Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 127–153 | Cite as

Belief revision — an axiomatic approach

  • V. Sridhar
  • M. Narasimha Murty
Article
  • 37 Downloads

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.

Key words

Axiomatic approach belief revision defeasible beliefs inheritance network logical inference multiple implications multiple inheritance nonmonotonic inference rule 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy, J., Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge,Artificial Intelligence 28, 89–116 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reiter, R., A logic for default reasoning,Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doyle, J., A truth maintenance system,Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272 (1979).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Kleer, J., An assumption-based TMS,Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martins, J.P., and Shapiro, S.C., A model for belief revision,Artificial Intelligence 35, 25–79 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shoham, Y.,Reasoning About Change, MIT Press Cambridge Mass: (1987).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sridhar, V., Murty, M. Narasimha, and Krishna, G., On reasoning with most recent beliefs, inProc. Fourth ISMIS, Charlotte, NC (1989).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendelson, E.,Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 3rd edn., Van Nostrand Reinhold (1989).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandewall, E., Nonmonotonic inference rules for multiple inheritance with exceptions, inProc. IEEE 74(10) (1986).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Touretzky, D.S.,The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, California: (1986).Google Scholar
  11. 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. 12.
    Reiter, R., Nonmonotonic Reasoning in H.E. Shorbe and AAAI (eds)Exploring AI, Morgan Kaufmann, California (1988).Google Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    Gärdenfors, P.,Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, MIT Press (1988).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winslett, M., Is belief revision harder than you thought? inProc. AAAI 86, PA, pp. 421–427 (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Sridhar
    • 1
  • M. Narasimha Murty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and AutomationIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations