Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Belief Update Within Propositional Fragments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9161))

Abstract

Recently, belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional logic has gained attention. Previous works focused on belief revision, belief merging, and on belief contraction in the Horn fragment. The problem of belief update within the framework of fragments of propositional logic has been neglected so far. In the same spirit as a previous extension of belief revision to propositional fragments, we propose a general approach to define new update operators derived from existing ones such that the result of update remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the Horn fragment but applicable to many fragments of propositional logic, like Horn, Krom and affine fragments. We study the logical properties of the proposed operators in terms of the KM’s postulates satisfaction and highlight differences between revision and update in this context.

This work has received support from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ASPIQ project reference ANR-12-BS02-0003.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that in this example, revision and update do not coincide.

  2. 2.

    There exist update operators that are well-adapted for any characterisable fragment, i.e. that provide a result in the fragment, for instance Hegner’s operator and more generally dependence based update operators [18].

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50, 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Booth, R., Meyer, T.A., Varzinczak, I.J., Wassermann, R.: On the link between partial meet, kernel, and infra contraction and its application to Horn logic. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 42, 31–53 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Boutilier, C.: A unified model of qualitative belief change: a dynamical systems perspective. Artif. Intell. 98(1–2), 281–316 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cadoli, M., Scarcello, F.: Semantical and computational aspects of Horn approximations. Artif. Intell. 119(1–2), 1–17 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Creignou, N., Papini, O., Pichler, R., Woltran, S.: Belief revision within fragments of propositional logic. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 80(2), 427–449 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalal, M.: Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision. In: Proceedings of AAAI, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp 449–479 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  7. del Val, A., Shoham, Y.: A unified view of belief revision and update. J. Log. Comput. 4(5), 797–810 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Delgrande, J.P., Jin, Y., Pelletier, F.J.: Compositional belief update. CoRR, abs/1401.3431 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Delgrande, J.P., Peppas, P.: Belief revision in Horn theories. Artif. Intell. 218, 1–22 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Delgrande, J.P., Wassermann, R.: Horn clause contraction functions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 48, 475–511 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Doherty, P., Lukaszewicz, W., Madalinska-Bugaj, E.: The pma and relativizing minimal change for action update. Fundam. Inform. 44(1–2), 95–131 (2000)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Belief revision and updates in numerical formalisms: an overview, with new results for the possibilistic framework. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 620–625 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57(2–3), 227–270 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Fagin, R., Ullman, J.D., Vardi, M.Y.: On the semantics of updates in databases. In: The second ACM SIGACT SIGMOD, pp. 352–365 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forbus, K.D.: Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 1273–1278 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Friedman, N., Halpern, J.Y.: Modeling belief in dynamic systems, part II: revision and update. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 10, 117–167 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Haret, A.: Merging in the Horn fragment. Master’s thesis, TU Wien (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 115(1), 107–138 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Horn, A.: On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. J. Symb. Log. 16, 14–21 (1951)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision, pp. 183–203. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Keller, A.M., Winslett, M.: On the use of an extended relational model to handle changing incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 11(7), 620–633 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lang, J.: Belief update revisited. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 2517–2522 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liberatore, P., Schaerf, M.: Belief revision and update: complexity of model checking. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 62(1), 43–72 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Van De Putte, F.: Prime implicates and relevant belief revision. J. Log. Comput. 23(1), 109–119 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proceedings of FGCS, Tokyo, pp. 455–462 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schaefer, T.J.: The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of STOC, pp. 216–226 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 89–93 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, Y., Foo, N.Y.: Updates with disjunctive information: from syntactical and semantical perspectives. Comput. Intell. 16(1), 29–52 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhuang, Z.Q., Pagnucco, M.: Entrenchment-based Horn contraction. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 51, 227–254 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhuang, Z.Q., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, Y.: Definability of Horn revision from Horn contraction. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LIF, LSIS, 163 av. de Luminy, 13288, Marseille, France

    Nadia Creignou, Raïda Ktari & Odile Papini

Authors
  1. Nadia Creignou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raïda Ktari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Odile Papini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadia Creignou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France

    Sébastien Destercke

  2. Centre de Recherches de Royallieu, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France

    Thierry Denoeux

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Creignou, N., Ktari, R., Papini, O. (2015). Belief Update Within Propositional Fragments. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9161. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20806-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20807-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation