Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Putting More Dynamics in Revision with Memory

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (LORI 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10455))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1125 Accesses

Abstract

We have proposed in previous works [14, 15] a construction that allows to define operators for iterated revision from classical AGM revision operators. We called these operators revision operators with memory and show that the operators obtained have nice logical properties. But these operators can be considered as too conservative, since the revision policy of the agent, encoded as a faithful assignment, does not change during her life. In this paper we propose an extension of these operators, that aims to add more dynamics in the revision process.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also [22,23,24]. We do not adress this kind of operators in this paper since they require an additional numerical information with the new evidence.

  2. 2.

    The Dalal distance [7] is a Hamming distance between interpretations.

  3. 3.

    Recall that classical AGM operators are functions that map a belief base and a formula to a belief base, which is (completely) defined by the theorem, whereas Proposition 1 concerns operators that are functions which map an epistemic state and a formula to an epistemic state, that is not completely defined by the theorem.

  4. 4.

    It is the same set of postulates than (R*1-R*6) but expressed for belief bases instead of epistemic states (cf [12]).

  5. 5.

    The Hamming distance between two interpretations is the number of propositional letters on which the two interpretations differ.

  6. 6.

    Where \(I\le _{lex(\le _1,\le _2)} J\) means \(I <_{1} J\) or (\(I \simeq _{1} J\) and \(I \le _2 J\)).

  7. 7.

    In that framework, it is a consequence of the other axioms.

References

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Papini, O.: A sequential reversible belief revision method based on polynomials. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1999) 1999

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benferhat, S., Konieczny, S., Papini, O., Pino Pérez, R.: Iterated revision by epistemic states: axioms, semantics and syntax. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pp. 13–17 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Booth, R., Meyer, T.: Admissible and restrained revision. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 127–151 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier, C.: Revision sequences and nested conditionals. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1993) 1993

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boutilier, C.: Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs. J. Philos. Logic 25(3), 262–305 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 475–479 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. In: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1994 Conference (TARK 1994), pp. 5–23. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89, 1–29 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Jin, Y., Thielscher, M.: Iterated belief revision, revised. Artif. Intell. 171, 1–18 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52, 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Konieczny, S., Grespan, M. M., Pino Pérez, R.: Taxonomy of improvement operators and the problem of minimal change. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), pp. 161–170 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: A framework for iterated revision. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 10(3–4), 339–367 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P.: Some operators for iterated revision. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 498–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44652-4_44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Improvement operators. In: Principles of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 177–186 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lehmann, D.: Belief revision, revised. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1534–1540 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liberatore, P.: The complexity of iterated belief revision. In: Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186, pp. 276–290. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). doi:10.1007/3-540-62222-5_51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Nayak, A.: Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment. Erkenntnis 41, 353–390 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Nayak, A. C., Foo, N. Y., Pagnucco, M., Sattar, A.: Changing conditional beliefs unconditionally. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 1996), pp. 119–135. Morgan Kaufmann, Netherlands (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Papini, O.: Iterated revision operators stemming from the history of an agent’s observations, Frontiers of Belief Revision, pp. 281–303. Kluwer (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Harper, W.L., Skyrms, B. (eds.) Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol 2, pp. 105–134 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Williams, M. A.: Transmutations of knowledge systems. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1994), pp. 619–629 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Williams, M. A.: Iterated theory base change: a computational model. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1541–1550 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRIL - CNRS & Université d’Artois, Lens, France

    Sébastien Konieczny

  2. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela

    Ramón Pino Pérez

Authors
  1. Sébastien Konieczny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramón Pino Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Konieczny .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands

    Alexandru Baltag

  2. Department of Philosophy, The University of Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Jeremy Seligman

  3. Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University , Sapporo, Japan

    Tomoyuki Yamada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this paper

Cite this paper

Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R. (2017). Putting More Dynamics in Revision with Memory. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55664-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55665-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships