Skip to main content
Log in

Belief revision — an axiomatic approach

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Belief revision systems aim at keeping a database consistent. They mostly concentrate on how to record and maintain dependencies. We propose an axiomatic system, called MFOT, as a solution to the problem of belief revision. MFOT has a set of proper axioms which selects a set of most plausible and consistent input beliefs. The proposed nonmonotonic inference rule further maintains consistency while generating the consequences of input beliefs. It also permits multiple property inheritance with exceptions. We have also examined some important properties of the proposed axiomatic system. We also propose a belief revision model that is object-centered. The relevance of such a model in maintaining the beliefs of a physician is examined.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Jeffrey Sanford Russell, John Hawthorne & Lara Buchak

References

  1. McCarthy, J., Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge,Artificial Intelligence 28, 89–116 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reiter, R., A logic for default reasoning,Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Doyle, J., A truth maintenance system,Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  4. De Kleer, J., An assumption-based TMS,Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Martins, J.P., and Shapiro, S.C., A model for belief revision,Artificial Intelligence 35, 25–79 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shoham, Y.,Reasoning About Change, MIT Press Cambridge Mass: (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sridhar, V., Murty, M. Narasimha, and Krishna, G., On reasoning with most recent beliefs, inProc. Fourth ISMIS, Charlotte, NC (1989).

  8. Mendelson, E.,Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 3rd edn., Van Nostrand Reinhold (1989).

  9. Sandewall, E., Nonmonotonic inference rules for multiple inheritance with exceptions, inProc. IEEE 74(10) (1986).

  10. Touretzky, D.S.,The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, California: (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moore, R.C., Autoepistemic logic, in P. Smets, A. Mamdani, D. Dubois, and H. Prade (eds),Nonstandard Logics for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press, New York (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Reiter, R., Nonmonotonic Reasoning in H.E. Shorbe and AAAI (eds)Exploring AI, Morgan Kaufmann, California (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (E. Braunwald, K.J. Isselbacher, R.G. Petersdorf, J.D. Wilson, J.B. Martin, and A.S. Fauci (eds), 11th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York (1987).

    Google Scholar 

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

  15. Winslett, M., Is belief revision harder than you thought? inProc. AAAI 86, PA, pp. 421–427 (1986).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sridhar, V., Murty, M.N. Belief revision — an axiomatic approach. J Intell Robot Syst 8, 127–153 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01257992

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01257992

Key words

Navigation