On the logic of iterated belief revision
Artificial Intelligence 89:1-29 (1997)
| Abstract | We show in this paper that the AGM postulates are too weak to ensure the rational preservation of conditional beliefs during belief revision, thus permitting improper responses to sequences of observations. We remedy this weakness by proposing four additional postulates, which are sound relative to a qualitative version of probabilistic conditioning. Contrary to the AGM framework, the proposed postulates characterize belief revision as a process which may depend on elements of an epistemic state that are not necessarily captured by a belief set. We also show that a simple modification to the AGM framework can allow belief revision to be a function of epistemic states. We establish a model-based representation theorem which characterizes the proposed postulates and constrains, in turn, the way in which entrenchment orderings may be transformed under iterated belief revision. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDaniel Lehmann, Menachem Magidor & Karl Schlechta (2001). Distance Semantics for Belief Revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (1):295-317.
Mark Jago (2006). Resource-Bounded Belief Revision and Contraction. In P. Torroni, U. Endriss, M. Baldoni & A. Omicini (eds.), Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies III. Springer.
Michael J. Shaffer (2002). Coherence, Justification, and the AGM Theory of Belief Revision. In Yves Bouchard (ed.), Perspectives on Coherentism. Editions du Scribe.
Giacomo Bonanno (2008). Belief Revision in a Temporal Framework. In Krzysztof Apt & Robert van Rooij (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction. Amsterdam University Press.
Craig Boutilier (1996). Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (3):263 - 305.
Jake Chandler (2012). Transmission Failure, AGM-Style. Erkenntnis 78 (2):383-398.
Samir Chopra, Aditya Ghose, Thomas Meyer & Ka-Shu Wong (2008). Iterated Belief Change and the Recovery Axiom. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (5).
Brian Hill (2008). Towards a “Sophisticated” Model of Belief Dynamics. Part II: Belief Revision. Studia Logica 89 (3):291 - 323.
Giacomo Bonanno (2012). Belief Change in Branching Time: AGM-Consistency and Iterated Revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):201-236.
Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi & Nicola Olivetti (2002). Iterated Belief Revision and Conditional Logic. Studia Logica 70 (1):23-47.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-07-31Total downloads50 ( #21,171 of 549,694 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,694 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
