The expressive power of logic is believed to be able to model most of the fundamental aspects of information retrieval. However, it is also understood that classical logic is ineffective for handling partiality and uncertainty in IR. Applying non-classical logics such as the AGM belief revision logic and the possibilistic logic to adaptive information retrieval is appealing since they provide a powerful and rigorous framework to model partiality and uncertainty inherent in any IR processes. The maxi-adjustment method, which is an (...) effective computational apparatus of the AGM paradigm, is applied to develop the learning components of the adaptive information agents. Essentially, maxi-adjustment allows the partial representation K of a user's information needs N to be refined gradually based on the user's relevance feedback t. Generally speaking, learning in adaptive information agents is characterised by the AGM belief revision Kt*. On the other hand, possibilistic logic supports a gradated assessment of the uncertainty arising from matching K with the imperfect characterisation d of an information object D. Information matching in adaptive information agents is underpinned by K ƕ d, where ƕ is the possibilistic inference relation. This paper illustrates how maxi-adjustment and possibilistic deduction can be applied to develop the adaptive information agents. Their impact on the agents learning autonomy and explanatory power is also discussed. (shrink)

Belief revision theories aim to model the dynamics of epistemic states. Besides beliefs, epistemic states comprise most importantly justificational structures. Typically, belief revision theories, however, model the dynamics of beliefs while neglecting justificational structures over and above logical relations. Despite some awareness that this approach is problematic, how devastating the consequences of this neglect are has not yet been fully grasped. In this paper, I argue that taking justificational structures into account could solve four well-known problems of belief revision.

This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reasoning they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and (...) on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research. (shrink)