Resource-Bounded Belief Revision and Contraction

  • Natasha Alechina
  • Mark Jago
  • Brian Logan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3904)

Abstract

Agents need to be able to change their beliefs; in particular, they should be able to contract or remove a certain belief in order to restore consistency to their set of beliefs, and revise their beliefs by incorporating a new belief which may be inconsistent with their previous beliefs. An influential theory of belief change proposed by Alchourron, Gärdenfors and Makinson (AGM) [1] describes postulates which rational belief revision and contraction operations should satisfy. The AGM postulates are usually taken as characterising idealised rational reasoners, and the corresponding belief change operations are considered unsuitable for implementable agents due to their high computational cost [2]. The main result of this paper is to show that an efficient (linear time) belief contraction operation nevertheless satisfies all but one of the AGM postulates for contraction. This contraction operation is defined for an implementable rule-based agent which can be seen as a reasoner in a very weak logic; although the agent’s beliefs are deductively closed with respect to this logic, checking consistency and tracing dependencies between beliefs is not computationally expensive. Finally, we give a non-standard definition of belief revision in terms of contraction for our agent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doyle, J.: Reason maintenance and belief revision. Foundations vs coherence theories. In Gärdenfors, P., ed.: Belief Revision. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 29–51. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doyle, J.: Truth maintenance systems for problem solving. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1977, p. 247 (1977)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McAllester, D.A.: Truth maintenance. In: Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1990), pp. 1109–1116. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conditionals and changes of belief. In: Niiniluoto, I., Tuomela, R. (eds.) The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change, pp. 381–404. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laird, J.E., Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P.S.: SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 33, 1–64 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Software Technology Branch, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston: CLIPS Reference Manual: Version 6.21 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Makinson, D.: On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, 383–394 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, M.A.: Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In: Proceedings of Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1541–1549. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galliers, J.R.: Autonomous belief revision and communication. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 220–246. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bezzazi, H., Janot, S., Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P.: Analysing rational properties of change operators based on forward chaining. In: Kifer, M., Voronkov, A., Freitag, B., Decker, H. (eds.) Dagstuhl Seminar 1997, DYNAMICS 1997, and ILPS-WS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1472, pp. 317–339. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Makinson, D.: How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change. Synthese 62, 347–363 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nebel, B.: A knowledge level analysis of belief revision. In: Brachman, R., Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 301–311. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams, M.A.: Two operators for theory base change. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 259–265. World Scientific, Singapore (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rott, H.: Just Because Taking belief bases seriously. In: Buss, S.R., Hájaek, P., Pudlák, P. (eds.) Logic Colloquium 1998—Proceedings of the 1998 ASL European Summer Meeting. Lecture Notes in Logic, Association for Symbolic Logic, vol. 13, pp. 387–408 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nebel, B.: Base revision operations and schemes: Representation, semantics and complexity. In: Cohn, A.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1994), pp. 341–345. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nebel, B.: Syntax-based approaches to belief revision. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 52–88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dixon, S.: A finite base belief revision system. In: Proceedings of Sixteenth Australian Computer Science Conference (ACSC-16): Australian Computer Science Communications, Brisbane, Australia, vol. 15, pp. 445–451. Queensland University of Technology, Australia (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dixon, S., Wobcke, W.: The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system. In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Conference on Tools with AI, Boston, MA, pp. 40–47. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wasserman, R.: Resource-Bounded Belief Revision. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chopra, S., Parikh, R., Wassermann, R.: Approximate belief revision. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9, 755–768 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Alechina
    • 1
  • Mark Jago
    • 1
  • Brian Logan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations