, f and g are om- alls to an NP ora le in order to ompute min, and
putable in polynomial time, then the problem of de- then using an additional all to an NP ora le in order
termining whether min!j=IC d(!; E )  k given IC , E to determine whether there exists a model ! of IC s.t.
and k is in NP. d(!; E ) = min and ! 6j= . Hen e the membership to

p2 for this problem, and hen e for its omplement. ardinality-maximizing base revision ÆC (The-
orem 5.14 from [Nebel, 1998℄) sin e we have
 Point 2. of Proposition 1
dICD ;f;g (ff'1g; : : : ; f'ngg)  f'1; : : : ; 'ng ÆC IC
When d, f and g are polynomially bounded, the proof for any hf; gi 2 fhmax; maxi; hmax; lexi;
is similar to the one of point 1., but the omputation hsum; maxi; hsum; sumig. Sin e sum is a spe-
of min!j=IC d(!; E ) needs only a logarithmi number i OW Sq fun tion, the orresponding results
of steps sin e h isp polynomially bounded, hen e the still hold in the ases (f = OWSq ; g = max) and
membership to 2 . (f = max; g = OWSq ).
 { table 2, ase d = dD , f = OWSq , g = sum:
p2 -
hardness is established by onsidering pthe follow-
Sket h of Proof of Proposition 2 : ing polynomial redu tion from the
2 - omplete
problem max-sat-asgodd [Wagner, 1987℄. max-
sat-asgodd is the following de ision problem:
1. Membership given a propositional formula  s.t. V ar() =
Membership-to-
p2 results are dire t onsequen es of fx1 ; : : : ; xn g and a stri t ordering x1 < x2 < : : : <
Proposition 1 sin e both distan es and aggregation xn on V ar() indu ing the lexi ographi ordering
fun tions an be omputed in polynomial time. 4 on
, is the greatest model ! of  w.r.t. 4 su h
Membership-to-p2 results are also onsequen es of that !(xn) = 1? We just give here the redu tion:
Proposition 1, ex ept those for whi h f or g is an to  s.t. V ar() = fx1 ; : : : ; xn g, we asso iate the
OW Sq (in luding lex) when the drasti distan e dD tuple M () = hE; IC; i, where E = fKi j i 2
is onsidered; these ases are brie y dis ussed now: 1 : : : ng,VIC = ,  = xn and for ea h i 2 1 : : : n,
Ki = f kn=1 +2 j x j j 2 1 : : : n + 2 ig (ea h K
i i
{ ase d = dD , f = max and g = OWSq . We rst ontains n + 2 i formulas that are synta ti ally
establish that d(!; E ) an only take only a poly- distin t but all equivalent to xi ), and we onsider
nomial number of dierent values, and that this the OWSq fun tion f indu ed by q s.t. q(1) = 1
set of possible values an be omputed in poly- and for every j > 1, q(j ) = 2i 2.
nomial time. Indeed, if kE (!) is the number of
belief basesPK i from E s.t. ! j= Ki , we have { table 2,
p2 -hardness results in the ase f = sum:
d(!; E ) = m i=k(!)+1 qi ; whi h makes jE j + 1 dif-
hardness in the ase (d = dD ; f = sum; g = lexp)
ferent values, omputable in polynimial time. The is easily derived by taking advantage of the
2 -
rest of the proof is similar to the proof of mem- hardness result in the ase where ea h Ki is a sin-
bership to p2 in the ases where g and g are poly- gleton redu ed to a onjun tion of atoms (hen e f
nomially bounded, the dieren e being here that is irrelevant), g = lex and d = dH . Sin e sum is a
the minimal value min = min!2
d(!; E ) is om- spe i WSq fun tion and lex is a spe i OWSq
puted through binary sear h using the pre om- fun tion, this hardness result an be extended to
puted jE j +1 dierent possible values for d(!; E ). the rest of the table, ex ept for the ases where
f is a WSq fun tion and g 2 fmax; sumg) and
{ the ase d = dD , f = OWSq and g = max is sim- where g is a WSq fun tion. In the latter ase, the
ilar, the main dieren e is that d(!; E ) an only
p2 -hardness of linear base revision ÆL (Theorem
take at most maxi21:::n ard(Ki ) dierent values. 5.9 from [Nebel, 1998℄) an be used to obtain the
desired result: indeed, it is suÆ ient to onsider
Finally, as to the basi merging operator belief bases Ki redu ed to singletons; we have
(dD ; max; max), determining whether a formula 4dICD ;f;g (fK1 ; : : : ; Kng)  fK1; : : : ; Kng ÆL IC ,
 is a logi al onsequen e of the merged base E given where g is the weighted sum indu ed by q s.t.
IC an be a hieved using the following algorithm: q(i) = 2n i , and ea h Ki is viewed as the unique
if sat(E [ fIC g) then return(unsat(E [ fIC; :g)) formula it ontains. Here, the preferen e ordering
else return(unsat(fIC; :g)), whi h shows member- over fK1; : : : ; Kng is s.t. K1 < K2 < : : : < Kn.
ship of the de ision problem to BH2. { table 2, ase (d = dD ; f = g = max): it is suf-
 ient to onsider the following polynomial re-
2. Hardness: du tion M from sat-unsat: to a pair of for-
mulas h'; i whi h do not share variables (this
{ table 2, p2 -hardness results: they are di- an be assumed without loss of generality), we let
re t onsequen es of hardness results for M (h'; i) = hE = '; IC = new;  = ' ^ new ^
 : i where new is a new variable and we he k [Baral et al., 1992℄ C. Baral, S. Kraus, J. Minker, and
that h'; i 2 sat-unsat i  is a logi al onse- V. S. Subrahmanian. Combining knowledge bases
quen e of the merged base E given IC . onsisting of rst-order theories. Computational In-
telligen e, 8(1):45{71, 1992.
{ table 3, p2 -hardness results. They still hold in the
situation where E ontains only one belief base [Benferhat et al., 2000℄ S. Benferhat, D. Dubois,
K and K itself ontains only one formula that is S. Ka i, and H. Prade. En oding information fu-
a onjun tion of atoms. This merely shows that sion in possibilisti logi : a general framework for
our hardness result is independent from f and g rational synta ti merging. In Pro . of ECAI'00,
(sin e they are irrelevant whenever E and K are pages 3{7, 2000.
singletons) but is a onsequen e of the distan e [Blo h and Hunter, 2001℄ I. Blo h and A. Hunter, ed-
that is used (Hamming). Indeed, in this restri ted
ase, 4dICH ;f;g (fK g) is equivalent to K ÆD IC where itors. Fusion: General Con epts and Chara teris-
ÆD is Dalal's revision operator. The fa t that the ti s, volume 16 of International Journal of Intelli-
inferen e problem from K ÆD IC is p2 -hard (even gent Systems. Wiley, 2001. Spe ial Issue on Data
in the restri ted ase where K is a onjun tion of and Knowledge Fusion.
atoms) on ludes the proof (see Theorem 6.9 from [Dalal, 1988℄ M. Dalal. Investigations into a theory
[Eiter and Gottlob, 1992℄). of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In
{ table 3,
p2 -hardness results. We show that these Pro . of AAAI'88, pages 475{479, 1988.

2 -hardness results hold in the restri ted ase
p
[Eiter and Gottlob, 1992℄ T. Eiter and G. Gottlob.
where ea h Ki is a singleton, redu ed to a on- On the omplexity of propositional knowledge base
jun tion of literals (hen e f is irrelevant) when revision , updates, and ounterfa tuals. Arti ial
g = lex by the following polynomial redu tion M Intelligen e, 57(2-3):227{270, 1992.
from max-sat-asgodd: to any propositional for-
mula  s.t. V ar() = fx1;V: : : ; xi+1n g we asso iate [Hansson, 1998℄ S. O. Hansson. Revision of belief sets
M () = hE = fKi = fxi ^ j2=n i+1
V newj g j i 2 1 and belief bases. Handbook of Defeasible Reason-
.. ng; IC =  ^ j=2 :newj ;  = xn i where ea h
2n ing and Un ertainty Management Systems, Vol. 3,
newj (j 2 2 .. 2n) is a new variable. pages 17{75, 1998.
{ table 4. We show that
p2 -hardness holds in the [Konie zny and Pino Perez, 1999℄ S. Konie zny and
very restri ted ase where E ontains only one R. Pino Perez. Merging with integrity onstraints.
belief base K and K itself ontains only one for- In Pro . of ECSQARU'99, LNAI 1638, pages 233{
mula that is a onjun tion of atoms. This merely 244, 1999.
shows that our hardness result is independent [Konie zny and Pino Perez, 2002℄ S. Konie zny and
from f and g (sin e they are irrelevant when- R. Pino Perez. On the frontier between arbitration
ever E and K are singletons) but is a onsequen e and majority. In Pro . of KR'02, 2002.
of the family of distan es that is used (weighted
Hamming). This is done by the following poly- [Konie zny et al., 2001℄ S. Konie zny, J. Lang,
nomial redu tion M from max-sat-asgodd: to and P. Marquis. Distan e-based merg-
any  s.t. V ar() V = fx1; : : : ; xng we asso iate ing: a general framework and some om-
M () = hE = ff ni=1 xi gg; IC = ;  = xn i and plexity results. Te hni al report, IRIT,
the weighted Hamming distan e dHq indu ed by ftp://ftp.irit.fr/pub/IRIT/RPDMP/DBMC.ps.gz,
q s.t. 8i 2 1 .. n, q(xi ) = 2n i . 2001.
[Konie zny, 2000℄ S. Konie zny. On the dieren e
 between merging knowledge bases and ombining
them. In Pro . of KR'00, pages 135{144, 2000.
[Lafage and Lang, 2000℄ C. Lafage and J. Lang. Log-
Referen es i al representation of preferen es for group de ision
[Baral et al., 1991℄ C. Baral, S. Kraus, and J. Minker. theory. In Pro . of KR'00, pages 457{468, 2000.
Combining multiple knowledge bases. IEEE [Lafage and Lang, 2001℄ C. Lafage and J. Lang.
Transa tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Propositional distan es and preferen e representa-
3(2):208{220, 1991. tion. In Pro . of ECSQARU'01, pages 48{59, 2001.
 [Liberatore and S haerf, 1998℄ P. Liberatore and
M. S haerf. Arbitration (or how to merge knowl-
edge bases). IEEE Transa tions on Knowledge and
Data Engineering, 10(1):76{90, 1998.
[Liberatore and S haerf, 2000℄ P. Liberatore and
M. S haerf. Brels: a system for the integration of
knowledge bases. In Pro . of KR'00, pages 145{152,
2000.
[Lin and Mendelzon, 1999℄ J. Lin and A. O. Mendel-
zon. Knowledge base merging by majority. In Dy-
nami Worlds: From the Frame Problem to Knowl-
edge Management. Kluwer, 1999.
[Nebel, 1989℄ B. Nebel. A knowledge level analysis of
belief revision. In Pro . of KR'89, pages 301{311,
1989.
[Nebel, 1998℄ B. Nebel. How hard is it to revise a belief
base? Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Un er-
tainty Management Systems, Vol. 3: Belief Change,
pages 77{145, 1998.
[Papadimitriou, 1994℄ C. H. Papadimitriou. Compu-
tational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1994.
[Pinkas, 1995℄ G. Pinkas. Reasoning, nonmonotoni -
ity and learning in onne tionist networks that ap-
ture propositional knowledge. Arti ial Intelligen e,
77:203{247, 1995.
[Revesz, 1997℄ P. Z. Revesz. On the semanti s of arbi-
tration. International Journal of Algebra and Com-
putation, 7(2):133{160, 1997.
[Wagner, 1987℄ K. W. Wagner. More ompli ated
questions about maxima and minima, and some lo-
sures of NP. Theoreti al Computer S ien e, 51:53{
80, 1987.
[Yager, 1998℄ R. R. Yager. On ordered weighted av-
eraging aggregation operators in multi- riteria de i-
sion making. IEEE Transa tions on Systems, Man
and Cyberneti s, 18:183{190, 1998.

View publication stats