Incorporating Belief Merging into Relevance-Sensitive Belief Structures
Pages 8 - 13
Abstract
Belief structures have been introduced by Chopra and Parikh as a well-behaved and relevance-sensitive model that is perfectly suitable for representing the beliefs of resource-bounded agents. In this paper, we point out that belief structures are compatible with all the rationality-postulates for belief revision, proposed by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson, combined with a popular relevance-sensitive principle, proposed independently by Parikh. This conclusion was unknown, since Chopra and Parikh considered in their original work only a portion of the rationality-postulates for belief revision. Furthermore, we incorporate the well-studied process of belief merging into the belief-structures model, and show how this approach rationally eliminates undesired inconsistencies arising when reasoning with or revising belief structures, and leads to an increased coherence of such structures.
References
[1]
Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 2 (1985), 510–530.
[2]
Theofanis Aravanis, Pavlos Peppas, and Mary-Anne Williams. 2020. A study of possible-worlds semantics of relevance-sensitive belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 30 (2020), 1125–1142.
[3]
Theofanis I. Aravanis, Pavlos Peppas, and Mary-Anne Williams. 2019. Full characterization of Parikh’s relevance-sensitive axiom for belief revision. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 66 (2019), 765–792.
[4]
Samir Chopra and Rohit Parikh. 2000. Relevance sensitive belief structures. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 28, 1–4(2000), 259–285.
[5]
James Delgrande and Pavlos Peppas. 2018. Incorporating relevance in epistemic states in belief revision. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2018). 230–239.
[6]
Peter Gärdenfors. 1988. Knowledge in Flux – Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[7]
Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto Mendelzon. 1991. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52, 3 (1991), 263–294.
[8]
Gabriele Kern-Isberner and Gerhard Brewka. 2017. Strong syntax splitting for iterated belief revision. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017). 1131–1137.
[9]
Sébastien Konieczny and Ramón Pino Pérez. 2002. Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12, 5 (2002), 773–808.
[10]
Sébastien Konieczny and Ramón Pino Pérez. 2011. Logic based merging. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40 (2011), 239–270.
[11]
David Makinson. 2009. Propositional relevance through letter-sharing. Journal of Applied Logic 7 (2009), 377–387.
[12]
Rohit Parikh. 1999. Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. In Logic, Language and Computation, Lawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Maarten de Rijke (Eds.). Vol. 2. CSLI Publications, 266–278.
[13]
Rohit Parikh. 2011. Beth definability, interpolation and language splitting. Synthese 179(2011), 211–221.
[14]
Pavlos Peppas. 2008. Belief revision. In Handbook of Knowledge Representation, Frank van Harmelen, Vladimir Lifschitz, and Bruce Porter (Eds.). Elsevier Science, 317–359.
[15]
Pavlos Peppas, Mary-Anne Williams, Samir Chopra, and Norman Foo. 2015. Relevance in belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 229 (2015), 126–138.
Index Terms
- Incorporating Belief Merging into Relevance-Sensitive Belief Structures
Recommendations
Generalizing Parikh’s Criterion for Relevance-Sensitive Belief Revision
Parikh proposed his relevance-sensitive axiom to remedy the weakness of the classical AGM paradigm in addressing relevant change. An insufficiency of Parikh’s criterion, however, is its dependency on the contingent beliefs of a belief set to be revised, ...
Relevance-Sensitive Belief Revision in the Realm of Partial Preorders
PCI '21: Proceedings of the 25th Pan-Hellenic Conference on InformaticsThe AGM paradigm, proposed by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson, constitutes a prominent formal framework that models rational belief revision. Parikh formulated an additional constraint, encoded in the so-called axiom (P), which strengthens the AGM ...
General Belief Revision
In artificial intelligence, a key question concerns how an agent may rationally revise its beliefs in light of new information. The standard (AGM) approach to belief revision assumes that the underlying logic contains classical propositional logic. This ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2022
414 pages
ISBN:9781450398541
DOI:10.1145/3575879
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 29 March 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
PCI 2022
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 190 of 390 submissions, 49%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 94Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)65
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 01 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in