Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritized and Non-prioritized Multiple Change on Belief Bases

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we explore multiple change operators, i.e., operators in which the epistemic input is a set of sentences instead of a single sentence. We propose two types of change: prioritized change, in which the input set is fully accepted, and symmetric change, where both the epistemic state and the epistemic input are equally treated. In both kinds of operators we propose a set of postulates and we present different constructions: kernel changes and partial meet changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D. (1986). Maps between different kinds of contraction function: The finite case. Studia Logica, 45, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bienvenu, M. (2009). Prime implicates and prime implicants: From propositional to modal logic. Journal Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 36, 71–128.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bienvenu, M., Herzig, A., & Qi, G. (2008). Prime implicate-based belief revision operators. In 18th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI’2008 (pp. 741–742).

  5. Bittencourt, G., Perrussel, L., & Marchi, J. (2004). A syntactical approach to revision. In 16th Eureopean conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI’2004 (pp. 788–792).

  6. Darwiche, A., & Marquis, P. (2001). A perspective on knowledge compilation. In Seventeenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2001 (pp. 175–182).

  7. Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., & Woltran, S. (2008). Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In G. Brewka, & Lang, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference, KR 2008 (pp. 411–421). AAAI Press.

  8. Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doyle, J. (1992). Reason maintenance and belief revision: Foundations versus coherence theories. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 29–51). Cambridge University Press.

  10. Falappa, M. A., Fermé, E. L., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2006). On the logic of theory change: Relations between incision and selection functions. In Proceedings of ECAI 2006 (pp. 402–406).

  11. Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2004). Belief dynamics and defeasible argumentation in rational agents. In Proceedings of NMR 2004 (pp. 164–170).

  12. Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G., & Simari, G. R. (2002). Belief Revision, Explanations and Defeasible Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 141, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G., & Simari, G. R. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. In I. Rahwan, G. R. Simari (Eds.), Belief revision and argumentation theory (pp. 341–360). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fermé, E. L., & Hansson, S. O. (1998). Selective revision. Studia Logica, 63, 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fermé, E. L., Saez, K., & Sanz, P. (2003). Multiple kernel contraction. Studia Logica, 73(2), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedman, N., & Halpern, J. (1999). Belief revision: A critique. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 8(4), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fuhrmann, A. (1991). Theory contraction through base contraction. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20, 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fuhrmann, A. (1997). An essay on contraction. Studies in logic, language and information. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fuhrmann, A., & Hansson, S. O. (1994). A survey of multiple contractions. The Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 3, 39–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1), 95–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gärdenfors, P. (1982). Rules for rational changes of belief. In Philosophical essays dedicated to L. Åqvist (pp. 88–101).

  22. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1988). Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Second conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (pp. 83–95).

  24. Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief base dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala, Sweden.

  25. Hansson, S. O. (1992). A dyadic representation of belief. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 89–121). Cambridge University Press.

  26. Hansson, S. O. (1993). Reversing the Levi identity. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 637–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansson, S. O. (1994). Kernel contraction. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59, 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansson, S. O. (1997). Semi-revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 7, 151–175.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hansson, S. O. (1998). Revision of belief sets and belief bases. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, 3, 17–75.

  30. Hansson, S. O. (1999). A textbook of belief dymanics: Theory change and database updating. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  31. Hansson, S. O., Fermé, E., Cantwell, J., & Falappa, M. (2001). Credibility limited revision. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(4), 1581–1596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Konieczny, S., & Pino Pérez, R. (1998). On the logic of merging. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, KR 1998 (pp. 488–498).

  33. Konieczny, S., & Pino Pérez, R. (2002). Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5), 773–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Liberatore, P., & Schaerf, M. (1995). Arbitration: A commutative operator for belief revision. In WOCFAI (pp. 217–228).

  35. Liberatore, P., & Schaerf, M. (1998). Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10(1), 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Makinson, D. (1997). Screened revision. Theoria: Special Issue on Non-Prioritized Belief Revision, 63, 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 87–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Niederée, R. (1991). Multiple contraction: A further case against Gärdenfors’ principle of recovery. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 465, 322–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Papadimitriou, C. H. (1994). Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley.

  40. Peppas, P. (2004). The limit assumption and multiple revision. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(3), 355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Quine, W. V. O. (1959). On cores and prime implicants of truth functions. American Mathematics Monthly, 66, 755–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Simari, G. R., & Loui, R. P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 125–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van der Hoek, W., & de Rijke, M. (1999). Interleaved contractions. Logic, Language and Computation, 2, 106–127.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Weiss, G. (Ed.) (1999). Multiagent systems: A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang, D., & Foo, N. (2001). Infinitary belief revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30(6), 525–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bahía Blanca, Argentina

    Marcelo A. Falappa & Guillermo R. Simari

  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Marcelo A. Falappa

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Gabriele Kern-Isberner

  4. Centro de Ciências Exactas e da Engenharia and Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, Universidade da Madeira, Funchal, Portugal

    Maurício D. L. Reis

Authors
  1. Marcelo A. Falappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriele Kern-Isberner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maurício D. L. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guillermo R. Simari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo A. Falappa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falappa, M.A., Kern-Isberner, G., Reis, M.D.L. et al. Prioritized and Non-prioritized Multiple Change on Belief Bases. J Philos Logic 41, 77–113 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9200-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9200-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation