Abstract
Generalisations of theory change involving operations on arbitrary sets ofwffs instead of on belief sets (i.e., sets closed under a consequencerelation), have become known as base change. In one view, a base should bethought of as providing more structure to its generated belief set, whichmeans that it can be employed to determine the theory contraction operationassociated with a base contraction operation. In this paper we follow suchan approach as the first step in defining infobase change. We think of an infobase as a finite set of wffs consisting of independently obtainedbits of information. Taking AGM theory change (Alchourrón et al. 1985) as the general framework, we present a method that uses the structure of aninfobase B to obtain an AGM theory contraction operation for contractingthe belief set Cn(B). Both the infobase and the obtained theory contraction operation then play a role in constructing a unique infobasecontraction operation. Infobase revision is defined in terms of an analogueof the Levi Identity, and it is shown that the associated theory revisionoperation satisfies the AGM postulates for revision. Because every infobaseis associated with a unique infobase contraction and revision operation, the method also allows for iterated base change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., 1985, “On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510-530.
Borgida, A., 1985, “Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems 10, 563-603.
Boutilier, C., 1994, “Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a modal framework,” Artificial Intelligence 68, 33-85.
Dalal, M., 1988, “Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision,” pp. 475-479 in Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, MN, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Darwiche, A. and Pearl, J., 1997, “On the logic of iterated belief revision,” Artificial Intelligence 89, 1-29.
Fuhrmann, A., 1991, “Theory contraction through base contraction,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 175-203.
Gärdenfors, P., 1988, Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Grove, A., 1988, “Two modellings for theory change,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157-170.
Hansson, S.O., 1989, “New operators for theory change,” Theoria 55, 114-132.
Hansson, S.O., 1992a, “A dyadic representation of belief,” pp. 89-121 in Belief Revision, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansson, S.O., 1992b, “In defense of base contraction,” Synthese 91, 239-245.
Hansson, S.O., 1993, “Reversing the Levi Identity,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 637-669.
Hansson, S.O., 1996, “Knowledge-level analysis of belief base operations,” Artificial Intelligence 82, 215-235.
Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A., 1991, “Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change,” Artificial Intelligence 52, 263-294.
Lehmann, D., 1995, “Belief revision, revised,” pp. 1534-1540 in IJCAI-95, Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, PQ, August 20-25, 1995, Vol. 2, C.S. Mellish, ed., San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nayak, A.C., 1994, “Foundational belief change,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 23, 495-533.
Nebel, B., 1989, “A knowledge level analysis of belief revision,” pp. 301-311 in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, eds., San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nebel, B., 1990, Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 422, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nebel, B., 1991, “Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches,” pp. 417-428 in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference KR' 91), J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, eds., San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nebel, B., 1992, “Syntax-based approaches to belief revision,” pp. 52-88 in Belief Revision, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 29, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rott, H., 1992, “Modellings for belief change: Prioritization and entrenchment,” Theoria 58, 21-57.
Satoh, K., 1988, “Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision,” pp. 455-462 in Proceedings International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo.
Weber, A., 1986, “Updating propositional formulas,” pp. 487-500 in Proceedings First Conference on Expert Database Systems.
Winslett, M., 1988, “Reasoning about action using a possible models approach,” pp. 89-93 in Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, MN, Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, T.A., Labuschagne, W.A. & Heidema, J. Infobase Change: A First Approximation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 353–377 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008308620177
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008308620177