Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Belief dynamics, abduction, and databases

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 838))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a new concept of generalized partial meet contraction for contracting a sentence from a belief base. We show that a special case of belief dynamics, referred to as knowledge base dynamics, where certain part of the belief base is declared to be immutable, has interesting connections with abduction, thus enabling us to use abductive procedures to realize contractions. Finally, an important application of knowledge base dynamics in providing an axiomatic characterization for deleting view atoms from databases is discussed in detail.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Updates: A new Frontier, In: M. Gyssens, J. Paredaens, and D. Van Gucht (eds.), Proc. of the second international conference on database theory, LNCS 326, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 Number 2 (1985) 510–530.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alchourrón, C.E., and Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction, Studia Logica 44:405–422 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aravindan, C. and Dung, P.M., Partial deduction of logic programs wrt well-founded semantics, In: H. Kirchner and G. Levi (eds.), Proc. of the 3rd International Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, LNCS 632, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 384–402.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aravindan, C. and Dung, P.M., Relationship between Gärdenfors-Makinson's epistemic entrenchment and Katsuno-Mendelzon's faithful total pre-orders, To appear in: Proc. of the International Conference on Expert Systems Development, IEEE, March 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benkerimi, K. and Shepherdson, J.C., Partial evaluation of dynamic logic programs, Technical Report TR-90-27, University of Bristol, U.K., November 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bol, R.N., Apt, K.R., and Klop, J.W., An analysis of loop checking mechanisms for logic programs, Theoretical Computer Science 86 No. 1 (1991) 35–79.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bol, R.N., Loop checking in partial deduction, The Journal of Logic Programming 16 No. 1&2 (1993) 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bry, F., Intensional Updates: Abduction via deduction, In: Proc. of the 7th International Conf. on Logic Programming, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dayal, U. and Bernstein, P.A., On the correct translation of update operations on relational views, ACM Transactions on Database Systems 8 No. 3 (1982) 381–416.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Decker, H., Drawing updates from derivations, Technical Report IR-KB-65, ECRC, Germany, September 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Demolombe, R., A strategy for the computation of conditional answers, In: Proc. of ECAI '92, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fagin, R., Kuper, G.M., Ullman, J.D., and Vardi, M.Y., Updating logical databases, In: Advances in Computing Research, Volume 3, Jai Press Inc., 1986, pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment, In: M.Y. Vardi (ed.), Proc. of the second conf. on Theoretical aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988, pp. 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gärdenfors, P., Belief Revision: An Introduction, In: P.Gärdenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gärdenfors, P. and Rott, H., Belief Revision, To appear in: Handbook of logic in AI and logic programming, Vol. IV: Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grove, A., Two modellings for theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (1988) 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guessoum, A. and Lloyd, J.W., Updating Knowledge Bases, Technical Report TR-89-05, Department of computer science, University of Bristol, U.K., December 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guessom, A. and Lloyd, J.W., Updating Knowledge Bases II, Technical Report TR-90-13, Department of computer science, University of Bristol, U.K., May 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hansson, S.O., Belief contraction without recovery, Studia Logica 50(2):251–260 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hansson, S.O., Belief base dynamics, Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala university, Sweden, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hansson, S.O., In defense of base contraction, Synthese 91:239–245 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hansson, S.O., Bridging a gap between AI research and philosophy, In: E. Sandewall, and C.G. Jansson (eds.), Proc. of the Scandinavian conf. on Artificial Intelligence '93, IOS Press, 1993, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hansson, S.O., Theory contraction and base contraction unified, Journal of Symbolic Logic, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hansson, S.O., Kernel Contraction, Journal of Symbolic Logic, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, RA., and Toni, F., Abductive logic programming, Journal of Logic and Computation 2 (1992) 719–770.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kakas, A.C., and Mancarella, P., Database updates through abduction, Technical Report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, U.K., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A.O., Prepositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence 52 (1991) 263–294.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kowalski, R., Logic without model theory, Technical Report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, U.K., 1994. (available on Internet from LPNMR Archive <ftp.ms.uky.edu>)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Langerak, R., View updates in relational databases with an independent scheme, ACM Transactions on Database Systems 15 No. 1 (1990) 40–66.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lindström, S. and Rabinowicz, W., Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision, In: A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (eds.), Proc. of the Workshop on The logic of theroy change, LNAI 465, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 93–126.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lloyd, J.W., Foundations of logic programming, Second extended edition, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lloyd, J.W., and Shepherdson, J.C., Partial evaluation in logic programming, Technical Report No. CS-87-09, University of Bristol, U.K., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Makinson, D., How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change, Synthese 62 (1985) 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Makinson, D., On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (1987) 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nebel, B., A knowledge level analysis of belief revision, In: R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, and R. Reiter (eds.), Proc. of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nebel, B., Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches, In: J.A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall (eds.), Proc. of the second international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 417–428.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pereira, L.M., Calejo, M., and Aparício, J.N., Refining knowledge base updates, In: Proc. of the 7th Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, November, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sadri, F. and Kowalski, R., A theorem proving approach to database integrity, In: J. Minker (ed.), Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988, pp. 313–362.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tomasic, A., View update translation via deduction and annotation, In: M. Gyssens, J. Paredaens, and D. Van Gucht (eds.), Proc. of ICDT '88, LNCS 326, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 338–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Program, School of Advanced Technologies, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 2754, 10501, Bangkok, Thailand

    Chandrabose Aravindan & Phan Minh Dung

Authors
  1. Chandrabose Aravindan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phan Minh Dung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Craig MacNish David Pearce Luís Moniz Pereira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Aravindan, C., Dung, P.M. (1994). Belief dynamics, abduction, and databases. In: MacNish, C., Pearce, D., Pereira, L.M. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 838. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0021965

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0021965

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58332-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48657-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation