Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision and Updates in Possibly Action-Occurrence-Incomplete Narratives

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10621))

  • 1066 Accesses

Abstract

We propose a framework for integrating belief revision with action narratives whose observations about properties of the world might be inaccurate. We define the notion of an acceptable revision of a narrative as a sequence of revision-candidate formulas which is used in revising the observations and creates a consistent narrative. We propose a more preferred relation among revisions and prove that this relation is transitive and irreflexive. We also define a notion of most preferred models of a narrative when likelihood of action occurrences are available and discuss an alternative characterization that takes into consideration preferences over revisions. We show that the more preferred relation among models is also transitive and irreflexive. We conclude the paper with a discussion on the related work.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that a fluent formula \(\varphi \) can be equivalently represented as a static causal law \(\varphi \mathbf{if}\top \).

  2. 2.

    \(s_1\) is strictly closer to s than \(s_2\) if \(s_1 \setminus s \cup s \setminus s_1 \subset s_2 \setminus s \cup s \setminus s_2\).

  3. 3.

    The discussion on whether these postulates need to be satisfied is outside the scope of this paper. The formalization in this paper is generic and can be used with any belief revision operator.

  4. 4.

    Note that \(\mathbf {f}(Cn(\psi {\cup } K_D))\) can be a proper subset of the set of fluents \(\mathbf {F}\).

  5. 5.

    For simplicity of the representation, we still use formula (8) in our discussion.

  6. 6.

    In our notations, a situation represents a snapshot of the world rather than an action sequence.

  7. 7.

    We note that the definitions of action theories and narrative in [2] are slightly different from their counterparts in this paper.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Diagnostic reasoning with A-prolog. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 3(4–5), 425–461 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baltag, A., Smets, S.: A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In: Proceedings of 7th LOFT. Texts in Logic and Games 3, pp. 13–60. Amsterdam University Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baral, C.: Reasoning about actions : non-deterministic effects, constraints and qualification. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2017–2023. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing actions: laws, observations and hypothesis. J. Log. Program. 31(1–3), 201–243 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Baral, C., McIlraith, S., Son, T.C.: Formulating diagnostic problem solving using an action language with narratives and sensing. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge and Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pp. 311–322 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Benthem, J.: Dynamic logic of belief revision. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 17(2), 129–155 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Boutilier, C.: Generalized update: belief change in dynamic settings. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence -Volume 2, IJCAI 1995, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 20–25 August 1995, pp. 1550–1556. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Delgrande, J.P.: Considerations on belief revision in an action theory. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds.) Correct Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 7265, pp. 164–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Delgrande, J.P., Levesque, H.J.: Belief revision with sensing and fallible actions. In: Brewka, G., Eiter, T., McIlraith, S.A. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, KR 2012, Rome, Italy, 10–14 June 2012. AAAI Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon, S., Wobcke, W.: The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system. In: Fifth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 1993, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 8–11 November 1993, pp. 40–47. IEEE Computer Society (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., Senko, J.: Resolving conflicts in action descriptions. In: ECAI (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., Senko, J.: Resolving conflicts in action descriptions. Artif. Intell. 174(15), 1172–1221 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Erdem, E., Ferraris, P.: Forgetting actions in domain descriptions. In: AAAI (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing actions and change by logic programs. J. Log. Program. 17(2–4), 301–323 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter, A., Delgrande, J.P.: Iterated belief change due to actions and observations. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 40, 269–304 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, A., Delgrande, J.P.: Belief change with uncertain action histories. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 53, 779–824 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proceedings of KR 1992, pp. 387–394 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lang, J.: Belief update revisited. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 6–12 January 2007, pp. 2517–2522 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lobo, J., Uzcátegui, C.: Abductive consequence relations. Artif. Intell. 89(1–2), 149–171 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. McCain, N., Turner, H.: A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1978–1984. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  22. de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lang, J.: Belief extrapolation (or how to reason about observations and unpredicted change). Artif. Intell. 175(2), 760–790 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: Iterated belief change in the situation calculus. Artif. Intell. 175(1), 165–192 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Turner, H.: Representing actions in logic programs and default theories. J. Log. Program. 31(1–3), 245–298 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Varzinczak, I.: On action theory change. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 37, 189–246 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the reviewers of the paper for their constructive comments and suggestions. The second author was partially supported by the NSF grant 1619273.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

    Chitta Baral

  2. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    Tran Cao Son

Authors
  1. Chitta Baral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tran Cao Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tran Cao Son .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Bo An

  2. Universidade Federal Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    Ana Bazzan

  3. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal

    João Leite

  4. Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France

    Serena Villata

  5. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Leendert van der Torre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Baral, C., Son, T.C. (2017). Revision and Updates in Possibly Action-Occurrence-Incomplete Narratives. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds) PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69130-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69131-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation