Advertisement

Kinetic Consistency and Relevance in Belief Revision

  • Pavlos PeppasEmail author
  • Mary-Anne Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10021)

Abstract

A critical aspect of rational belief revision that has been neglected by the classical AGM framework is what we call the principle of kinetic consistency. Loosely speaking, this principle dictates that the revision policies employed by a rational agent at different belief sets, are not independent, but ought to be related in a certain way. We formalise kinetic consistency axiomatically and semantically, and we establish a representation result explicitly connecting the two. We then combine the postulates for kinetic consistency, with Parikh’s postulate for relevant change, and add them to the classical AGM postulates for revision; we call this augmented set the extended AGM postulates. We prove the consistency and demonstrate the scope of the extended AGM postulates by showing that a whole new class of concrete revision operators introduced hererin, called PD operators, satisfies all extended AGM postulates. PD operators are of interest in their own right as they are natural generalisations of Dalal’s revision operator. We conclude the paper with some examples illustrating the strength of the extended AGM postulates, even for iterated revision scenarios.

Keywords

Relevant Change Belief Revision Propositional Variable Revision Operator Initial Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Fanis Aravanis and to the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourron, C., Gardenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision. J. Symbol. Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalal, M.: Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 475–479 (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89, 1–29 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grove, A.: Two modellings for theory change. J. Philos. Logic 17, 157–170 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jin, Y., Thielscher, M.: Iterated belief revision, revised. Artif. Intell. 171, 1–18 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konieczny, S., Perez, R.P.: A framework for iterated revision. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 10, 339–367 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nayak, A., Pagnucco, M., Peppas, P.: Dynamic belief revision operators. Artif. Intell. 146, 193–228 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parikh, R.: Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. In: Logic, Language, and Computation - CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 2, pp. 266–278. CSLI Publications (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peppas, P.: Belief revision. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 317–359. Elsevier Science (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peppas, P., Williams, M.-A., Chopra, S., Foo, N.: Relevance in belief revision. Artif. Intell. 229, 126–138 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peppas, P.: A panorama of iterated revision. In: Ove Hansson, S. (ed.) David Makinson on Classical Methods for Non-Classical Problems. Outstanding Contributions to Logic, pp. 71–94. Springer, Netherlands (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.QCIS, Faculty of Engineering and ITUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations