×

Belief base change as priority change: a study based on dynamic epistemic logic. (English) Zbl 1528.68365

Summary: AGM’s belief revision is one of the main paradigms in the study of belief change operations. In this context, belief bases (prioritised bases) have been primarily used to specify the agent’s belief state. While the connection of iterated AGM-like operations and their encoding in dynamic epistemic logics have been studied before, few works considered how well-known postulates from iterated belief revision theory can be characterised by means of belief bases. Particularly, it has been shown that some postulates can be characterised through transformations in priority graphs, while others may not be represented that way. This work investigates the expressive power of prioritized bases, employing priority graphs as a representation for an agent’s belief state and of transformations on such bases as representations for iterated relational belief change operators. As such, we propose a new representation for an agent’s belief state, which we show can be used to characterize different iterated belief change postulates not previously representable using transformations on priority graphs.

MSC:

68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
03B42 Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)
68T30 Knowledge representation
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Hansson, S. O., In defense of base contraction, Synthese, 91, 239-245 (1992) · Zbl 0760.03009
[2] Alchourrón, C. E.; Gärdenfors, P.; Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, J. Symb. Log., 50, 510-530 (1985) · Zbl 0578.03011
[3] Williams, M.-A., On the logic of theory base change, (Logics in Artificial Intelligence (1994), Springer: Springer New York, US), 86-105 · Zbl 0988.03512
[4] Hansson, S. O., Kernel contraction, J. Symb. Log., 59, 845-859 (1994) · Zbl 0810.03017
[5] Fermé, E.; Garapa, M.; Reis, M. D.L., On ensconcement and contraction, J. Log. Comput., 27, 2011-2042 (2017) · Zbl 1444.03028
[6] Fermé, E.; Krevneris, M.; Reis, M., An axiomatic characterization of ensconcement-based contraction, J. Symb. Log., 18, 739-753 (2008) · Zbl 1169.03016
[7] Darwiche, A.; Pearl, J., On the logic of iterated belief revision, Artif. Intell., 89, 1-29 (1997) · Zbl 1018.03012
[8] Nayak, A. C.; Pagnucco, M.; Peppas, P., Dynamic belief revision operators, Artif. Intell., 146, 193-228 (2003) · Zbl 1082.03503
[9] Chopra, S.; Ghose, A.; Meyer, T.; Wong, K.-S., Iterated belief change and the recovery axiom, J. Philos. Log., 37, 501-520 (2008) · Zbl 1175.03003
[10] Ramachandran, R.; Nayak, A. C.; Orgun, M. A., Three approaches to iterated belief contraction, J. Philos. Log., 41, 115-142 (2012) · Zbl 1248.03029
[11] Andréka, H.; Ryan, M.; Schobbens, P.-Y., Operators and laws for combining preference relations, J. Log. Comput., 12, 13-53 (2002) · Zbl 1008.91027
[12] Liu, F., Reasoning about Preference Dynamics, vol. 354 (2011), Springer: Springer New York, US · Zbl 1230.03003
[13] Levesque, H. J., A logic of implicit and explicit belief, (Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1984), AAAI Press: AAAI Press Palo Alto, US), 198-202
[14] Van Benthem, J.; Grossi, D.; Liu, F., Priority structures in deontic logic, Theoria, 80, 116-152 (2014)
[15] Lorini, E., In praise of belief bases: doing epistemic logic without possible worlds, (Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2018))
[16] Rott, H., Shifting priorities: simple representations for twenty-seven iterated theory change operators, (Towards Mathematical Philosophy (2009)), 269-296 · Zbl 1159.03012
[17] Souza, M.; Moreira, A.; Vieira, R.; Meyer, J.-J. C., Preference and priorities: a study based on contraction, (KR 2016 (2016), AAAI Press), 155-164
[18] Souza, M., Choices that make you change your mind: a dynamic epistemic logic approach to the semantics of BDI agent programming languages (2016), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Ph.D. thesis
[19] Souza, M.; Moreira, Á.; Vieira, R., Iterated belief base revision: a dynamic epistemic logic approach, (Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2019), AAAI Press), 3076-3083
[20] Ribeiro, M. M.; Wassermann, R., Base revision for ontology debugging, J. Log. Comput., 19, 721-743 (2008) · Zbl 1194.68230
[21] Schwind, N.; Konieczny, S.; Lagniez, J.-M.; Marquis, P., On computational aspects of iterated belief change, (Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Seventeenth Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-PRICAI-20}, International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization (2020)), 1770-1776
[22] Souza, M.; Moreira, Á., Bringing belief base change into dynamic epistemic logic, (International Workshop on Dynamic Logic (2019), Springer), 190-205 · Zbl 1496.03077
[23] Boutilier, C., Revision sequences and nested conditionals, (Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 93 (1993), Morgan Kaufmann: Morgan Kaufmann New York, US), 519-531
[24] Grove, A., Two modelings for theory change, J. Philos. Log., 17, 157-170 (1988) · Zbl 0639.03025
[25] Lewis, D., Counterfactuals (2013), John Wiley & Sons: John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, US · Zbl 0989.03003
[26] Rott, H., ‘Just because’: taking belief bases seriously, (Hájek, P.; Pudlák, P.; Buss, Samuel R., Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 13 (1998), Association for Symbolic Logic: Association for Symbolic Logic Urbana, US), 387-408 · Zbl 0942.03025
[27] Reis, M. D.L., On the interrelation between systems of spheres and epistemic entrenchment relations, Log. J. IGPL, 22, 126-146 (2014) · Zbl 1342.03016
[28] Girard, P., Modal logic for belief and preference change (2008), Stanford University, Ph.D. thesis
[29] Girard, P.; Rott, H., Belief revision and dynamic logic, (Johan Van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics (2014), Springer: Springer New York, US), 203-233 · Zbl 1408.03008
[30] Souza, M.; Moreira, Á.; Vieira, R., Dynamic preference logic as a logic of belief change, (International Workshop on Dynamic Logic (2017), Springer), 185-200 · Zbl 1499.03015
[31] Van Benthem, J.; Girard, P.; Roy, O., Everything else being equal: a modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences, J. Philos. Log., 38, 83-125 (2009) · Zbl 1171.03009
[32] Baltag, A.; Smets, S., A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision, Texts Log. Games, 3, 9-58 (2008) · Zbl 1261.03077
[33] Blackburn, P.; van Benthem, J. F.; Wolter, F., Handbook of Modal Logic, vol. 3 (2006), Elsevier: Elsevier Amsterdam, NL
[34] Gärdenfors, P.; Makinson, D., Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment, (Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (1988), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.), 83-95 · Zbl 0711.03009
[35] Georgatos, K., To preference via entrenchment, Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 96, 141-155 (1999) · Zbl 0956.03012
[36] Freund, M., Injective models and disjunctive relations, J. Log. Comput., 3, 231-247 (1993) · Zbl 0788.03032
[37] Kraus, S.; Lehmann, D.; Magidor, M., Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artif. Intell., 44, 167-207 (1990) · Zbl 0782.03012
[38] Kaci, S.; Van Der Torre, L., Non-monotonic reasoning with various kinds of preferences, (Proceedings of First Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling (2005)), 112-117
[39] Friedman, N.; Halpern, J. Y., On the complexity of conditional logics, (Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (1994), Elsevier), 202-213
[40] Lang, J.; Van der Torre, L.; Weydert, E., Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires, (Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2003), Morgan Kaufmann: Morgan Kaufmann New York, US), 685-690
[41] Souza, M.; Moreira, A.; Vieira, R.; Meyer, J.-J. C., A dynamic preference logic for reasoning about agent programming, (2017 Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) (2017), IEEE), 133-138
[42] Souza, M.; Moreira, Á.; Vieira, R., Generalized iterated belief change in dynamic epistemic logic, (2019 8th Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) (2019), IEEE), 693-698
[43] Souza, M.; Vieira, R.; Moreira, Á., Dynamic preference logic meets iterated belief change: representation results and postulates characterization, Theor. Comput. Sci. (2020)
[44] Ribeiro, J. S.; Nayak, A.; Wassermann, R., Belief change and non-monotonic reasoning sans compactness, (Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33 (2019)), 3019-3026
[45] Flouris, G.; Plexousakis, D.; Antoniou, G., On applying the AGM theory to DLs and OWL, (ISWC (2005)), 216-231
[46] Lindström, S.; Rabinowicz, W., Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision, (The Logic of Theory Change (1991), Springer), 93-126 · Zbl 0925.03128
[47] Levi, I., Mild Contraction: Evaluating Loss of Information Due to Loss of Belief (2004), Oxford University Press on Demand
[48] Olsson, E. J., Lindström and Rabinowicz on relational belief revision, (Hommage á Wlodek. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz (2007))
[49] Hansson, S. O., Belief contraction without recovery, Stud. Log., 50, 251-260 (1991) · Zbl 0748.03008
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.