Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A General Family of Preferential Belief Removal Operators

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most belief change operators in the AGM tradition assume an underlying plausibility ordering over the possible worlds which is transitive and complete. A unifying structure for these operators, based on supplementing the plausibility ordering with a second, guiding, relation over the worlds was presented in Booth et al. (Artif Intell 174:1339–1368, 2010). However it is not always reasonable to assume completeness of the underlying ordering. In this paper we generalise the structure of Booth et al. (Artif Intell 174:1339–1368, 2010) to allow incomparabilities between worlds. We axiomatise the resulting class of belief removal functions, and show that it includes an important family of removal functions based on finite prioritised belief bases.

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. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2), 510–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arló Costa, H. (2006). Rationality and value: The epistemological role of indeterminate and agent-dependent values. Philosophical Studies, 128(1), 7–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., & Prade, H. (1993). Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 640–647).

  4. Benferhat, S., Lagrue, S., & Papini, O. (2005). Revision of partially ordered information: Axiomatization, semantics and iteration. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 376–381).

  5. Bochman, A. (2001). A logical theory of nonmonotonic inference and belief change. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Booth, R., Chopra, S., Ghose, A., & Meyer, T. (2005). Belief liberation (and retraction). Studia Logica, 79(1), 47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth, R., Chopra, S., Meyer, T., & Ghose, A. (2010). Double preference relations for generalised belief change. Artificial Intelligence, 174, 1339–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Booth, R., & Meyer, T. (2010). Equilibria in social belief removal. Synthese, 177, 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewka, G. (1989). Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 1043–1048).

  10. Cantwell, J. (1999). Relevant contraction. In Proceedings of the Dutch-German workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (DGNMR’99).

  11. Cantwell, J. (2003). Eligible contraction. Studia Logica, 73, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S. O. (1993). Changes on disjunctively closed bases. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2, 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Katsuno, H., & Mendelzon, A. O. (1992). Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence, 52(3), 263–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1991). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lehmann, D. (1995). Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Levi, I. (1991). The fixation of b elief and its u ndoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Maynard-Zhang, P., & Lehmann, D. (2003). Representing and aggregating conflicting beliefs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 19, 155–203.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meyer, T., Heidema, J., Labuschagne, W., & Leenen, L. (2002). Systematic withdrawal. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31(5), 415–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., Brent Venable, K., & Walsh, T. (2009). Aggregating partially ordered preferences. Journal of Logic and Computation, 19, 475–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rott, H. (1992). Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 1, 45–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rott, H., & Pagnucco, M. (1999). Severe withdrawal (and recovery). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 28, 501–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shoham, Y. (1987). A semantical approach to nonmonotic logics. In Proceedings of LICS (pp. 275–279).

  25. Yahi, S., Benferhat, S., Lagrue, S., Sérayet, M., & Papini, O. (2008). A lexicographic inference for partially preordered belief bases. In Proceedings of KR (pp. 507–517).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Richard Booth

  2. Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research, University of KwaZulu-Natal and CSIR Meraka, Pretoria, South Africa

    Thomas Meyer

  3. Mahasarakham University, Khamriang Sub-District, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham, Thailand

    Chattrakul Sombattheera

Authors
  1. Richard Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chattrakul Sombattheera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Booth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Booth, R., Meyer, T. & Sombattheera, C. A General Family of Preferential Belief Removal Operators. J Philos Logic 41, 711–733 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9235-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9235-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation