Based Revision Operations and Schemes: Semantics, Representation, and Complexity

  • B. Nebel
Conference paper
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 363)


The theory of belief revision developed by Gärdenfors and his colleagues characterizes the classes of reasonable belief revision operations. However, some of the assumptions made in the theory of belief revision are unrealistic from a computational point of view. We address this problem by considering revision operations 1 hat are based on a priority ordering over a set of sentences representing a belief state instead of using preference relations over all sentences that are accepted in a belief state. In addition to providing a semantic justification for such operations, we investigate also the computational complexity. We show how to generate an epistemic entrenchment ordering for a belief state from an arbitrary priority ordering over a set of sentences representing the belief state and show that the resulting revision is very efficient. Finally. we show t hat some schemes for generating revision operations From bases can encode the preference relations more concisely than others.


Revision Operation Belief Revision Belief State Belief Base Priority Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Carlos E.Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.. Iouenul of Symbolic Logic. 50 (2): 510–530, June 1955.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Peter Gärdenfors. Anou’/cdge in Flua’.lfodcling the Dztiiemic.s of F’pish mie States. MIT Press, Cambridge. NIA. 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Gärdenfors, editor. Bclicf Prei.sion. volume 29 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical C’onrputerSeilncc. Cambridge 1- niversity Press, Cambridge, 11k. 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Peter Gärdenfors and Hans Hott. Belief revision. Lund Lniversiiv Cognitive Studies 11. Cognitive Science. Department of Philosophy, l’niversily of Lund. Lund. Sweden. July 1992. To appear in: I). Gahhav (ed.). Ito book of Logic in Al and Logic Programming. Vol. IV: Epistentic and Temporal Reasoning.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hirofurni hatsuno and Alberto (). Alendelzon. Ou the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising il. in Gärdenfors [3]. pages 183 20: 3.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Flirof.tmi Kat.snno and Alberto O. Aiendelzon. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change.. Art Hip vcc, 52: 283–291. 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Peter Giirdenfors and David akinson. Revision of knowledge systems using episternic entrenchment. In orclicu Asperts of If rsorrirrg bout knoirclge: Procccdings of Ihr,5ccorul onfr rncr. Morgan Kaufniann. Asilomar. A, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ronald Fagin. Jeffrey. I’llnian, and loshe Y. Aardi. On the semantics of updates in databases. in.2td;i(’.1.5’IG.1(’7’-SHaD,Symposium on I’riiiciplc.s of Dulobusc Sys1. pages:152 36.5.,Atlantn. 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    André Fuhrnrann. Theory coni Tact ion t hrougli base contract ion..lorrrnnl oJ. Philosophical Logic. 20: 175–293. 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sven O. Ilaunson. Flicf badynamics. docloral lissertalion. ppsrda liniversitv. Sweden. 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hernhard Nebel. A knowledge level analysis of belief. revision. In li. I3rach- man, H..1. Leveslue, and R. Reiter. editors, l’rinciph.s of krrowl(dgr lfr prrsentu,tion und lfcasonirrg: l’rocc((lírrgs of lhr onh.crrce. pages 301–311, Toronto. ON. May 1989. Morgan lianfnrniu.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Bernhard Nebel. Belief revision and default reasoning: Svntax-based approaches. In.1. A. Allen. R. hikes, and E. Sandewall. editors. Principle of Knoc’ic lge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedirrg.s of the nrl International Conference. pages 117–125. Cambridge. MA. April 1991. Morgan haufrnann.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hans Rott. Belief contraction in the coin ext of the general theory of rational choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic. 58, December 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Niukesh Dalal. Investigations inio a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In AAAi-SS [25], pages –lift 179.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Pet er Cârdenfors. Belief revision: An introduction. In (;ärdenfors [3]. pages 1–98.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    flans Roth. Two methods of construct ing contract ions and revisions of knowledge systems. Journal of Logic. 20: i 19–173. 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Bernhard Nebel. Reasoning and Rrtvsion in Hybrid Heprr.yrntalion tigstrm.9. volume 422 of Lcciurr:Voles irr.lrl ficial lnirlligcrrce. Springer-Verlag. Betlira, Heidelberg_ New fork. 1990.Google Scholar
  18. I8] Gerhard lirewka. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Procerdings of the 11th International Join((’onfrrrnc(ora:lc/ icinl Inh//igcnrr pages 111–13 1(118. Detroit. Ml. August 1989.:Morgan haufntann.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Mai.thew L. Ginsberg. Counterfactnais. Artificial Inlclliyrncr, 30 (1): 38–79. October 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    David S..lohnson. A catalog of complexity classes. ln J. van Leeuwen. editor. Handbook of 7’heorelical Computer Science. l’ol..I, pages (ii 161. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Thomas Filer and Georg Got lob. On he complexity of propositioual knowledge hase revision, updates. and counterfactuals..Irlificial In/clligcncc, 57. 227–270, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Marianne S. AVinslel t. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In AAA I-SS [25], pages 59–93.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    N. Rescher. l’hr Cohcrcncc J’hcory of Jr ullri. Oxford University Press, Oxford, lih, 1973.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hans Rot t. A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision 1. ln 21. Fuhrmaun and M. Morreau. editors. The Logic of 1’hcor,y Chang(. volume -16:5 of Lcctrrre.Yotcs in Artificial Intcllignrcc, pages 1.3:5–1 3. Springer-V-erlag. Berlin. Heidelberg. New York. 1991.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Mary-Anne Williams. Transrnratations of Anowlcdgr.S’y4rnn.s. Phl) thesis. University of Sydney. Australia. 1994.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. I?pisternic eutrencluncnt and possibilistic logic. Artificial Intcllign acc. 50: 22: 3–239, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. Belief change and possibility theory. In (drdenfors [3]. pages 112–182.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Procrcdings of the Mt…Votiorml Confirmer of the:I nrrricon.Is.socirtion for 1 rtrfid of lniclligrnce. Saint Paul. 1i1. August 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Nebel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations