Skip to main content

Focusing vs. belief revision: A fundamental distinction when dealing with generic knowledge

  • Invited Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1244))

Abstract

This paper advocates a basic distinction between two epistemic operations called focusing and revision, which can be defined in any, symbolic or numerical, representation framework which is rich enough for acknowledging the difference between factual evidence and generic knowledge. Revision amounts to modifying the generic knowledge when receiving new pieces of generic knowledge (or the factual evidence when obtaining more factual information), while focusing is just applying the generic knowledge to the reference class of situations which exactly corresponds to all the available evidence gathered on the case under consideration. Various settings are considered, upper and lower probabilities, belief functions, numerical possibility measures, ordinal possibility measures, conditional objects, nonmonotonic consequence relations.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Benferhat S., Dubois D., Prade H. (1992) Representing default rules in possibilistic logic”, Proc. of the 3rd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'92), Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 26–29, 673–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benferhat S., Dubois D., Prade H. (1996) Beyond counter-examples to nonmonotonic formalisms: A possibility-theoretic analysis. Proc. of the 12th Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'96) (W. Wahlster, ed.), Budapest, Hungary, Aug. 11–16, 1996, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 652–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier C. Goldszmidt M. (1993) Revision by conditionals beliefs. Proc. of the 11th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'93), Washington, DC, July 11–15, 649–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Campos L.M., Lamata M.T., Moral S. (1990) The concept of conditional fuzzy measure. Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 5, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Finetti B. (1974) Theory of Probability. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster A.P. (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multiple-valued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38, 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domotor Z. (1985) Probability kinematics — Conditionals and entropy principles. Synthese, 63, 74–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1992a) Evidence, knowledge, and belief functions. Int. J. of Approximate Reasoning, 6, 295–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1992b) Belief change and possibility theory. In: Belief Revision (P. Gärdenfors, ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 142–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1994a) Focusing versus updating in belief function theory. In: Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence (R.R. Yager, M. Fedrizzi, J. Kacprzyk, eds.), Wiley, New York, 71–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1994b) Conditional objects as nonmonotonic consequence relationships. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 24(12), 1724–1740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1995) Conditional objects, possibility theory, and default rules. In: Conditional Logics: From Phisolophy to Computer Science (G. Crocco, L. Fariñas del Cerro, A. Herzig, eds.), Oxford University Press, 301–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1996) Focusing vs. revision in possibility theory. Proc. of the 5th IEEE Inter. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE'96), New Orleans, LO, Sept. 8–11, 1700–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H. (1997) Bayesian conditioning in possibility theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Prade H., Smets P. (1996) Representing partial ignorance. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 26(3), 361–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin R., Halpern J. (1989) A new approach to updating belief. Research Report RJ 7222, IBM Research Division, San Jose, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (1986) Belief revision and the Ramsay test for conditionals. Philosophical Review, 91, 81–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in Flux — Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1994) Non-monotonic inference based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence, 65, 197–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. (1992) Updating ambiguous beliefs. Proc. of the 4th Conf. on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK'92) (Y. Moses, ed.), Monterey, CA, March 22–25, 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber P.J. (1981) Robust Statistics. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffray J.Y. (1992) Bayesian updating and belief functions. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 1144–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey R. (1965) The Logic of Decision. McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsuno H., Mendelzon A.O. (1991) On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91) Cambridge, MA, April 22–25, 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1990) Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H.E., Jr. (1987) Bayesian and non-Bayesian evidential updating. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 271–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1992) What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55(1), 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi (1980) The Enterprize of Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makinson D., Gärdenfors P. (1991) Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. The Logic of Theory Change (Proc. of the Workshop, Konstanz, Germany, Oct. 1989) (A. Fuhrmann, M. Morreau, eds.), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 465, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moral S., De Campos L. (1991) Updating uncertain information. In: Uncertainty in Knowledge Bases (B. Bouchon-Meunier, R.R. Yager, L.A. Zadeh, eds.), Springer Verlag, Berlin, 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G. (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley P. (1996) Measures of uncertainty in expert systems. Artificial Intelligence, 83, 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams M.A. (1994) Transmutations of knowledge systems. Proc. of the 4th Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), Bonn, Germany, 619–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P.M. (1980) Bayesian conditionalization and the principle of minimum information. British J. for the Philosophy of Sciences, 31, 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Dov M. Gabbay Rudolf Kruse Andreas Nonnengart Hans Jürgen Ohlbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1997). Focusing vs. belief revision: A fundamental distinction when dealing with generic knowledge. In: Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning. FAPR ECSQARU 1997 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1244. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035615

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035615

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63095-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69129-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics