We define a consensus postulate in the propositional belief merging setting. In a nutshell, this postulate imposes the merged base to be consistent with the pieces of information provided by each agent involved in the merging process. The interplay of this new postulate with the IC postulates for belief merging is studied, and an incompatibility result is proved. The maximal sets of IC postulates which are consistent with the consensus postulate are exhibited. When satisfying some of the remaining IC postulates, consensus operators are shown to suffer from a weak inferential power. We then introduce two families of consensus operators having a better inferential power by setting aside some of these postulates.

We address the problem of planning collision-free paths for multiple agents using optimization methods known as proximal algorithms. Recently this approach was explored in Bento et al. 2013, which demonstrated its ease of parallelization and decentralization, the speed with which the algorithms generate good quality solutions, and its ability to incorporate different proximal operators, each ensuring that paths satisfy a desired property. Unfortunately, the operators derived only apply to paths in 2D and require that any intermediate waypoints we might want agents to follow be preassigned to specific agents, limiting their range of applicability. In this paper we resolve these limitations. We introduce new operators to deal with agents moving in arbitrary dimensions that are faster to compute than their 2D predecessors and we introduce landmarks, space-time positions that are automatically assigned to the set of agents under different optimality criteria. Finally, we report the performance of the new operators in several numerical experiments.