Skip to main content

Modellings for belief change: Base contraction, multiple contraction, and epistemic entrenchment (preliminary report)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logics in AI (JELIA 1992)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 633))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper draws a distinction between the set of explicit beliefs of a reasoner, the “belief base”, and the beliefs that are merely implicit. We study syntax-based belief changes that are governed exclusively by the structure of the belief base. In answering the question whether this kind of belief change can be reconstructed with the help of something like an epistemic entrenchment relation in the sense of Gärdenfors and Makinson [8], we extract several candidate relations from a belief base. The answer to our question is negative, but an approximate solution is possible, and in some cases the agreement is even perfect. Two interpretations of the basic idea of epistemic entrenchment are offered. It is argued that epistemic entrenchment properly understood involves multiple belief changes, i.e., changes by sets of sentences. Since none of our central definitions presupposes the presence of propositional connectives in the object language, the notion of epistemic entrenchment becomes applicable to the style of knowledge representation realized in inheritance networks and truth maintenance systems.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos, and David Makinson (1982): “On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions”, Theoria 48, 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, Carlos, and David Makinson (1985): “On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction”, Studia Logica 44, 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alchourrón, Carlos, Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson (1985): “On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fuhrmann, André (1988): Relevant Logics, Modal Logics, and Theory Change, PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fuhrmann, André (1991): “Theory contraction through base contraction”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 175–203.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gärdenfors, Peter (1988): Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gärdenfors, Peter (1990): “The dynamics of belief systems: Foundations vs. coherence theories”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 44, 24–46.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gärdenfors, Peter, and David Makinson (1988): “Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment”, in Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Moshe Vardi ed., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hansson, Sven Ove (1989): “New operators for theory change”, Theoria 55, 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hansson, Sven Ove (1991): Belief base dynamics, Doctoral Dissertation, Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hansson, Sven Ove (1992): “Reversing the Levi identity”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kratzer, Angelika (1981): “Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harman, Gilbert (1986): Change in View, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambrige, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levesque, Hector J. (1984): “A logic of implicit and explicit belief”, Proceedings 3rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin TX, pp. 198–202.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lindström, Sten, and Wlodzimierz Rabinowicz (1991): “Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision”, in André Fuhrmann and Michael Morreau eds., The Logic of Theory Change, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 465, Berlin, pp. 93–126.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Makinson, David (1985): “How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change”, Synthese 62, 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Makinson, David (1992): “The five faces of minimal change”, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McArthur, Gregory L. (1988): “Reasoning about knowledge and belief: A survey”, Computational Intelligence 4, 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nebel, Bernhard (1989): “A knowledge level analysis of belief revision”, in Ronald Brachman, Hector Levesque and Raymond Reiter eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Ca., pp. 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Poole, David (1988): “A logical framework for default reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Rott, Hans (1991): “Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 149–173.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rott, Hans (1992a): “On the logic of theory change: More maps between different kinds of contraction function”, in Peter Gärdenfors ed., Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 122–141.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rott, Hans (1992b): “Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 45–78.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Veltman, F. (1976): “Prejudices, presuppositions and the theory of counterfactuals”, in Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof eds., Amsterdam Papers of Formal Grammar, Vol. I, Centrale Interfaculteit, Universiteit Amsterdam, pp. 248–281.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

D. Pearce G. Wagner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rott, H. (1992). Modellings for belief change: Base contraction, multiple contraction, and epistemic entrenchment (preliminary report). In: Pearce, D., Wagner, G. (eds) Logics in AI. JELIA 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 633. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023426

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023426

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-55887-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47304-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics