A number of proposals have been made to define inconsistency measures. Each has its rationale. But to date, it is not clear how to delineate the space of options for measures, nor is it clear how we can classify measures systematically. In this paper, we introduce a general framework for comparing syntactic inconsistency measures. It uses the construction of an inconsistency graph for each knowledgebase. We then introduce abstractions of the inconsistency graph and use the hierarchy of the abstractions to classify a range of inconsistency measures.

We present SAT encoding schemes for distance-based belief merging operators relying on the (possibly weighted) drastic distance or the Hamming distance between interpretations, and using sum, GMax (leximax) or GMin (leximin) as aggregation function. In order to evaluate these encoding schemes, we generated benchmarks of a time-tabling problem and translated them into belief merging instances. Then, taking advantage of these schemes, we compiled the merged bases of the resulting instances into query-equivalent CNF formulae. Experiments have shown the benefits which can be gained by considering the SAT encoding schemes we pointed out. Especially, thanks to them, we succeeded in computing query-equivalent formulae for merging instances based on hundreds of variables, which are out of reach of previous implementations.

Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been pro- posed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed proper- ties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.

Belief revision games (BRGs) are concerned with the dynamics of the beliefs of a group of communicating agents. BRGs are "zero-player" games where at each step every agent revises her own beliefs by taking account for the beliefs of her acquaintances. Each agent is associated with a belief state defined on some finite propositional language. We provide a general definition for such games where each agent has her own revision policy, and show that the belief sequences of agents can always be finitely characterized. We then define a set of revision policies based on belief merging operators. We point out a set of appealing properties for BRGs and investigate the extent to which these properties are satisfied by the merging-based policies under consideration.