Applications of belief revision

  • Mary-Anne Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1472)


Consumer Preference Belief Revision Conjoint Analysis Product Profile World State 
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.
    C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Functions for Contraction and Revision, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(1985): 510–530.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.N. Bolton, and J.H. Drew. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes, Journal of Marketing, 55: 1–9, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Boutilier. Revision Sequences and Nested Conditionals. In the Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 519–525, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.A. Churchill. Marketing Research Methodological Foundations, The Drydon Press, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade. Possibilistic Logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume3, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and uncertain Reasoning, Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., and Robinson, J. (eds), Claredon Press, Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Duffy, C. MacNish, J. McDermid, and P. Morris. A framework for requirements analysis using automated reasoning. In J. Iivari, K. Lyytinen, and M. Rossi, editors, Advanced Information Systems Engineering: Proc. Seventh International Conference, volume LNCS-932, pages 61–81. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford Books, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of Knowledge Systems using Epistemic Entrenchment. In the Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, 83–96, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.E. Green, J. D. Carroll, and F.J. Carmone. Some New Types of Fractional Factorial Designs for Marketing Experiments, in J.N. Sheth (ed), Research in Marketing, Vol 1, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.E. Green and V. Srinivasan. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5: 103–123, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Grove. Two Modellings for Theory Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17(1988): 157–170.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Lang. Possibilistic Logic: Algorithms and Complexity. in J.Kohlas and S. Moral (eds), Handbook of Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Makinson. On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16(1987): 383–394.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Makinson (1994). General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 35–110.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Moschini. Testing for Preference Change in Consumer Demand: An Indirectly Separable, Semiparametric Model, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol 9, No 1, 111–117, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.H. Myers, and W.H. Reynolds, Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Nayak. Iterated Belief Change Based on Epistemic Entrenchment. Erkenntnis 4 (1994): 353–390.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C.K. MacNish and M-A.Williams, From Belief Revision to Design Revision: Applying Theory Change to Changing Requirements. In Learning and Reasoning with Complex Represntations, LNAI, Springer Verlag, 207–222, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Nebel. A Knowledge Level Analysis of Belief Revision. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the First International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 301–311, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Osborne and C. K. MacNish. Processing natural language software requirement specifications. In Proc. ICRE'96: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pages 229–236. IEEE Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Peppas and M.-A. Williams. Constructive modelings for theory change. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 36(1):120–133, 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Spohn. Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States. In Harper, W.L., and Skyrms, B. (eds), Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics, II, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p105–134, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.K. Teas, and W.L. Dellva. Conjoint Measurement of Consumer Preferences for Multiattribute Financial Services, Journal of Bank Research, 16:2, 99–112, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D.S. Tull, and D.I. Hawkins. Marketing Research: Measurement and Method, Fifth edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Williams. 1st DTI/SERC Proteus Project Workshop: Understanding Changing Requirements. Address from industrial participants, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.-A. Williams. Two operators for theory bases, in Proc. Australian Joint Artificial Intelligence Conference, pages 259–265. World Scientific, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M-A. Williams. On the Logic of Theory Base Change. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, C. MacNish, D. Pearce and L.M. Pereira (eds), LNCS No 835, 86–105, Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M-A. Williams. Transmutations of Knowledge Systems, in J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 619–629, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M-A. Williams. Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model, in the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1541–1550, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M-A. Williams. Towards a Practical Approach to Belief Revision: Reason-Based Change, Luigia Carlucci Aiello and C. Shapiro (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 412–421, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M-A. Williams. Anytime Belief Revision, in the Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 74–80, 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M-A. Williams. Belief Revision via Database Update, in the Proceedings of the International Intelligent Information Systems Conference, IEEE Press, 410–415, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M-A. Williams. Belief Revision in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, G. Antoniou, MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M-A. Williams and D.M. Williams. A Belief Revision Systems for the World Wide Web, in the Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, AAAI Press, 39–51, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M-A. Williams and M.J. Polonsky. Belief Revision in Market Research, in the Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Cognitive Science (to appear on CD) 1997.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M.-A. Williams, M. Pagnucco, N. Foo, and B, Sims. Determining explanations using transmutations. In Proc. Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 822–830. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary-Anne Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems, School of ManagementThe University of NewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations