Abstract
We present three approaches to revision of belief bases, which are also examined in the case in which the sentences in the base are partitioned between those which can and those which cannot be changed; the approaches are shown to be semantically equivalent. A new approach is then presented, based on the modification of individual rules, instead of deletion. The resulting base is semantically equivalent to that generated by the other approaches, in the sense that it has the same models, but the rule part alone has fewer models, that is, is subjected to a smaller change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alchourrón, C.E., Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: safe contraction. Studia Logica, 44, pp.405–422 (1985)
Boutilier, C., Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, pp.263–305 (1996)
Fagin, R., Ullmann, J.D., Vardi, M.Y., On the semantics of Updates in Databases. In 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of database Systems, pp. 352–365, (1983)
Fuhrmann, A., Theory contraction through base contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20, pp.175–203, (1991)
Fuhrmann, A. and Hansson, S.O.: A Survey of Multiple Contractions, The Journal of Logic, Language and Information 3, pp. 39–75, (1994)
Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O., A Methodology for Iterated Theory Change. In Gabbay D.M., Ohlbach H.J. (eds.): Practical Reasoning, LNAI 1085, Springer-Verlag Berlin, pp.193–207 (1996)
Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), (1988)
Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D., Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence, 65, pp. 197–245, (1994)
Ginsberg, M.L., Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 30(1), pp. 35–79, (1986)
Hansson, S.O., In Defence of Base Contraction. Synthese, 91 (1992), pp.239–245
Hansson, S.O., A Dyadic Representation of Belief. In Gärdenfors, P. (ed): Belief Revision, Oxford University Press, 1993
Makinson, D., How to give up: a survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change. Synthese, 62, pp.347–363, (1985)
Makinson, D., Gärdenfors, P., Relations between the logic of Theory change and Nonmonotonic Logic. In Fuhrmann, A., Morreau, M. (eds): The Logic of Theory Change, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1991)
Nebel, B., A Knowledge Level Analysis of Belief Revision. In Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R. (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 1st Int. Conference, pp.301–311, (1989)
Nebel, B., Syntax-based Approaches to Belief Revision. In Gärdenfors, P. (ed): Belief Revision, Oxford University Press, 1993
Tennant, N., Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 45, pp. 865–897, (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Di Giusto, P., Governatori, G. (1999). A New Approach to Base Revision. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1695. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48159-1_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48159-1_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66548-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48159-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive