A consensus among logically conflicting agents is defined as a subset of all the information conveyed by the agents such that this subset does not conflict with the information of any of the agents. Hopefully, each agent might be inclined to endorse such a consensus since this latter one does not conflict with the agent’s own information. This form of consensus is investigated from a practical computational point of view within an extended Boolean logic-based knowledge representation framework. A method that is based on a single step discrete optimisation process to compute one maximal consensus is shown viable even for very large information sets. Interestingly, we allow each agent to require some additional hypothetical – possibly mutually conflicting – information to be point-wise compatible with any consensus.
R.J.A.Achá and R.Nieuwenhuis, Curriculum-based course timetabling with SAT and MaxSAT, Annals of Operations Research OR218(1) (2014), 71–91. doi:10.1007/s10479-012-1081-x.
2.
C.Ansótegui, J.Gabàs, Y.Malitsky and M.Sellmann, MaxSAT by improved instance-specific algorithm configuration, Artificial Intelligence235 (2016), 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.12.006.
3.
P.Besnard, É.Grégoire and J.-M.Lagniez, On computing maximal subsets of clauses that must be satisfiable with possibly mutually-contradictory assumptive contexts, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15), 2015, pp. 3710–3716.
W.Chen, D.Zhang and M.Wu, A sequential model of bargaining in logic programming, Frontiers of Computer Science9(3) (2015), 474–484. doi:10.1007/s11704-015-3308-x.
6.
N.Creignou and D.Le Berre (eds), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2016), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9710, Springer, 2016.
7.
E.Ephrati and J.S.Rosenschein, Deriving consensus in multiagent systems, Artificial Intelligence87(1–2) (1996), 21–74. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(95)00105-0.
8.
Z.Fang, C.Li and K.Xu, An exact algorithm based on MaxSAT reasoning for the maximum weight clique problem, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR)55 (2016), 799–833.
9.
O.Gauwin, S.Konieczny and P.Marquis, Conciliation through iterated belief merging, Journal of Logic and Computation17(5) (2007), 909–937. doi:10.1093/logcom/exm047.
10.
É.Grégoire, Y.Izza and J.-M.Lagniez, On the extraction of one maximal information subset that does not conflict with multiple contexts, in: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’16), 2016, pp. 3404–3410.
11.
É.Grégoire, S.Konieczny and J.-M.Lagniez, On consensus extraction, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16), 2016.
12.
É.Grégoire and J.Lagniez, RCL: An A.I. tool for computing maximal consensuses, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools25(4) (2016), 1–10.
13.
É.Grégoire, J.Lagniez and D.Zhang, Logical consensuses for case-based reasoning and for mathematical engineering of AI, in: 15th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing, ICCI*CC 2016, Palo Alto, CA, USA, August 22–23, 2016, IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 29–33.
14.
É.Grégoire, J.Lagniez and D.Zhang, On computing non-hypocritical consensuses in standard logic, in: 27th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA 2016 Workshops, Porto, Portugal, September 5–8, 2016, IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 97–101.
15.
É.Grégoire, J.-M.Lagniez and B.Mazure, An experimentally efficient method for (MSS, CoMSS) partitioning, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’14), 2014, pp. 2666–2673.
16.
W.Hamscher, L.Console and J.de Kleer (eds), Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1992.
17.
M.Heule and S.Weaver (eds), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Theory and Application of Satisfiability (SAT 2015), Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4.
18.
A.Jøsang, The consensus operator for combining beliefs, Artificial Intelligence141(1/2) (2002), 157–170. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00259-X.
19.
J.Marques-Silva, F.Heras, M.Janota, A.Previti and A.Belov, On computing minimal correction subsets, in: Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13), 2013.
20.
P.Marquis, Consequence finding algorithms, in: J.Kohlas and S.Moral, eds, Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Kluwer, 2000, pp. 41–145.
21.
B.McCollum, A.Schaerf, B.Paechter, P.McMullan, R.Lewis, A.J.Parkes, L.Di Gaspero, R.Qu and E.K.Burke, Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition, INFORMS Journal on Computing22(1) (2010), 120–130. doi:10.1287/ijoc.1090.0320.
22.
M.E.Menaï and M.Batouche, An effective heuristic algorithm for the maximum satisfiability problem, Applied Intelligence24(3) (2006), 227–239. doi:10.1007/s10489-006-8514-7.
S.Piechowiak and J.Rodriguez, The localization and correction of errors in models: A constraint-based approach, Applied Intelligence23(3) (2005), 153–164. doi:10.1007/s10489-005-4605-0.
25.
G.Post, L.Di Gaspero, J.H.Kingston, B.McCollum and A.Schaerf, The third international timetabling competition, Annals of Operations Research OR239(1) (2016), 69–75. doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1340-5.
26.
W.Ren, R.W.Beard and E.M.Atkins, A survey of consensus problems in multi-agent coordination, in: Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference, Vol. 3, 2005, pp. 1859–1864.
27.
V.Srivastava and N.E.Leonard, Collective decision-making in ideal networks: The speed–accuracy tradeoff, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems1(1) (2014), 121–130. doi:10.1109/TCNS.2014.2310271.
28.
D.Zhang, A logic-based axiomatic model of bargaining, Artificial Intelligence174(16–17) (2010), 1307–1322. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.08.003.
