text:
# Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays from Axion Stars

## Abstract

We propose a model in which ultra high energy cosmic rays are produced by collisions between neutron stars and axion stars. The acceleration of such a cosmic ray is made by the electric field, $`10^{15}(B/10^{12}\text{G})\text{eV}\text{cm}^1`$, which is induced in an axion star by the strong magnetic field $`B>10^{12}`$ G of a neutron star. As we have shown previously, similar collisions generate gamma ray bursts when the magnetic field is much smaller, e.g. $`10^{10}`$ G. If we assume that the axion mass is $`10^9`$ eV, we can explain huge energies of the gamma ray bursts $`10^{54}`$ erg as well as the ultra high energies of the cosmic rays $`10^{20}`$ eV. In addition, it turns out that these axion stars are plausible candidates for MACHOs. We point out a possibility of observing monochromatic radiations emitted from the axion stars.

preprint: Nisho-00/1
The origin of ultra high energy cosmic rays ( UHECRs ) is one of most mysterious puzzles in astrophysics. UHECRs with energies $`10^{20}`$ eV can not travel in distance more than $`50`$ Mpc owing to the interactions between UHECRs and the cosmic backgrand radiations. Observations, however, show that there are no visible candidates for the generators of such UHECRs in the arrival directions of UHECRs. On the other hand, dark matter in the Universe is one of most mysterious puzzles in cosmology. Axion is a plausible candidate for the dark matter. Probably, some of axions may form boson stars ( axion stars ) in the present Universe by gravitational cooling or gravitational collapse of axion clumps formed at the period of QCD phase transition. Here we explain a generation mechanism of UHECRs and discuss a production rate of UHECRs assuming collisions between axions stars and neutron stars. We also show that the collisions cause emission of observable monochromatic radiations from the axion stars.

We have previously proposed a possible generation mechanism of gamma ray burst ( GRB ). According to the mechanism the collision between axion star and neutron star generates a gamma ray burst; the axion star dissipates its mass energy very rapidly under the strong magnetic field of the neutron star. Thus, the energy released in the collision is given by the mass $`M_a`$ of the axion star. Typically it is given by $`M_a10^5M_{}(10^5\text{eV}/m_a)`$ where $`m_a`$ denotes the axion mass. In the analysis we have taken the mass such as $`m_a10^5`$ eV as suggested observationally in standard invisible axion models. The mass, $`M_a10^{49}`$ erg, corresponding to this choice, however, is not enough to explain a huge energy observed in GRB980123 even if jet is assumed in the GRB.

In this paper, we explain an acceleration mechanism of UHECRs assuming the axion mass, $`m_a10^9`$ eV, although the choice is not conventional. The essence of the acceleration is that a strong electric field $`10^{15}(B/10^{12}\text{G})\text{eV}\text{cm}^1`$ is induced in the axion star when it is exposed to the magnetic field $`B>10^{12}`$ G of a neutron star. This electric field can accelerate charged particles and makes them obtain the huge energies $`10^{20}`$ eV. Furthermore, it turns out that the energy $`10^{54}`$ erg observed in the GRB can be also explained assuming a moderate jet of the GRB. This is because the mass of the axion star is given by $`10^1M_{}10^{53}`$ erg with the assumption of $`m_a`$. Thus the collisions between the axion stars and the neutron stars are possible sources of both UHECRs and GRBs. Additionally, it turns out that the axion star is a plausible candidate for MACHO because the value of the mass is suitable for explaining the observations of MACHOs. Since all of baryonic candidates for MACHOs have been argued to have serious difficulties, nonbaryonic ones like the axion stars are favored. We discuss that the collisions generate monochromatic radiations with a frequency $`m_a/2\pi 2.4\times 10^5`$ Hz. With the detection of such radiations we can test our model and determine the axion mass.

As we shall show below, we need to separate two cases of the collisions, the collision with a neutron star possessing relatively weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$ G and the one with a neutron star possessing relatively strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G. In the first case the axion star collides directly with the neutron star and dissipates its whole energy inside of the outercrust of the neutron star. The ultra high energy cosmic rays are not produced in this case but gamma ray bursts are produced. On the other hand, in the second case the axion star never collide directly with the neutron star because it evapolates before the collision. This is because the axion star induces a stronger electric field when it is exposed to the stronger magnetic field of the neutron star. But such a strong electric field decays very rapidly owing to electron-positron pair creations when the strength of the electric field goes beyond a critical value. Namely, as the axion star approaches the neutron star, the strength of the magnetic field around it increases gradually and reaches a critical value beyond which the electric field induced in the axion star decays very rapidly. It means that the axion star itself decays very rapidly. In this case the ultra high energy cosmic rays are produced. Gamma ray bursts might be also produced, but they are emitted in a cone with much small solid angle and their duration is very short ( less than millisecond ).

Let us first explain briefly axion stars ( ASs ) and how they induce strong electric fields under a magnetic field of a neutron star. The AS is a coherent object of the real scalar field $`a(x)`$ describing the axion. It is represented by a solution of the equation of the axion field coupled with gravity. An approximate form of the solution is given by

$$a(x)=f_{PQ}a_0\mathrm{sin}(m_at)\mathrm{exp}(r/R_a),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ ( $`r`$ ) is time ( radial ) coordinate and $`f_{PQ}`$ is the decay constant of the axion. The value of $`f_{PQ}`$ is constrained conventinally from cosmological and astrophysical considerations such that $`10^{10}`$ GeV $`<f_{PQ}<`$ $`10^{12}`$ GeV ( the axion mass $`m_a`$ is given in terms of $`f_{PQ}`$ such that $`m_a10^7\text{GeV}^2/f_{PQ}`$ ). However, when we assume unconventionally entropy productions below the temperature $`1`$ GeV in the early Universe, we may be released from the constraints. Hereafter we assume that $`f_{PQ}10^{16}`$ GeV or $`m_a10^9`$ eV.

In the formula, $`R_a`$ represents the radius of an AS which has been obtained numerically in terms of mass $`M_a`$ of the AS; $`R_a=6.4m_{pl}^2/m_a^2M_a1.6\times 10^5\text{cm}m_9^2(10^1M_{}/M_a)`$, with $`m_9=m_a/10^9`$ eV and $`m_{pl}`$ is Planck mass. Similarly, the amplitude $`a_0`$ in eq(1) is represented such as $`a_0=1.73\times 10^2(10^5\text{cm}/R_a)^2m_9^1`$. Therefore, we find that the solution is parameterized by one free parameter, either one of the mass $`M_a`$ or the radius $`R_a`$. It is also important to note that the solution is not static but oscillating with the frequency of $`m_a/2\pi `$. It has been demonstrated that there is no static regular solution of the real scalar massless field coupled with gravity. This may be general property of the real scalar massive field.

The AS mass is determined by physical conditions under which the AS has been formed; how large amount of cloud of axions are cooled gravitationally to form the AS, etc.. The situation is similar to other stars such as neutron stars or white dwarfs. A typical mass scale in these cases is the critical mass; stars with masses larger than the critical mass collapse gravitationally into more compact ones or black holes. In the case of the AS, there also exists a critical mass $`M_c`$ which is given by $`M_c10^1M_{}m_9^1`$ where $`M_{}`$ represents the solar mass. Therefore, we adopt this critical mass $`M_c`$ as a typical mass scale of the ASs. ( The critical mass is the maximal mass which ASs can take. Thus, their masses, in general, are smaller than this one. Since energies released in GRBs by the ASs are given by masses themselves, the maximal energy in GRBs is given by the critical mass ).

Although the gravitational cooling for star formation is in general ineffective because it is too slow process, it has been shown that the cooling is very effective for the real scalar axion field. Thus, the axion stars can be easily formed gravitationally in a gas of the axions. It is reasonable to assume that the most of the axions in the Universe forms the axion stars.

Let us explain how an AS induces an electric field under a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ of a neutron star. Owing to the interaction between the axion and the electromagnetic field described by $`L_{a\gamma \gamma }=c\alpha a(x)\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi `$, where the value of $`c`$ ( of the order of unity ) depends on axion models, the Gauss law is modified such that $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}=c\alpha \stackrel{}{}(a(x)\stackrel{}{B})/f_{PQ}\pi +\text{“matter”}`$. The last term “matter” denotes electric charges of ordinary matters. The first term in the right hand side represents an electric charge made of the axion. ( This charge is oscillating and so there exist a corresponding oscillating current, $`J_a=c\alpha _ta(x)\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi `$. Thus, radiations are emitted by the AS, which might be observable. We will discuss it later. ) Thus, we find that the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E_a}`$ is induced; $`\stackrel{}{E_a}=c\alpha a(x)\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi `$ with $`\alpha 1/137`$, Numerically, its strength is given by

$$E_a10^{15}\text{eV}\text{cm}^1B_{12}m_9,$$
(2)
with $`B_{12}=B/10^{12}`$ G, where we have used the solution in eq(1) for the critical mass. Obviously, the spatial extention of the field is given by the radius $`R_a1.6\times 10^5m_9^1\text{cm}`$ of the AS.

This electric field is oscillating with the frequency, $`m_a/2\pi 2.4\times 10^5m_9\text{Hz}`$. Thus a particle with electric charge Ze can be accelerated in a direction within the half of the period, $`\pi /m_a`$ or in a distance $`R_a`$ ( $`\pi /m_a\times \text{light velocity}`$ ) by this field, unless it collides with other particles within the period. Thus, the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ obtained by the particle is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\text{Ze}E_a\times \pi /m_a\times \text{light velocity}10^{20}\text{Z}\text{eV}B_{12}.$$
(3)
Therefore, the electric field can accelerate the charged particle so that its energy reaches $`10^{20}\text{Z}`$ eV. These charged particles may be baryons or electron-positron pairs produced by the decay of the electric field itself as discussed soon below.

Comment is in order. It seems apparently from eq(3) that stronger magnetic fields yield cosmic rays with higher energies. Stronger magnetic fields, however, induce stronger electric fields, which are unstable against electron-positron pair creations. Therefore, strong magnetic fields do not necessarily yield cosmic rays with higher energies.

If the particles collide with other particles on the way of acceleration, in other words, their mean free paths are shorter than $`R_a`$, they can not obtain such high energies. It is easy to see, however, that the mean free paths of quarks or leptons with much higher energies than their masses are longer than $`R_a`$ in magnetosphere of neutron star. This is because since cross sections, $`\sigma `$, of quarks or leptons with such energies $`E`$ behaves such as $`\sigma 1/E^2`$, mean free paths $`1/n\sigma `$ is longer than $`R_a10^5`$ cm unless number density $`n`$ of particles around the AB is extremely large ( i.e. $`n>10^{40}/\text{cm}^3`$ ).

As is well known, the strong electric field is unstable against electron-positron pair creations. This implies that AS decays into the pairs when the electric field induced in AS is sufficiently strong.

Let us estimate the decay rate of the field and show that the AS decays before colliding with a neutron star whose magnetic field at surface is stronger than $`10^{12}`$ G. We also show that the AS can collide directly with a neutron star whose magnetic field is relatively weak $`10^{10}`$ G.

The decay rate $`R_d`$ of the field per unit volume and per unit time is given by

$$R_d=\frac{\alpha E_a^2}{\pi ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(m_e^2\pi n/eE_a)}{n^2}$$
(4)
where $`m_e`$ denotes electron mass. The rate is very small for an electric field much weaker than $`m_e^2\pi 4\times 10^{16}`$ eV/cm. The electric field of AS, however, can be very strong and it can be comparable to $`m_e^2\pi `$. Therefore, the rate is much large. Numerically, it is given by $`R_d10^{47}B_{12}^2m_9^2\text{cm}^3\text{s}^1_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(0.7\times 10^2n/B_{12}m_9)/n^2`$. Since the spatial extention of the field is approximately given by $`10^5m_9^1`$ cm, the total decay rate $`W`$ of the field in AS is $`10^{62}B_{12}^2m_9^1\text{s}^1_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(0.7\times 10^2n/B_{12}m_9)/n^2`$. Numerically, it reads

$$W10/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=0.5,W10^6/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=0.55,W10^{32}/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=1$$
(5)
with $`m_9=1`$.

Therefore, we find that the AS decays very rapidly ( or almost suddenly ) when it approaches a region where the strength of the magnetic field reaches a critical value of about $`10^{12}`$ G. Hence, the AS evapolates before colliding with the neutron star whose magnetic field at the surface is stronger than $`10^{12}`$ G. The whole energy of the AS is transmitted to the charged particles, each of which can obtain energies $`10^{20}`$ eV. These particles are emitted into a cone with very small solid angle. They form an extremely short pulse whose width being less than millisecond. Actually, when we suppose that the relative velocity of the AS is equal to light velocity, it decays approximately within a period of $`10^4\text{sec}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$sec; in the period it passes the region where the magnetic field increases from $`0.5\times 10^{12}`$ G to $`10^{12}`$ G. These leptons may be converted into baryons and photons through the interactions with themselves, interstellar medium or ejection of progenitor of the neutron star. Thus when the magnetic field is sufficiently strong, ultra high energy cosmic rays can be produced.

We comment that the velocity of AS trapped gravitationally to a neutron star, is approximately given by the light velocity just when it collides with the neutron star. This is because an AS can be trapped to a neutron star when the AS approaches it within a distance $`10^{11}`$ cm as we will show below, and then, the AS collides with the neutron star losing its potential energy and angular momentum by emitting gravitational waves. Thus, the velocity of the AS reaches approximately the light velocity when it collides with the neutron star.

Furthermore, we can see from eqs(2) and (4) that the critical electric field depends on the factor of $`B_{12}\times m_9`$. On the other hand, the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ obtained by accelerated charged particles depends only on the factor of $`B_{12}`$. Therefore, we find that if $`m_a`$ is smaller than $`10^9`$ eV, the maximal energy of cosmic rays can be larger than $`10^{20}`$ eV when $`B>10^{12}`$ G.

It is easy to see that the decay rate is negligibly small for the case of weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$ G. Thus the AS collides directly with such a neutron star and dissipates the whole energy in the outercrust of the neutron star. Actually, the rate of the energy dissipation in the crust has been estimated previously and given approximately by $`10^{46}\text{erg/s}\text{cm}^3`$, while the energy density of the AS is given by $`10^{38}\text{erg}/\text{cm}^3`$. Thus even if the velocity of the AS is equal to the light velocity, it dissipates its whole energy in the crust: it never reaches the core of the neutron star. This estimation has been performed by noting that the energy dissipation of the AS arises due to the dissipation of an electric current ( $`=\sigma _cE_a`$ ) induced in the crust with conductivity $`\sigma _c`$; the value of $`10^{26}`$/s has been used for $`\sigma _a`$.

Anyway, this collision generates gamma ray bursts with energies $`10^{53}`$ erg. The ejection could be emitted into a cone with small solid angle as a jet. This is because particles ( mainly irons ) of the neutron star are accelerated and emitted in the direction of the strong electric field $`10^{13}B_{10}`$ eV/cm. The fact that the whole energy of AB is dissipated only in the outercrust, implies that the ejection may be particles composing the crust. Thus a fraction of the baryon contamination in the jet is less than $`10^5M_{}`$ as required observationally.

In the above case, the AS dissipates its whole energy in the first collision. On the other hand, an AS may collide several times with a neutron star when its mass is much smaller than the critical mass $`10^1M_{}`$. The mass has been assumed as a typical mass of ABs. We see from the general formula of $`R_a`$ that the radius of the AS with smaller mass than the typical one is larger than the typical radius $`10^5`$ cm. For example, if its mass is given by $`10^2M_{}`$, the radius is about $`10^6`$ cm. This is comparable to the radius of the neutron star. In addition, an electric field induced in such an AS is weaker than the typical one eq(2). This implies that the rate of the energy dissipation in a neutron star is smaller than the one quoted above. In such a case the collisions might occur several times. We expect that these collisions leads to GRBs with pulses of longer duration and softer gamma rays. Observationally the only energies of GRBs with long duration have been measured. We predict that the energies of GRBs with short duration are much larger than those of GRBs with longer duration.

We now wish to estimate an energy release rate per unit volume and per unit time; the energy released as ultra high energy cosmic rays. In order to do so we assume that the dark matter is composed mainly of axion stars. The estimation, however, involves several ambiguities associated with number density of neutron stars, energy density of dark matter or velocity of ASs in the Universe etc. Therefore the estimation does not lead to a conclusive result although our result is consistent with the observations.

First we note that luminosity density around our galaxy is observationally given by $`2\times 10^8\text{h}L_{}/\text{Mpc}^3`$ where h is Hubble constant with the unit of $`100`$ km/s Mpc and $`L_{}`$ represents solar luminosity. We take a mass density $`\rho `$ corresponding to this luminosity density such as $`\rho 10^9M_{}\text{h}^2/\text{Mpc}^3`$. Then, we suppose that the number density of neutron stars is given by $`10^2\rho `$. This comes from the fact that the rate of appearance of supernovae is about $`0.11`$ per $`10`$ years in our galaxy and the age of the galaxy is about $`10^{10}`$ years. Probably, the rate of the appearance could be larger in early stage of our galaxy than the one at present. Thus, in our galaxy $`10^9`$ neutron stars might be involved corresponding to the number $`10^{11}`$ of stars in the galaxy. Hence we guess that the number of the neutron stars are equal to about $`10^2`$ times the number of the stars. All of these neutron stars are assumed to possess strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G. Furthermore, to estimate the rate of the energy release we need to know the average density $`ϵ`$ of the dark matter. Here we use a value of $`0.5\times 10^{24}\text{g}/\text{cm}^3`$, which represents a local density of our halo. Using these parameters we can estimate the rate owing to the collision between the AS and the neutron star if the cross section of the collision is found. The collision cross section for a neutron star to trap an AS is estimated in the following. Namely an AS is trapped by the neutron star when the AS approaches the neutrons star within a distance $`L_c`$ in which its kinetic energy $`M_av^2/2`$ is equal to its potential energy $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}\times M_{}M_aG/L_c`$ around the neutron star. $`G`$ is gravitational constant. Here the mass of the neutron star and the relative velocity $`v`$ are assumed to be $`1.5\times M_{}`$ and $`3\times 10^7`$ cm/s, respectively. Thus, the cross section is found such as $`L_c^2\pi `$ with $`L_c6\times 10^{11}\text{cm}`$. After being trapped, the AS collides with the neutron star by losing its potential energy and angular momentum owing to the emission of gravitational and electromagnetic waves; electromagnetic radiations arise due to the oscillating current $`J_a`$. The merger is similar to neutron star - neutron star merger. Time scale from birth to merger is much less than the age of the Universe when the distance $`L_c`$ between two stars at the birth is given such that $`L_c10^{11}`$ cm.

Therefore, we obtain the rate of the collision per Mpc<sup>3</sup> and per year,

$$ϵ\times 10^2\rho \times L_c^2\pi \times v\times 1\text{year}/10^1M_{}3\times 10^9\text{h}^2/\text{Mpc}^3\text{year}.$$
(6)
Since the energy of $`10^{53}`$ erg is released in the collision, we find that the rate of the energy release is given by

$$3\times 10^{44}\text{h}^2\text{erg}/\text{Mpc}^3\text{year}.$$
(7)
which agrees well with the observed one . Taking account of the fact, however, that there are several ambiguities in the parameters used above and in the observations, we understand that our model can explains roughly the observations.

Finally we discuss two possibilities of the observation of the axion stars. One is associated with gravitational lensing and the other one associated with monochromatic radiations from the ASs.

Since we assume that the halo of our galaxy is composed of ASs and their mass is $`10^1M_{}`$, the ASs are plausible candidates for gravitational microlenses, i.e. MACHO. Since baryonic candidates like white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. have serious problems, nonbaryonic candidates are favored. The problems are associated with chemical abundance of carbon and nitrogen in the Universe: If these baryonic stars are MACHOs, an overabundance of the elements is produced far in excess of what is observed in our galaxy. Hence, the ASs are theoretically the most fascinating candidates for MACHOs since they are also candidates for the generators of both UHECRs and GRBs. If the most favorable mass of the MACHO is $`0.5M_{}`$, we need to choose $`m_a0.2\times 10^9`$ eV since the mass of the ASs is given by $`10^1M_{}/m_9`$. Smaller axion mass leads to stronger electric field as well as larger mass of AS. Thus, it yields higher energies of the cosmic rays, $`5\times 10^{20}`$ eV and of GBRs, $`5\times 10^{53}`$ erg than the ones we have claimed above. Accordingly, the determination of the mass of MACHOs gives the upper limit of both the energies of the ultra high energy cosmic rays and the energies released in the gamma ray bursts in our mechanism.

We point out another way of the observation of the axion stars. Since the electric field induced in ASs is oscillating, electromagnetic radiations are emitted from corresponding oscillating electric current $`J_a`$ as mentioned above; the frequence of these monochromatic radiations is $`2.4\times 10^5m_9`$ Hz. We expect that such radiations can be detected in advance of UHECRs; they are emitted by the AS revolving around a neutron star before the AS decaying into charged particles. It is easy to estimate their luminocity $`6.7\times 10^{41}B_{12}^2\text{erg/s}`$. If the emission arises in a distance $`10`$ Mpc from the earth, we obtain the flux at the earth, $`10^9\text{Jy}B_{12}^2/m_9`$; we have assumed that the velocity of the AS revolving is $`0.1\times `$ light velocity. Although the possibility of observing the radiations is very intriguing, it might be difficult to detect the radiations with such a low frequency because they could be absorbed by interstellar ionized gases.

The author wishs to express his thank to all the staffs in Theory Group, Tanashi Branch, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization for their warm hospitality extended to him. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan No.10640284


format: text

text:
# On the semantics of merging

## Introduction

To be able to operate in its environment it is necessary for an intelligent agent to have a consistent view of the world. This demand is often complicated by the fact that such agents receive conflicting pieces of information from different sources. The process of combining possibly inconsistent pieces of information, known as *merging*, has many applications and has started to receive more attention recently (?????????). In this paper we propose a framework for the modelling of merging operations. The proposal has its roots in the work of Spohn (??). Unlike most approaches we adopt a description of merging on the level of *epistemic states* instead of *knowledge bases*.

First we give a brief introduction to the merging of knowledge bases, focussing on the work of Konieczny and Pino-Pérez (?). This is followed by a description of our framework for the merging of epistemic states. Then we construct a number of merging operations and show how they measure up to proposed properties of merging. Finally, we discuss links between merging and the *infobases* of Meyer (?).

We assume a finitely generated propositional language $`L`$ closed under the usual propositional connectives, and with a classical model-theoretic semantics. $`U`$ is the set of interpretations of $`L`$ and $`M(\alpha )`$ is the set of models of $`\alpha L`$. Classical entailment is denoted by $``$. We use $``$ to denote the concatenation of lists. We let $`x^n`$ denote the list consisting of $`n`$ versions of $`x`$. The length of a list $`l`$ is denoted by $`\left|l\right|`$.

## Merging knowledge bases

In the spirit of the work of Katsuno and Mendelzon (?), approaches to the merging of knowledge bases usually represent the beliefs of an agent as a single wff $`\varphi `$ of $`L`$, known as a *knowledge base*, where $`\varphi `$ represents the set of all wffs entailed by $`\varphi `$. The goal is to construct, from a finite list of such knowledge bases, an appropriate consistent knowledge base in some rational fashion. Konieczny and Pino-Pérez (?) have proposed a general framework for the merging of knowledge bases. A *knowledge list* $`e`$ is a finite list of consistent knowledge bases $`[\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _{\left|e\right|}]`$. Two knowledge lists $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ are *element-equivalent*, written as $`e_1e_2`$, iff for every element $`\varphi _1`$ of $`e_1`$ there is a unique element $`\varphi _2`$ (position-wise) of $`e_2`$ such that $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ and for every element $`\varphi _2`$ of $`e_2`$ there is a unique element $`\varphi _1`$ (position-wise) of $`e_1`$ such that $`\varphi _2\varphi _1`$. A *KP-merging operation* $`\delta `$ is a function from the set of all knowledge lists to the set of all knowledge bases satisfying the following postulates (the KP-postulates):

$`\delta (e)`$

If $`_{i=1}^{\left|e\right|}\varphi _i`$ then $`\delta (e)=_{i=1}^{\left|e\right|}\varphi _i`$

If $`e_1e_2`$ then $`\delta (e_1)\delta (e_2)`$

If $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ then $`\delta ([\varphi _1][\varphi _2])\varphi _1`$

$`\delta (e_1)\delta (e_2)\delta (e_1e_2)`$

If $`\delta (e_1)\delta (e_2)`$ then $`\delta (e_1e_2)\delta (e_1)\delta (e_2)`$

Konieczny and Pino-Pérez also distinguish between two subclasses of merging operations. An *arbitration* operation tries to take as many differing opinions as possible into account, while the intuition associated with *majority* operations is that the opinion of the majority should prevail. They initially propose the following postulates for arbitration and majority operations.

$`n\delta (e\varphi ^n)=\delta (e[\varphi ])`$

$`n\delta (e\varphi ^n)\varphi `$

It turns out that there is no KP-merging operation satisfying (arb). Unlike Konieczny and Pino-Pérez we are of the opinion that it is not (arb) that is at fault, but some of the KP-postulates. Below we argue against the inclusion of (KP4) and (KP6) as postulates that need to be satisfied by all merging operations.

## Merging epistemic states

In this section we discuss merging on the level of epistemic states. We see an epistemic state as providing a plausibility ranking of the interpretations of $`L`$; the lower the number assigned to an interpretation, the more plausible it is deemed to be.

###### Definition 0.1

An epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a function from $`U`$ to the set of natural numbers. Given an epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the knowledge base associated with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, denoted by $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is some $`\alpha L`$ such that $`M(\alpha )=\{u\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=0\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This representation of an epistemic state and its associated knowledge base can be traced back to the work of Spohn (??). It should be clear that an epistemic state with an inconsistent associated knowledge base still contains useful information.

An *epistemic list* $`E=[\mathrm{\Phi }_1^E,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left|E\right|}^E]`$ is a finite list of epistemic states.

It is instructive to view an epistemic list pictorially as in figure 1. While such a pictorial view is only useful in representing epistemic lists containing two elements, it serves as a good foundation for understanding the principles underlying the merging of epistemic states in general.

For any epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, let

$$\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(u)uU\}$$

let

$$\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(u)uU\}$$

and for an epistemic list $`E`$, let

$$\mathrm{max}(E)=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E)1i\left|E\right|\}.$$

For an epistemic list $`E`$ and $`uU`$ we let $`\mathrm{min}^E(u)`$ be equal to

$$\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)1i\left|E\right|\}$$

and we let $`\mathrm{max}^E(u)`$ be equal to

$$\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)1i\left|E\right|\}.$$

We denote by $`seq(E)`$ the set of all sequences of length $`\left|E\right|`$ of natural numbers, ranging from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{max}(E)`$. We denote by $`seq_{}(E)`$ the subset of $`seq(E)`$ of all sequences that are ordered non-decreasingly, and by $`seq_{}(E)`$ the subset of $`seq(E)`$ of all sequences that are ordered non-increasingly. For $`uU`$, we let $`s^E(u)`$ be the sequence containing the natural numbers $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^E(u),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left|E\right|}^E(u)`$ in that order, we let $`s_{}^E(u)`$ be the sequence $`s^E(u)`$ ordered non-decreasingly, and we let $`s_{}^E(u)`$ be the sequence $`s^E(u)`$ ordered non-increasingly. Clearly $`s^E(u)seq(E)`$, $`s_{}^E(u)seq_{}(E)`$ and $`s_{}^E(u)seq_{}(E)`$. Given any set $`seq`$ of finite sequences of natural numbers and a total preorder $``$ on $`seq`$, we define the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{seq}:seq\{0,\mathrm{},\left|seq\right|1\}`$ by assigning natural numbers to the elements of $`seq`$ in the order imposed by $``$, starting by assigning $`0`$ to the elements lowest down in $``$. We denote the *lexicographic* ordering on $`seq`$ by $`_{lex}`$.

A *merging operation on epistemic states* $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a function from the set of all non-empty epistemic lists to the set of all epistemic states. We propose the following basic properties for the merging of epistemic states:

$`u`$ s.t. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(u)=0`$

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j^E(u)i,j`$ such that $`1i,j\left|E\right|`$ and $`s_{}^E(u)_{lex}s_{}^E(v)`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(u)<\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(v)`$

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(v)i`$ such that $`1i\left|E\right|`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(v)`$

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(v)`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(v)`$ for some $`i`$ such that $`1i\left|E\right|`$

(E1) is a restatement of (KP1) and (E2) generalises (KP2). (E3) states that if all epistemic states in $`E`$ agree that $`u`$ is at least as plausible as $`v`$, then so should the resulting epistemic state. (E4) expects justification for regarding an interpretation $`u`$ as at least as plausible as $`v`$: there has to be at least one epistemic state in $`E`$ which regards $`u`$ as at least as plausible as $`v`$. The following fundamental principle for the merging of epistemic states follows easily from (E3):

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(v)i`$ such that $`1i\left|E\right|`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Delta }(E)(v)`$

(Unit) requires interpretations that are treated identically by all epistemic states in an epistemic list to be treated identically in the epistemic state resulting from a merging operation.

Two epistemic lists $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are *element-equivalent*, written as $`E_1E_2`$, iff for every element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ of $`E_1`$ there is a unique element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ (position-wise) of $`E_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ and for every element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ of $`E_2`$ there is a unique element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (position-wise) of $`E_1`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. The following property is a generalisation of (KP3). It requires merging to be commutative.

$`E_1E_2`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1)=\mathrm{\Delta }(E_2)`$

We do not think that (Comm) should hold for all merging operations. Instead, (Comm) should be seen as a postulate picking out an interesting subclass of merging operations.

For a finite list of epistemic lists $`=[E_1,\mathrm{},E_{\left|\right|}]`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }()`$ denote the epistemic list $`[\mathrm{\Delta }(E_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }(E_{\left|\right|})]`$. We consider the following properties:

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_i)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_i)(v)i`$ such that $`1i\left|\right|`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_{i=1}^{\left|\right|}E_i)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(_{i=1}^{\left|\right|}E_i)(v)`$

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_{i=1}^{\left|\right|}E_i)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(_{i=1}^{\left|\right|}E_i)(v)`$ then for some $`i`$ such that $`1i\left|\right|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E_i)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(E_i)(v)`$ for some $`1i\left|\right|`$

(E5) generalises (E3) and (E6) generalises (E4). In fact, (E5) also implies (KP5).

The arbitration postulate (arb) and the majority postulate (maj) can be generalised as follows:

$`n\mathrm{\Delta }(E[\mathrm{\Phi }])(u)=\mathrm{\Delta }(E\mathrm{\Phi }^n)(u)`$

$`n`$ s.t. $`u,vU,\mathrm{\Phi }(u)\mathrm{\Phi }(v)`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E\mathrm{\Phi }^n)(u)\mathrm{\Delta }(E\mathrm{\Phi }^n)(v)`$

We have not provided a generalised version of (KP4). The reason is that we do not regard it as a suitable postulate for merging. Our basic argument is that the models of a knowledge base associated with an epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ may sometimes be given such an implausible ranking by an epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ that it would seem reasonable to exclude all these models from the models of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{\Delta }([\mathrm{\Phi }_1][\mathrm{\Phi }_2])}`$. It is worthwhile noting that none of the merging operations we consider below satisfies (KP4). Similarly, we have not provided a generalised version of (KP6) since we regard it as too strong a condition to impose on all merging operations.111(E6) can be regarded as a generalised version of a weaker form of (KP6), but (KP6) does not follow from (E6). Below we shall encounter a number of reasonable merging operations which do not satisy (KP6).

## Constructing merging operations

Konieczny and Pino-Pérez (?) discuss several merging operations on knowledge bases using Dalal’s measure of distance between interpretations (?). For any two interpretations $`u`$ and $`v`$, let $`dist(u,v)`$ denote the number of propositional atoms on which $`u`$ and $`v`$ differ. The distance $`Dist(\varphi ,u)`$ between a knowledge base $`\varphi `$ and an interpretation $`u`$ is defined as follows: $`Dist(\varphi ,u)=\mathrm{min}\{dist(u,v)vM(\varphi )\}`$. It is clear that this distance measure can be used to define an epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as follows:

$$uU,\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=Dist(\varphi ,u).$$

It is easily seen that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u)=0`$ iff $`uM(\varphi )`$ and therefore $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi `$. Many of the merging operations on epistemic states that we propose below are appropriate generalisations of these merging operations on knowledge bases.

When reading through the remainder of this section, the reader should observe that the construction of every merging operation consists of two steps. In the first step natural numbers are assigned to interpretations. After the completion of this step it will often be the case that *none* of the interpretations have been assigned the value $`0`$. To ensure compliance with (E1) the second step performs an appropriate uniform subtraction of values which we shall refer to as *normalisation*.

### Arbitration

Inspired by an arbitration operation proposed by Liberatore and Schaerf (?) we propose the following two merging operations on epistemic states.

###### Definition 0.2

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ls}^E(u)=2\mathrm{min}^E(u)`$ if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j^E(u)`$ for $`1i,j\left|E\right|`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ls}^E(u)=2\mathrm{min}^E(u)+1`$ otherwise. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ls}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ls}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{ls}^E)`$.
2. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rls}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{_{lex}}^{seq_{}(E)}(s_{}^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rls}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rls}^E)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 2 contains a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ls}`$ and figure 3 a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}`$. It can easily be shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}`$ is a refined version of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ls}`$. Both satisfy (E1)-(E6) and (Comm), neither satisfies (Maj), and only $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}`$ satisfies (KP6). Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ls}`$ satisfies (Arb) but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}`$ does not. So, while both are valid merging operations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rls}`$ should not be seen as an arbitation operation.

Next we consider two merging operations that are generalisations of the $`\delta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\delta _{Gmax}`$ operations of Konieczny and Pino-Pérez. The former was inspired by an example of Revesz’s model-fitting operations (?).

###### Definition 0.3

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^E(u)=\mathrm{max}^E(u)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^E)`$.
2. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Gmax}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{_{lex}}^{seq_{}(E)}(s_{}^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Gmax}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Gmax}^E)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 4 contains a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and figure 5 a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$. Both satisfy (E1)-(E6), neither satisfies (Maj), and only $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$ satisfies (KP6). Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ satisfies (Arb), but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$ does not. So, analogous to the case above, both are valid merging operations but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$ should not be seen as an arbitation operation. The fact that we do not regard $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$ as an arbitration operation is in conflict with the view of Konieczny and Pino-Pérez who regard $`\delta _{Gmax}`$ as an arbitration operation on knowledge bases even though it does not satisfy (arb). Conversely, Konieczny and Pino-Pérez do not regard $`\delta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ as a merging operation on knowledge bases since it fails to satisfy (KP6). But we regard it as a valid arbitration operation since it satisfies the postulates (E1)-(E6), (Comm) and (Arb).

### Consensus

In this section we consider the idea of a *consensus* operation, where agreement on the ranking of interprerations, instead of the ranking itself, is of overriding importance.

###### Definition 0.4

For $`sseq(E)`$, let

$$d^E(s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\left|E\right|}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{\left|E\right|}{}}\left|s_is_j\right|$$

where $`s_i`$ denotes the $`i`$th element of $`s`$.

1. Define the total preorder $``$ on $`seq(E)`$ as follows: $`st`$ iff $`d^E(s)d^E(t)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{cons}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{seq(E)}(s^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cons}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{cons}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{cons}^E)`$.
2. Define the total preorder $``$ on $`seq_{}(E)`$ as follows: $`st`$ iff $`d^E(s)<d^E(t)`$ or ($`d^E(s)=d^E(t)`$ and $`s_{lex}t`$). Now, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rcons}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{seq_{}(E)}(s_{}^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rcons}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rcons}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Rcons}^E)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 6 contains a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cons}`$ and figure 7 a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Rcons}`$. We do not regard these two operations as suitable candidates for merging, primarily because both fail to satisfy (E3) and (E4). Both satisfy (Unit), though. The problem with these consensus operations seems to be that they place too strong an emphasis on agreement and do not take the ranking of interpretations seriously enough.

### Majority

We consider the following two majority operations.

###### Definition 0.5

For $`sseq(E)`$, let

$$sum^E(s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\left|E\right|}{}}s_i$$

where $`s_i`$ is the $`i`$th element of $`s`$.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^E(u)=sum^E(s^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^E)`$.
2. Define the total preorder $``$ on $`seq(E)`$ as follows:
$`st`$ iff $`sum^E(s)<sum^E(t)`$ or
($`sum^E(s)=sum^E(t)`$ and $`d^E(s)d^E(t)`$). Now, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{seq(E)}(s^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}^E)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 8 contains a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and figure 9 a pictorial representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an appropriate generalisation of an example by Lin and Mendelzon (?). It was independently proposed by Revesz (?) as an example of weighted model fitting. The idea is simply to obtain the new plausibility ranking of an interpretation by summing the plausibility rankings given by the different epistemic states. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ refined by using consensus. Both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ satisfy (E1)-(E4), (Comm) and (Maj), and neither satisfies (Arb). But while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfies (E5)-(E6) and (KP5)-(KP6) as well, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ does not.

### Non-commutative merging

Thus far we have restricted ourselves to the construction of *commutative* merging operations – i.e., satisfying (Comm) – but a complete description of merging ought to take into account constructions such as that of Nayak (?), in which the merging of two epistemic states is obtained by a lexicographic refinement of one by the other. We present here a generalised version of Nayak’s proposal. For this case the epistemic states in an epistemic list are assumed to be ranked according to reliability. That is, given an epistemic list $`E=[\mathrm{\Phi }_1^E,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left|E\right|}^E]`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^E`$ is at least as reliable as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^E`$ iff $`ij`$.

###### Definition 0.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{lex}^E(u)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{_{lex}}^{seq(E)}(s^E(u))`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lex}(E)(u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{lex}^E(u)\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{lex}^E)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lex}`$ does not satisfy (Comm), but it satisfies (E1)-(E6), as well as (KP5)-(KP6). By exploiting the non-commutativity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lex}`$, both (Arb) and (Maj) can be phrased in a way to ensure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lex}`$ fails to satisfy them.

## Merging and infobases

Our description of merging uses a representation of epistemic states as functions assigning a plausibility ranking to the interpretations of $`L`$, but where do these plausibility rankings come from? One way in which to generate them is by using the *infobases* of Meyer (?). An infobase is a finite list of wffs. Intuitively it is a structured representation of the beliefs of an agent with a foundational flavour. It is assumed that every wff in an infobase is obtained independently. Meyer uses an infobase to define a total preorder on $`U`$, which is then used to perform belief change. However, we can also use an infobase to define an epistemic state. The idea is to consider the number of times that an interpretation occurs as a model of one of the wffs in an infobase: the more it occurs, the higher its plausibility ranking.

###### Definition 0.7

For $`uU`$, define the $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}`$-number $`u_{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}`$ of $`u`$ as the number of elements $`\alpha `$ in an infobase $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}`$ such that $`\alpha `$ and $`uM(\alpha )`$, and let

$$\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{𝐼𝐵})=\mathrm{max}\{u_{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}uU\}.$$

Now we define the epistemic state associated with $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}`$ as follows: for $`uU,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}(u)=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{𝐼𝐵})u_{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Observe that the knowledge base associated with an epistemic state $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}`$ is always consistent, regardless of whether the wffs in $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}`$ are jointly consistent. We show that infobases seem to provide a natural setting in which to apply merging.

Firstly, define an *infobase list* $`\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}=[\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_{\left|\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}\right|}]`$ as a finite non-empty list of infobases and let $`E^{\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}}`$ denote the epistemic list $`[\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_{\left|E\right|}}]`$ of epistemic states associated with the infobases occurring in $`\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}`$. Then it can be verified that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(E^{\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}})=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}}`$ where $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}=_{i=1}^{\left|\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}\right|}\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_i`$.

Secondly, Konieczny and Pino-Pérez (?) give a convincing example to show that we may sometimes want to include, as models of $`\delta (e)`$, interpretations other than the models of the knowledge bases in $`e`$. Below is a scaled down version of their example.

###### Example 0.8

We want to speculate on the stock exchange and we ask two equally reliable financial experts about two shares. Let the atom $`p`$ denote the fact that share 1 will rise and $`q`$ the fact that share 2 will rise. The first expert says that both shares will rise: $`\varphi _1=pq`$, while the second one believes that both shares will fall: $`\varphi _2=\neg p\neg q`$. Intuitively it seems reasonable to conclude that both experts are right (and wrong) about exactly one share, although we don’t know which share in either case. That is, we require the result of the merging of these two knowledge bases to be such that $`M(\delta ([\varphi _1][\varphi _2]))=\{10,01\}`$.222We represent interpretations as sequences consisting of 0s (representing falsity) and 1s (representing truth), where the first digit in a sequence represents the truth value of $`p`$ and the second one the truth value of $`q`$. Observe that $`M(\delta ([\varphi _1][\varphi _2]))M(\varphi _1)M(\varphi _2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

An analysis of this example shows that both experts are assumed to make an implicit assumption of independence of the performance of the shares. Thus the beliefs of the first expert is best expressed as the infobase $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1=[p,q]`$ and the beliefs of the second expert as the infobase $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2=[\neg p,\neg q]`$. The epistemic states obtained from these two infobases are: $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1}(11)=0,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1}(10)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1}(01)=1,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1}(00)=2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2}(00)=0,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2}(10)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2}(01)=1,\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2}(11)=2`$. It can be verified that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}(E^{\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}(E^{\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}(E^{\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}})=\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐸𝐵}=[\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_1,\mathrm{𝐼𝐵}_2]`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(10)=\mathrm{\Phi }(01)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(11)=\mathrm{\Phi }(00)=1`$. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gmax}`$ yield the results corresponding to our intuition for this example.

## Conclusion

The merging operations we have constructed provide evidence that (E1)-(E4) may be regarded as basic postulates for merging operations on epistemic states. Furthermore, we regard (Arb) as an appropriate postulate for the subclass of arbitration operations, (Maj) for the subclass of majority operations, and (Comm) for the subclass of commutative merging operations. The status of (E5) and (E6) is less clear. While all but one of the valid merging operations we have considered satisfy both, the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ does not, suggests that they are not as universally applicable as (E1)-(E4). Perhaps they should be seen as picking out particular subclasses of merging operations in the way that (Arb), (Maj) and (Comm) do.