Ranking kinematics for revising by contextual information

Probability 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

A conditional perspective of belief revision

Belief Revision is a subarea of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) that investigates how to rationally revise an intelligent agent's beliefs in response to new information. There are several approaches to belief revision, but one well-known approach is the AGM model, which is rooted in work by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson. This model provides a set of axioms defining desirable properties of belief revision operators, which manipulate the agent's belief set represented as a set of propositional formulas. A famous extension to the classical AGM framework of Belief Revision is Darwiche and Pearl's approach to iterated belief revision. They uncovered that the key to rational behavior under iteration is adequate preservation of conditional beliefs, i.e., beliefs the agent is willing to accept in light of (hypothetical) new information. Therefore, they introduced belief revision operators modifying the agent's belief state, built from conditional beliefs. Kern-Isberner fully axiomatized a principle of conditional preservation for belief revision, which captures the core of adequate treatment of conditional beliefs during the revision. This powerful axiom provides the necessary conceptual framework for revising belief states with sets of conditionals as input, and it shows that conditional beliefs are subtle but essential for studying the process of belief revision. This thesis provides a conditional perspective of Belief Revision for different belief revision scenarios. In the first part, we introduce and investigate a notion of locality for belief revision operators on the semantic level. Hence, we exploit the unique features of conditionals, which allow us to set up local cases and revise according to these cases, s.t., the complexity of the revision task is reduced significantly. In the second part, we consider the general setting of belief revision with respect to additional meta-information accompanying the input information. We demonstrate the versatility and flexibility of conditionals as input for belief revision operators by reducing the parameterized input to a conditional one for two well-known parameterized belief revision operators who are similarly motivated but very different in their technical execution. Our results show that considering conditional beliefs as input for belief revision operators provides a gateway to new insights into the dynamics of belief revision

Generalized belief change with imprecise probabilities and graphical models

We provide a theoretical investigation of probabilistic belief revision in complex frameworks, under extended conditions of uncertainty, inconsistency and imprecision. We motivate our kinematical approach by specializing our discussion to probabilistic reasoning with graphical models, whose modular representation allows for efficient inference. Most results in this direction are derived from the relevant work of Chan and Darwiche (2005), that first proved the inter-reducibility of virtual and probabilistic evidence. Such forms of information, deeply distinct in their meaning, are extended to the conditional and imprecise frameworks, allowing further generalizations, e.g. to experts' qualitative assessments. Belief aggregation and iterated revision of a rational agent's belief are also explored

Towards a belief revision based adaptive and context sensitive information retrieval system

In an adaptive information retrieval (IR) setting, the information seekers' beliefs about which terms are relevant or nonrelevant will naturally fluctuate. This article investigates how the theory of belief revision can be used to model adaptive IR. More specifically, belief revision logic provides a rich representation scheme to formalize retrieval contexts so as to disambiguate vague user queries. In addition, belief revision theory underpins the development of an effective mechanism to revise user profiles in accordance with information seekers' changing information needs. It is argued that information retrieval contexts can be extracted by means of the information-flow text mining method so as to realize a highly autonomous adaptive IR system. The extra bonus of a belief-based IR model is that its retrieval behavior is more predictable and explanatory. Our initial experiments show that the belief-based adaptive IR system is as effective as a classical adaptive IR system. To our best knowledge, this is the first successful implementation and evaluation of a logic-based adaptive IR model which can efficiently process large IR collections

Desire, belief, and conditional belief

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2008.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-132).This dissertation studies the logics of value and conditionals, and the question of whether they should be given cognitivist analyses. Emotivist theories treat value judgments as expressions of desire, rather than beliefs about goodness. Inference ticket theories of conditionals treat them as expressions of conditional beliefs, rather than propositions. The two issues intersect in decision theory, where judgments of expected goodness are expressible by means of decision-making conditionals. In the first chapter, I argue that decision theory cannot be given a Humean foundation by means of money pump arguments, which purport to show that the transitivity of preference and indifference is a requirement of instrumental reason. Instead, I argue that Humeans should treat the constraints of decision theory as constitutive of the nature of preferences. Additionally, I argue that transitivity of preference is a stricter requirement than transitivity of indifference. In the second chapter, I investigate whether David Lewis has shown that decision theory is incompatible with anti-Humean theories of desire. His triviality proof against "desire as belief' seems to show that desires can be at best conditional beliefs about goodness. I argue that within causal decision theory we can articulate the cognitivist position where desires align with beliefs about goodness, articulated by the decision making conditional. In the third chapter, I turn to conditionals in their own right, and especially iterated conditionals.(cont.) I defend the position that indicative conditionals obey the import-export equivalence rather than modus ponens (except for simple conditionals), while counterfactual subjunctive conditionals do obey modus ponens. The logic of indicative conditionals is often thought to be determined by conditional beliefs via the Ramsey Test. I argue that iterated conditionals show that the conditional beliefs involved in indicative supposition diverge from the conditional beliefs involved in learning, and that half of the Ramsey Test is untenable for iterated conditionals.by David Jeffrey Etlin.Ph.D

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