The dynamics of relevance: adaptive belief revision
This paper presents eight (previously unpublished) adaptive logics for belief revision, each of which define a belief revision operation in the sense of the AGM framework. All these revision operations are shown to satisfy the six basic AGM postulates for belief revision, and Parikh’s axiom of Relevance. Using one of these logics as an example, we show how their proof theory gives a more dynamic flavor to belief revision than existing approaches. It is argued that this turns belief revision (that obeys Relevance) into a more natural undertaking, where analytic steps are performed only as soon as they turn out to be necessary in order to uphold certain beliefs.
KeywordsDynamic belief revision Relevance Splittings Adaptive logics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Batens D. (1999) Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In: Orłowska E. (ed) Logic at work. Essays dedicated to the memory of Helena Rasiowa. Physica Verlag (Springer), Heidelberg, pp 445–472Google Scholar
- Batens, D. (2001). A general characterization of adaptive logics. Logique et Analyse, 173–175, 45–68. Appeared 2003.Google Scholar
- Batens D., Meheus J., Provijn D., Verhoeven L. (2003) Some adaptive logics for diagnosis. Logic and Logical Philosophy 11/12: 39–65Google Scholar
- Batens D., Straßer C., Verdée P. (2009) On the transparency of defeasible logics: Equivalent premise sets, equivalence of their extensions, and maximality of the lower limit. Logique et Analyse 207: 281–304Google Scholar
- Bienvenu, M., Herzig, A., & Qi, G. (2008). Prime implicate-based belief revision operators. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on ECAI 2008: 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 741–742). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors P. (1978) Conditionals and changes of belief. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30: 381–404Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors P. (1982) Rules for rational changes of belief. Philosophical Studies 34: 88–101Google Scholar
- Hansson, S. O. (2006). The logic of belief revision. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision.
- Jackson, P. (1992). Computing prime implicates. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM annual conference on Communications. CSC ’92 (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Kourousias G., Makinson D. (2006) Respecting relevance in belief change. Análisis Filosófico 26: 53–61Google Scholar
- Parikh R. (1999) Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. Logic, Language, and Computation 2: 266–278Google Scholar
- Perrussel, L., Marchi, J., & Zhang, D. (2011). Characterizing relevant belief revision operators. In AI 2010: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6464, pp. 42–51). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Shoham Y. (1987) A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics. In: Ginsberg M. L. (ed) Readings in non-monotonic reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp 227–249Google Scholar
- Stolpe, A. (2010). Relevance, derogation and permission: A case for a normal form for a code of norms. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) (Vol. 6181, pp. 98–115). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Van De Putte, F. (2011b). Prime implicates and relevant belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation, in press. http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/11/07/logcom.exr040.full.pdf.
- Verdée, P. (2012). A proof procedure for adaptive logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL, in press. http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/verdee.pdf.
- Verhoeven L. (2001) All premisses are equal, but some are more equal than others. Logique et Analyse 173–174–175: 165–188Google Scholar
- Verhoeven L. (2003) Proof theories for some prioritized consequence relations. Logique et Analyse 183–184: 325–344Google Scholar
- Wu, M., Zhu, Z., Zhang, M. (2008). Partial meet contraction based on relevance criterion. In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong.Google Scholar