Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An investigation of parametrized difference revision operators

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we provide the epistemic-entrenchment and partial-meet characterizations of a new, important class of concrete revision operators (all of which satisfy the AGM postulates for revision), called Parametrized Difference revision operators (PD operators, for short). PD operators are natural generalizations of Dalal’s revision operator, with a much greater range of applicability, hence, the epistemic-entrenchment and partial-meet characterizations of the latter are also provided, as a by-product. Lastly, we prove that PD operators satisfy the strong version of Parikh’s relevance-sensitive axiom for belief revision, showing that they are fully compatible with the notion of relevance.

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.: 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. Aravanis, T., Peppas, P., Williams, M.A.: Epistemic-entrenchment characterization of Parikh’s axiom. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), pp. 772–778 (2017)

  3. Aravanis, T.I., Peppas, P., Williams, M.A.: Epistemic-entrenchment characterization of parametrized difference revision operators. In: Proceedings of the 11th Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium (PLS 2017), pp 202–208. Delphi (2017)

  4. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)

  5. Borgida, A.: Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 10(4), 563–603 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalal, M.: Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 475–479 (1988)

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Delgrande, J.P., Peppas, P.: Belief revision in Horn theories. Artif. Intell. 218, 1–22 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux – Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge (TARK 1988), pp 83–95. Morgan Kaufmann, Pacific Grove (1988)

  11. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2012)

  12. Grove, A.: Two modellings for theory change. J. Philos. Log. 17(2), 157–170 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindström, S., Rabinowicz, W.: Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision. In: Fuhrmann, A., Morreau, M. (eds.) The Logic of Theory Change, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 465, pp 93–126. Springer, Berlin (1991)

  15. Parikh, R.: Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. In: Moss, L.S., Ginzburg, J., de Rijke, M. (eds.) Logic, Language and Computation, vol. 2, pp 266–278. CSLI Publications (1999)

  16. Peppas, P.: Belief revision. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp 317–359. Elsevier Science (2008)

  17. Peppas, P.: A panorama of iterated revision. In: Hansson, S.O. (ed.) David Makinson on Classical Methods for Non-Classical Problems, pp 71–94. Springer, Netherlands (2014)

  18. Peppas, P., Foo, N., Nayak, A.: Measuring similarity in belief revision. J. Log. Comput. 10, 603–619 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Peppas, P., Koutras, C.D., Williams, M.A.: Maps in multiple belief change. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 13(4), Article No. 30 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Peppas, P., Williams, M.A.: Constructive modellings for theory change. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 36(1), 120–133 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Peppas, P., Williams, M.A.: Kinetic consistency and relevance in belief revision. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2016), pp 401–414. Springer International Publishing (2016)

  22. Peppas, P., Williams, M.A.: Parametrised difference revision. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2018), pp. 277–286 (2018)

  23. Peppas, P., Williams, M.A., Chopra, S., Foo, N.: Relevance in belief revision. Artif. Intell. 229, 126–138 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Reis, M.D.L., Peppas, P., Fermé, E.: Two axiomatic characterizations for the system of spheres-based (and the epistemic entrenchment-based) multiple contractions. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 78, 181–203 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Rott, H.: A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision. Part 1: Semantics and logic of simple conditionals. In: Fuhrmann, A., Morreau, M. (eds.) The Logic of Theory Change, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 465, pp 135–181. Springer, Berlin (1991)

  26. Rott, H.: Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems. J. Philos. Log. 20(2), 149–173 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pp 455–462. Springer, Tokyo (1988)

  28. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 89–93 (1988)

  29. Zhuang, Z., Pagnucco, M.: Model based Horn contraction. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2012), pp. 169–178 (2012)

  30. Zhuang, Z., Pagnucco, M.: Entrenchment-based Horn contraction. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 51, 227–254 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Patras, Patras, 265 00, Greece

    Theofanis Aravanis & Pavlos Peppas

  2. Centre for Artificial Intelligence, FEIT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Pavlos Peppas & Mary-Anne Williams

Authors
  1. Theofanis Aravanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pavlos Peppas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary-Anne Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theofanis Aravanis.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is an extension and elaboration of previous work, published in [3].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aravanis, T., Peppas, P. & Williams, MA. An investigation of parametrized difference revision operators. Ann Math Artif Intell 89, 7–28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09625-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09625-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation