Independence - revision and defaults

We investigate different aspects of independence here, in the context of theory revision, generalizing slightly work by Chopra, Parikh, and Rodrigues, and in the context of preferential reasoning

Observations on darwiche and Pearl's approach for iterated belief revision

© 2019 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. 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

Reason Maintenance - State of the Art

This paper describes state of the art in reason maintenance with a focus on its future usage in the KiWi project. To give a bigger picture of the field, it also mentions closely related issues such as non-monotonic logic and paraconsistency. The paper is organized as follows: first, two motivating scenarios referring to semantic wikis are presented which are then used to introduce the different reason maintenance techniques

Trust as a precursor to belief revision

Belief revision is concerned with incorporating new information into a pre-existing set of beliefs. When the new information comes from another agent, we must first determine if that agent should be trusted. In this paper, we define trust as a pre-processing step before revision. We emphasize that trust in an agent is often restricted to a particular domain of expertise. We demonstrate that this form of trust can be captured by associating a state partition with each agent, then relativizing all reports to this partition before revising. We position the resulting family of trust-sensitive revision operators within the class of selective revision operators of Ferme and Hansson, and we prove a representation result that characterizes the class of trust-sensitive revision operators in terms of a set of postulates. We also show that trust-sensitive revision is manipulable, in the sense that agents can sometimes have incentive to pass on misleading information

HERBAL MEDICINES QUESTIONNAIRE AND EVALUATION OF ATTITUDE, PERCEPTIONS AND SELF-USE AMONG HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS IN RAK, UAE: PILOT STUDY

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the perceptions of different healthcare professionals towards HM. Methods: The 16-item questionnaire on the belief of health care professionals in herbal medicine was designed by the interdisciplinary task force. Eligible participants were health care providers who were English-and Arabic-literate. The response rate was 78% of participants (781 of 1000) were respondents. In total, 553 out of 781 (71%) participants indicated that they had previously used herbal medicines. The remaining 228 participants did not believe in herbal medicine due to lack of scientific evidence, ineffectiveness and other reasons. Results: The findings of this study indicate that health care professionals including pharmacists believe they have a responsibility to provide information on HM to their patients. However, the current consensus among the respondents is that current HM-focused knowledge is inadequate for such an application. Conclusion: Health care professionals believe in using HM for their needs and have a responsibility to provide information on HM to their patients

Computational Complexity of Strong Admissibility for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments arecalled semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. Recently, the notion of strong admissibility has been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we study the computational complexityof the following reasoning tasks under strong admissibility semantics. We address 1. the credulous/skeptical decision problem; 2. the verification problem; 3. the strong justification problem; and 4. the problem of finding a smallest witness of strong justification of a queried argument