1,218 research outputs found
On Strengthening the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision: Proper Ordinal Interval Operators
Darwiche and Pearl’s seminal 1997 article outlined a number of baseline principles for a logic of iterated belief revision. These principles, the DP postulates, have been supplemented in a number of alternative ways. Most suggestions have resulted in a form of ‘reductionism’ that identifies belief states with orderings of worlds. However, this position has recently been criticised as being unacceptably strong. Other proposals, such as the popular principle (P), aka ‘Independence’, characteristic of ‘admissible’ operators, remain commendably more modest. In this paper, we supplement the DP postulates and (P) with a number of novel conditions. While the DP postulates constrain the relation between a prior and a posterior conditional belief set, our new principles notably govern
the relation between two posterior conditional belief sets obtained from a common prior by different revisions. We show that operators from the resulting family, which subsumes both lexicographic and restrained revision, can be represented as relating belief states associated with a ‘proper ordinal interval’ (POI) assignment, a structure more fine-grained than a simple ordering of worlds. We close the paper by noting that these operators satisfy iterated versions of many AGM era postulates, including Superexpansion, that are not sound for admissible operators in general
A Program-Level Approach to Revising Logic Programs under the Answer Set Semantics
An approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics
is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets
that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental
principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach
here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that A is in K
* A. By analogy with the success postulate, for programs P and Q, this means
that the answer sets of Q will in some sense be contained in those of P * Q.
The essential idea is that for P * Q, a three-valued answer set for Q,
consisting of positive and negative literals, is first determined. The positive
literals constitute a regular answer set, while the negated literals make up a
minimal set of naf literals required to produce the answer set from Q. These
literals are propagated to the program P, along with those rules of Q that are
not decided by these literals. The approach differs from work in update logic
programs in two main respects. First, we ensure that the revising logic program
has higher priority, and so we satisfy the success postulate; second, for the
preference implicit in a revision P * Q, the program Q as a whole takes
precedence over P, unlike update logic programs, since answer sets of Q are
propagated to P. We show that a core group of the AGM postulates are satisfied,
as are the postulates that have been proposed for update logic programs
Decrement Operators in Belief Change
While research on iterated revision is predominant in the field of iterated
belief change, the class of iterated contraction operators received more
attention in recent years. In this article, we examine a non-prioritized
generalisation of iterated contraction. In particular, the class of weak
decrement operators is introduced, which are operators that by multiple steps
achieve the same as a contraction. Inspired by Darwiche and Pearl's work on
iterated revision the subclass of decrement operators is defined. For both,
decrement and weak decrement operators, postulates are presented and for each
of them a representation theorem in the framework of total preorders is given.
Furthermore, we present two sub-types of decrement operators
A Method for Reasoning about other Agents\u27 Beliefs from Observations
Traditional work in belief revision deals with the question of what an agent should believe upon receiving new information. We will give an overview about what can be concluded about an agent based on an observation of its belief revision behaviour. The observation contains partial information about the revision inputs received by the agent and its beliefs upon receiving them. We will sketch a method for reasoning about past and future beliefs of the agent and predicting which inputs it accepts and rejects. The focus of this talk will be on different degrees of incompleteness of the observation and variants of the general question we are able to deal with
Admissible and Restrained Revision
As partial justification of their framework for iterated belief revision
Darwiche and Pearl convincingly argued against Boutiliers natural revision and
provided a prototypical revision operator that fits into their scheme. We show
that the Darwiche-Pearl arguments lead naturally to the acceptance of a smaller
class of operators which we refer to as admissible. Admissible revision ensures
that the penultimate input is not ignored completely, thereby eliminating
natural revision, but includes the Darwiche-Pearl operator, Nayaks
lexicographic revision operator, and a newly introduced operator called
restrained revision. We demonstrate that restrained revision is the most
conservative of admissible revision operators, effecting as few changes as
possible, while lexicographic revision is the least conservative, and point out
that restrained revision can also be viewed as a composite operator, consisting
of natural revision preceded by an application of a "backwards revision"
operator previously studied by Papini. Finally, we propose the establishment of
a principled approach for choosing an appropriate revision operator in
different contexts and discuss future work
07351 Abstracts Collection -- Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents
From 26.08. to 30.08.2007, the Dagstuhl Seminar 07351 ``Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl.
During the seminar, several participants presented their current
research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of
the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of
seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section
describes the seminar topics and goals in general.
Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available
On strengthening the logic of iterated belief revision: proper ordinal interval operators
Darwiche and Pearl’s seminal 1997 article outlined a number of baseline principles for a logic of iterated belief revision. These principles, the DP postulates, have been supplemented in a number of alternative ways. However, most of the suggestions for doing so have been radical enough to result in a dubious ‘reductionist’ principle that identifies belief states with orderings of worlds. The present paper offers a more modest strengthening of Darwiche and Pearl’s proposal. While the DP postulates constrain the relation between a prior and a posterior conditional belief set, our new principles govern the relation between two posterior conditional belief sets obtained from a common prior by different revisions. We show that operators from the family that these principles characterise, which subsumes both lexicographic and restrained revision, can be represented as relating belief states that are associated with a ‘proper ordinal interval’ assignment, a structure more fine-grained than a simple ordering of worlds. We close the paper by noting that these operators satisfy iterated versions of a large number of AGM era postulates
A Brief History of Updates of Answer-Set Programs
Funding Information: The authors would like to thank José Alferes, Martin Baláz, Federico Banti, Antonio Brogi, Martin Homola, Luís Moniz Pereira, Halina Przymusinska, Teodor C. Przymusinski, and Theresa Swift, with whom they worked on the topic of this paper over the years, as well as Ricardo Gonçalves and Matthias Knorr for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which greatly helped us improve this paper. The authors were partially supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through projects FORGET (PTDC/CCI-INF/32219/2017) and RIVER (PTDC/CCI-COM/30952/2017), and strategic project NOVA LINCS (UIDB/04516/2020). Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.Over the last couple of decades, there has been a considerable effort devoted to the problem of updating logic programs under the stable model semantics (a.k.a. answer-set programs) or, in other words, the problem of characterising the result of bringing up-to-date a logic program when the world it describes changes. Whereas the state-of-the-art approaches are guided by the same basic intuitions and aspirations as belief updates in the context of classical logic, they build upon fundamentally different principles and methods, which have prevented a unifying framework that could embrace both belief and rule updates. In this paper, we will overview some of the main approaches and results related to answer-set programming updates, while pointing out some of the main challenges that research in this topic has faced.publishersversionpublishe
On strengthening the logic of iterated belief revision: Proper ordinal interval operators
Darwiche and Pearl’s seminal 1997 article outlined a number
of baseline principles for a logic of iterated belief revision.
These principles, the DP postulates, have been supplemented
in a number of alternative ways. Most suggestions have resulted
in a form of ‘reductionism’ that identifies belief states
with orderings of worlds. However, this position has recently
been criticised as being unacceptably strong. Other proposals,
such as the popular principle (P), aka ‘Independence’, characteristic
of ‘admissible’ operators, remain commendably more
modest. In this paper, we supplement the DP postulates and
(P) with a number of novel conditions. While the DP postulates
constrain the relation between a prior and a posterior
conditional belief set, our new principles notably govern
the relation between two posterior conditional belief sets obtained
from a common prior by different revisions. We show
that operators from the resulting family, which subsumes both
lexicographic and restrained revision, can be represented as
relating belief states associated with a ‘proper ordinal interval’
(POI) assignment, a structure more fine-grained than a
simple ordering of worlds. We close the paper by noting that
these operators satisfy iterated versions of many AGM era
postulates, including Superexpansion, that are not sound for
admissible operators in general
- …