Advertisement

How to change factual beliefs using laws and dependence information

  • Andreas Herzig
Accepted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1244)

Abstract

We investigate how belief change operations can be effectively constructed. To that end we suppose given a set of laws (alias integrity constraints) together with a relation of dependence between formulas.

Keywords

Dependence Relation Belief Revision Traffic Light Belief Base Belief Change 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. D. Cohen. Some steps towards a general theory of relevance. Synthese, 101:171–185, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Didier Dubois, Luis Fariñas del Cerro, Andreas Herzig, and Henri Prade. An ordinal view of independence with applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In Ramon Lopez de Mantaras and David Poole, editors, Proc. Int. Conf. on Uncertainty in AI (UAI'94), pages 1855-203, Seattle, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Robert Demolombe and Andrew Jones. A logic for reasoning about “is about”. Technical report, ONERA-CERT, Toulouse, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Thomas Eiter, Georg Gottlob, and Yuri Gurevich. Curb your theory! a circumscriptive approach for inclusive interpretation of disjunctive information. In Ruzena Bajcsy, editor, Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), pages 640–645. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Luis Fariñas del Cerro and Andreas Herzig. Possibility theory and independence. In Bernadette Bouchon-Meunier, Ronald R. Yager, and Lotfi A. Zadeh, editors, Advances in Intelligent Computing — IPMU'94, Selected Papers, number 945 in LNCS, pages 292–301. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Luis Fariñas del Cerro and Valérie Lugardon. Sequents for dependence logics. Logique et Analyse, 133–134:57–71, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Terrence Fine. Theories of probability. Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. André Fuhrmann. Theory contraction through base contraction. J. of Philosophical Logic, 20:175–203, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. Peter Gärdenfors. On the logic of relevance. Synthese, 37:351–367, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Peter Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. Peter Gärdenfors. Belief revision and irrelevance. PSA, 2:349–356, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. Peter Gärdenfors, editor. Belief revision. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. Sven-Ove Hansson. In defence of the ramsey test. J. of Philosophy, pages 522–540, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Gärdenfors Gär92, pages 183–203. (preliminary version in Allen, J.A., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conf., pages 387–394. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991).Google Scholar
  16. Vladimir Lifschitz. Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence J., 46:365–376, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. V. Lugardon. Sur les fondements de la notion de dépendance et de son application à la théorie de l'action. PhD thesis, Institut de recherche en informatique de Toulouse (IRIT), Université Paul Sabatier, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Pierre Marquis. Knowledge compilation using theory prime implicates. In Proc. 14th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95), pages 837–843, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. Bernhard Nebel. Syntax-based approaches to belief revision. In Gärdenfors Gär92, pages 247–275.Google Scholar
  20. Erik Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), 1993.Google Scholar
  21. Karl Schlechta. Some completeness results for propositional conditional logics. J. of the IGPL, 3(1), 1993. available from http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/igpl/Journal/V3-1/. Krister Segerberg. On the logic of small changes in theories, I. Auckland Philos. Papers, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. Robert Stalnaker. What is a nonmonotonic consequence relation? In (Informal) Working Notes of the 4th Int. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Plymouth, Vermont, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proc. 7th Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), pages 89–93, St. Paul, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Herzig
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse Cedex 4France

Personalised recommendations