scholarly journals Iterated contraction of propositions and conditionals under the principle of conditional preservation

10.29007/3q8l ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner ◽  
Tanja Bock ◽  
Kai Sauerwald ◽  
Christoph Beierle
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Ranking Function ◽  
Ranking Functions ◽  
Belief Contraction ◽  
Seminal Work ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Iterated Contraction

Research on iterated belief change has focussed mostly on belief revision, only few papers have addressed iterated belief contraction. Most prominently, Darwiche and Pearl published seminal work on iterated belief revision the leading paradigm of which is the so-called principle of conditional preservation. In this paper, we use this principle in a thoroughly axiomatized form to develop iterated belief contraction operators for Spohn's ranking functions. We show that it allows for setting up constructive approaches to tackling the problem of how to contract a ranking function by a proposition or a conditional, respectively, and that semantic principles can also be derived from it for the purely qualitative case.

scholarly journals Ranking kinematics for revising by contextual information

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meliha Sezgin ◽  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner ◽  
Christoph Beierle
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Ranking Functions ◽  
Ramsey Test ◽  
Local Contexts ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Probability Kinematics ◽  
Set Up

AbstractProbability kinematics is a leading paradigm in probabilistic belief change. It is based on the idea that conditional beliefs should be independent from changes of their antecedents’ probabilities. In this paper, we propose a re-interpretation of this paradigm for Spohn’s ranking functions which we call Generalized Ranking Kinematics as a new principle for iterated belief revision of ranking functions by sets of conditional beliefs with respect to their specific subcontext. By taking into account semantical independencies, we can reduce the complexity of the revision task to local contexts. We show that global belief revision can be set up from revisions on the local contexts via a merging operator. Furthermore, we formalize a variant of the Ramsey-Test based on the idea of local contexts which connects conditional and propositional revision in a straightforward way. We extend the belief change methodology of c-revisions to strategic c-revisions which will serve as a proof of concept.

scholarly journals Observations on Darwiche and Pearl's Approach for Iterated Belief Revision

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theofanis Aravanis ◽  
Pavlos Peppas ◽  
Mary-Anne Williams
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Belief State ◽  
Strong Sense ◽  
Preference Ordering ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
Entire Class ◽  
Seminal Work ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Belief States

Notwithstanding the extensive work on iterated belief revision, there is, still, no fully satisfactory solution within the classical AGM paradigm. The seminal work of Darwiche and Pearl (DP approach, for short) remains the most dominant, despite its well-documented shortcomings. In this article, we make further observations on the DP approach. Firstly, we prove that the DP postulates are, in a strong sense, inconsistent with Parikh's relevance-sensitive axiom (P), extending previous initial conflicts. Immediate consequences of this result are that an entire class of intuitive revision operators, which includes Dalal's operator, violates the DP postulates, as well as that the Independence postulate and Spohn's conditionalization are inconsistent with (P). Lastly, we show that the DP postulates allow for more revision polices than the ones that can be captured by identifying belief states with total preorders over possible worlds, a fact implying that a preference ordering (over possible worlds) is an insufficient representation for a belief state.

scholarly journals Belief Update within Propositional Fragments

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 807-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Creignou ◽  
Raïda Ktari ◽  
Odile Papini
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Representation ◽  
Belief Revision ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Belief Contraction ◽  
Belief Merging ◽  
Change Operation ◽  
Horn Fragment

Belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional logic is one of the main and recent challenges in the knowledge representation research area. While previous research works focused on belief revision, belief merging, and belief contraction, the problem of belief update within fragments of classical logic has not been addressed so far. In the context of revision, it has been proposed to refine existing operators so that they operate within propositional fragments, and that the result of revision remains in the fragment under consideration. This approach is not restricted to the Horn fragment but also applicable to other propositional fragments like Krom and affine fragments. We generalize this notion of refinement to any belief change operator. We then focus on a specific belief change operation, namely belief update. We investigate the behavior of the refined update operators with respect to satisfaction of the KM postulates and highlight differences between revision and update in this context.

scholarly journals Belief Change with Uncertain Action Histories

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 779-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Hunter ◽  
James Delgrande
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Ranking Functions ◽  
The World

We consider the iterated belief change that occurs following an alternating sequence of actions and observations. At each instant, an agent has beliefs about the actions that have occurred as well as beliefs about the resulting state of the world. We represent such problems by a sequence of ranking functions, so an agent assigns a quantitative plausibility value to every action and every state at each point in time. The resulting formalism is able to represent fallible belief, erroneous perception, exogenous actions, and failed actions. We illustrate that our framework is a generalization of several existing approaches to belief change, and it appropriately captures the non-elementary interaction between belief update and belief revision.

Belief Contraction in Non-classical logics as Hyperintensional Belief Change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlo Souza ◽  
Renata Wassermann
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Description Logics ◽  
Belief Contraction

AGM's belief revision is one of the main paradigms in the study of belief change operations. Despite its popularity and importance to the area, it is well recognised that AGM's work relies on a strong idealisation of the agent's capabilities and the nature of beliefs themselves. Particularly, it is recognised in the literature that Belief and Knowledge are hyperintensional attitudes, i.e. they can differentiate between contents that are necessarily equivalent, but to our knowledge, only a few works have explicitly considered how hyperintensionality affects belief change. This work investigates abstract operations of hyperintensional belief change and their connection to belief change in non-classical logics, such as belief contraction operations for Horn Logics and Description Logics. Our work points to hyperintensional belief change as a general framework to unify results in belief change for non-classical logics.

scholarly journals Iterated Belief Base Revision: A Dynamic Epistemic Logic Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 3076-3083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlo Souza ◽  
Álvaro Moreira ◽  
Renata Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Dynamic Epistemic Logic ◽  
Belief State ◽  
Revision Operation ◽  
Belief Bases ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Base Revision ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

AGM’s belief revision is one of the main paradigms in the study of belief change operations. In this context, belief bases (prioritised bases) have been largely used to specify the agent’s belief state - whether representing the agent’s ‘explicit beliefs’ or as a computational model for her belief state. While the connection of iterated AGM-like operations and their encoding in dynamic epistemic logics have been studied before, few works considered how well-known postulates from iterated belief revision theory can be characterised by means of belief bases and their counterpart in dynamic epistemic logic. This work investigates how priority graphs, a syntactic representation of preference relations deeply connected to prioritised bases, can be used to characterise belief change operators, focusing on well-known postulates of Iterated Belief Change. We provide syntactic representations of belief change operators in a dynamic context, as well as new negative results regarding the possibility of representing an iterated belief revision operation using transformations on priority graphs.

SOME COMPLETENESS THEOREMS IN THE DYNAMIC DOXASTIC LOGIC OF ITERATED BELIEF REVISION

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRISTER SEGERBERG
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Doxastic Logic ◽  
New Information ◽  
Incoming Information ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Dynamic Doxastic Logic ◽  
Completeness Theorems ◽  
Nested Beliefs

The success of the AGM paradigm—the theory of belief change initiated by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson—is remarkable, as even a quick look at the literature it has generated will testify. But it is also remarkable, at least in hindsight, how limited was the original effort. For example, the theory concerns the beliefs of just one agent; all incoming information is accepted; belief change is uniquely determined by the new information; there is no provision for nested beliefs. And perhaps most surprising: there is no analysis of iterated change.In this paper it is that last restriction that is at issue. Our medium of study is dynamic doxastic logic (DDL). The success of the AGM paradigm The particular contribution of the paper is detailed completeness proofs for three dynamic doxastic logics of iterated belief revision.The problem of extending the AGM paradigm to include iterated change has been discussed for years, but systematic discussions have appeared only recently (see Segerberg, 2007 and forthcoming, but also van Benthem, 2007; Rott, 2006; Zvesper, 2007).

(DIS)BELIEF CHANGE AND ARGUED FEED-BACK DIALOG

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (05) ◽  
pp. 511-538
Author(s):  
LAURENT PERRUSSEL ◽  
JEAN-MARC THÉVENIN
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Preference Relation ◽  
Belief State ◽  
Temporal Aspects ◽  
Incoming Information ◽  
Multi Agent

This paper focuses on the features of belief change in a multi-agent context where agents consider beliefs and disbeliefs. Disbeliefs represent explicit ignorance and are useful to prevent agents to entail conclusions due to their ignorance. Agents receive messages holding information from other agents and change their belief state accordingly. An agent may refuse to adopt incoming information if it prefers its own (dis)beliefs. For this, each agent maintains a preference relation over its own beliefs and disbeliefs in order to decide if it accepts or rejects incoming information whenever inconsistencies occur. This preference relation may be built by considering several criteria such as the reliability of the sender of statements or temporal aspects. This process leads to non-prioritized belief revision. In this context we first present the * and − operators which allow an agent to revise, respectively contract, its belief state in a non-prioritized way when it receives an incoming belief, respectively disbelief. We show that these operators behave properly. Based on this we then illustrate how the receiver and the sender may argue when the incoming (dis)belief is refused. We describe pieces of dialog where (i) the sender tries to convince the receiver by sending arguments in favor of the original (dis)belief and (ii) the receiver justifies its refusal by sending arguments against the original (dis)belief. We show that the notion of acceptability of these arguments can be represented in a simple way by using the non-prioritized change operators * and −. The advantage of argumentation dialogs is twofold. First whenever arguments are acceptable the sender or the receiver reconsider its belief state; the main result is an improvement of the reconsidered belief state. Second the sender may not be aware of some sets of rules which act as constraints to reach a specific conclusion and discover them through argumentation dialogs.

scholarly journals Modeling Belief in Dynamic Systems, Part II: Revision and Update

1999 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Friedman ◽  
J. Y. Halpern
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Belief Revision ◽  
Dynamic Systems ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Companion Paper ◽  
Minimal Change ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Epistemic Modalities ◽  
Over Time ◽  
New Framework

The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In recent years two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief update, have been studied in detail. In a companion paper (Friedman & Halpern, 1997), we introduce a new framework to model belief change. This framework combines temporal and epistemic modalities with a notion of plausibility, allowing us to examine the change of beliefs over time. In this paper, we show how belief revision and belief update can be captured in our framework. This allows us to compare the assumptions made by each method, and to better understand the principles underlying them. In particular, it shows that Katsuno and Mendelzon's notion of belief update (Katsuno & Mendelzon, 1991a) depends on several strong assumptions that may limit its applicability in artificial intelligence. Finally, our analysis allow us to identify a notion of minimal change that underlies a broad range of belief change operations including revision and update.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document