CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Observations on darwiche and Pearl's approach for iterated belief revision
Authors
T Aravanis
P Peppas
MA Williams
Publication date
17 June 2020
Publisher
Doi
Cite
Abstract
© 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
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
OPUS - University of Technology Sydney
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:opus.lib.uts.edu.au:10453/...
Last time updated on 20/06/2020
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 10/08/2021