short-paper

Iterated Belief Revision and Dalal's Operator

Authors:

Theofanis I. Aravanis,

Mary-Anne WilliamsAuthors Info & Claims

SETN '18: Proceedings of the 10th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Article No.: 26, Pages 1 - 4

https://doi.org/10.1145/3200947.3201038

Published: 09 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

One of the main shortcomings of the early AGM paradigm is its lack of any guidelines for iterated revision; it formalizes only one-step rational belief revision. Darwiche and Pearl, subsequently, addressed this problem by introducing four additional postulates (the DP postulates), supplementing the AGM ones. Despite the popularity of the DP approach, there are still controversies surrounding the DP postulates. In this article, we prove a conflict between each one of the latter, and one of the most popular and intuitive "off the shelf" revision functions, that is Dalal's revision operator.

References

[1]

Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 2 (1985), 510--530.

[2]

Theofanis Aravanis and Pavlos Peppas. 2017. Belief revision in Answer Set Programming. In Proceedings of the 21st Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2017. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2:1--2:5.

Digital Library

[3]

Theofanis Aravanis, Pavlos Peppas, and Mary-Anne Williams. 2017. Epistemicentrenchment characterization of Parikh's axiom. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017. 772--778.

Digital Library

[4]

Theofanis I. Aravanis, Pavlos Peppas, and Mary-Anne Williams. 2017. Epistemicentrenchment characterization of Parametrized Difference Revision Operators. In Proceedings of the 11th Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium, PLS 2017. Delphi, Greece, 202--208.

[5]

Alexander Borgida. 1985. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 10, 4 (1985), 563--603.

Digital Library

[6]

Mukesh Dalal. 1988. Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1988. 475--479.

Digital Library

[7]

Adnan Darwiche and Judea Pearl. 1997. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89 (1997), 1--29.

Digital Library

[8]

Peter Gärdenfors. 1988. Knowledge in Flux - Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[9]

Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. 1988. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, Pacific Grove, California, 83--95.

Digital Library

[10]

Adam Grove. 1988. Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 2 (1988), 157--170.

[11]

Yi Jin and Michael Thielscher. 2005. Iterated belief revision, revised. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005. Edinburgh, 478--483.

Digital Library

[12]

Yi Jin and Michael Thielscher. 2007. Iterated belief revision, revised. Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 1--18.

Digital Library

[13]

Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto Mendelzon. 1991. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52, 3 (1991), 263--294.

Digital Library

[14]

Daniel Lehmann. 1995. Belief revision, revised. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1995. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Montreal, Quebec, 1534--1540.

Digital Library

[15]

Rohit Parikh. 1999. Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. In Logic, Language and Computation, Lawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Maarten de Rijke (Eds.). Vol. 2. CSLI Publications, 266--278.

Digital Library

[16]

Pavlos Peppas. 2008. Belief revision. In Handbook of Knowledge Representation, Frank van Harmelen, Vladimir Lifschitz, and Bruce Porter (Eds.). Elsevier Science, 317--359.

[17]

Pavlos Peppas. 2014. A panorama of iterated revision. In David Makinson on Classical Methods for Non-Classical Problems, Sven O. Hansson (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, 71--94.

[18]

Pavlos Peppas, Anastasios Michael Fotinopoulos, and Stella Seremetaki. 2008. Conflicts between relevance-sensitive and iterated belief revision. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2008. IOS Press, Patras, Greece, 85--88.

Digital Library

[19]

Pavlos Peppas and Mary-Anne Williams. 2016. Kinetic consistency and relevance in belief revision. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2016. Springer International Publishing, 401--414.

[20]

Pavlos Peppas, Mary-Anne Williams, Samir Chopra, and Norman Foo. 2015. Relevance in belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 229 (December 2015), 126--138.

Digital Library

[21]

Ken Satoh. 1988. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, 455--462.

[22]

Wolfgang Spohn. 1988. Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, William L. Harper and Brian Skyrms (Eds.). The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 42. Springer Netherlands, 105--134.

[23]

Marianne Winslett. 1988. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the 7th AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1988. 89--93.

Digital Library

Cited By

Liberatore P(2024)Representing states in iterated belief revisionArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2024.104200(104200)Online publication date: Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2024.104200
Tardivo FPham LSon TPontelli E(2021)A Logic Programming Approach to Regression Based Repair of Incorrect Initial Belief StatesPractical Aspects of Declarative Languages10.1007/978-3-030-67438-0_5(73-89)Online publication date: 13-Jan-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67438-0_5
Pham LPontelli ETardivo FSon T(2020)Proceedings 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (Technical Communications)Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.325.14325(87-89)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.325.14

Index Terms

Iterated Belief Revision and Dalal's Operator
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
      1. Reasoning about belief and knowledge

Recommendations

A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states

Belief revision performs belief change on an agent's beliefs when new evidence (either of the form of a propositional formula or of the form of a total pre-order on a set of interpretations) is received. Jeffrey's rule is commonly used for revising ...
Belief Revision: A Critique

We examine carefully the rationale underlying the approaches to belief change taken in the literature, and highlight what we view as methodological problems. We argue that to study belief change carefully, we must be quite explicit about the ’’ontology‘‘...
Revision by comparison
Special issue on nonmonotonic reasoning

Since the early 1980s, logical theories of belief revision have offered formal methods for the transformation of knowledge bases or "corpora" of data and beliefs. Early models have dealt with unconditional acceptance and integration of potentially ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

SETN '18: Proceedings of the 10th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence

July 2018

339 pages

ISBN:9781450364331

DOI:10.1145/3200947

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

EETN: Hellenic Artificial Intelligence Society
UOP: University of Patras
University of Thessaly: University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 July 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

SETN '18

SETN '18: 10th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence

July 9 - 12, 2018

Patras, Greece

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
77
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)7
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Liberatore P(2024)Representing states in iterated belief revisionArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2024.104200(104200)Online publication date: Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2024.104200
Tardivo FPham LSon TPontelli E(2021)A Logic Programming Approach to Regression Based Repair of Incorrect Initial Belief StatesPractical Aspects of Declarative Languages10.1007/978-3-030-67438-0_5(73-89)Online publication date: 13-Jan-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67438-0_5
Pham LPontelli ETardivo FSon T(2020)Proceedings 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (Technical Communications)Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.325.14325(87-89)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.325.14

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents