Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:29:29.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distance semantics for belief revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Daniel Lehmann ,
Menachem Magidor  and
Karl Schlechta
Daniel Lehmann
Affiliation:
Institute of Computer Science, Hebrew University, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel, E-mail: [email protected]
Menachem Magidor
Affiliation:
Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel, E-mail: [email protected]
Karl Schlechta
Affiliation:
Laboratoire d'Informatique de Marseille, CNRS ESA 6077, CMI, 39 Rue Joliot Curie, F-13453 Marseille Cédex 13, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A vast and interesting family of natural semantics lor belief revision is defined. Suppose one is given a distance d between any two models. One may then define the revision of a theory K by a formula α as the theory defined by the set of all those models of α that are closest, by d. to the set of models of K. This family is characterized by a set of rationality postulates that extends the AGM postulates. The new postulates describe properties of iterated revisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 295 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[AGM85]Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 510–530.Google Scholar
[ALS98]Audibert, L., Lhoussaine, C., and Schlechta, K., Distance based revision of preferential logics, Belief Revision Workshop of KR98, Trento, Italy, (1998), p. electronic proceedings.Google Scholar
[Bec95]Becher, V., Unified semantics for revision and update, or the theory of lazy update, 24 Jornadas Argentinas de Informatica e Investigation Operativa, Buenos Aires, (SADIO, 1995), pp. 641–650.Google Scholar
[BGHPSW97]Bellot, D., Godefroid, C., Han, P., Prost, J. P., Schlechta, K., and Wurbel, E., A semantical approach to the concept of screened revision, Theoria, vol. 63, Part 1–2 (1997), pp. 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[BLS99]Berger, S., Lehmann, D., and Schlechta, K., Preferred history semantics for iterated updates, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 9 (1999), no. 6, pp. 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Bor85]Borgida, A., Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 10 (1985), pp. 563–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Bou93]Boutilier, C., Revision sequences and nested conditionals, Proceedings of the 13th UCAI (Bajcsy, R., editor), Morgan Kaufman, 1993, pp. 519–525.Google Scholar
[BG93]Boutilier, C. and Goldszmidt, M., Revision by conditional beliefs, Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Morgan Kaufman, 1993, pp. 649–654.Google Scholar
[Dal88]Dalal, M., Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revisions: Preliminary report, Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp. 475–479.Google Scholar
[DP94]Darwiche, A. and Pearl, J., On the logic of iterated belief revision. Proceedings of the fifth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (Fagin, R., editor), Morgan Kaufman, Pacific Grove, CA, 1994, pp. 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[DP97]Darwiche, A. and Pearl, J., On the logic of iterated belief revision, Journal of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 89 (1997), no. 1–2, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Fre93]Freund, M., Injective models and disjunctive relations, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 31 (1993), no. 3, pp. 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[FL94]Freund, M. and Lehmann, D., Belief revision and rational inference, Technical Report 94-16, The Leibniz Center for Research in Computer Science, Institute of Computer Science, Hebrew University, 1994.Google Scholar
[FH96]Friedman, N. and Halpern, J. Y., Belief revision: A critique, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'96 (Aiello, L. C., Doyle, J., and Shapiro, S., editors), Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1996, pp. 421–431.Google Scholar
[Gar88]Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge influx, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
[GM88]Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (Vardi, M. Y., editor), Morgan Kaufmann, Monterey, California, 1988, pp. 83–95.Google Scholar
[GM94]Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 651 (1994), no. 1, pp. 197–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Gro88]Grove, A., Two modellings for theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 17 (1988), pp. 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KM92]Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O., On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, Belief revision (Gärdenfors, P., editor), Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KLM90]Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., and Magidor, M., Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 44 (1990), no. 1–2, pp. 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Leh95]Lehmann, D., Belief revision, revised, Proceedings of 14th UCAI, Morgan Kaufmann, 1995, pp. 1534–1541.Google Scholar
[LM92]Lehmann, D. and Magidor, M., What does a conditional knowledge base entail?, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 55 (1992), no. 1, pp. 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Lew73]Lewis, D., Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
[NFPS95]Nayak, A., Foo, N. Y., Pagnucco, M., and Sattar, A., Changing conditional belief unconditionally, Proceedings of the sixth conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (Shoham, Y., editor), Morgan Kaufman, 1996, pp. 119–135.Google Scholar
[Sch92]Schlechta, K., Some results on classical preferential models, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 2 (1992), no. 6, pp. 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sch98]Schlechta, K., Unrestricted preferential structures, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 10 (2000), no. 4, pp. 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sch97]Schlechta, K., New techniques and completeness results for preferential structures, this Journal, (to appear).Google Scholar
[SLM96]Schlechta, K., Lehmann, D., and Magidor, M., Distance semantics for belief revision, Proceedings of: Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Tark VI, 1996 (Shoham, Y., editor), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1996, pp. 137–145.Google Scholar
[Wil94]Williams, M. A., Transmutations of knowledge systems, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (Doyle, J., Sandewall, E., and Torasso, P. editors), Morgan Kaufman, 1994, pp. 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar