Considerations on Belief Revision in an Action Theory
Among the many and varied areas that Vladimir Lifschitz has worked on is reasoning about action and change, in particular with respect to action languages, where an action language in turn is based on the underlying semantic notion of a transition system. Transition systems have been shown to be an elegant, deceptively simple, yet rich framework from which to address problems of action consequence, causality, planning and the like. In this paper I consider a problem in the interaction between reasoning about action, observations, and the agent’s knowledge, specifically when an observation conflicts with the agent’s knowledge; and so the agent must revise its knowledge. In particular, it is shown how an agent’s initial belief set may be propagated through an action sequence so that, in contrast to previous work, for a revision one does not need to refer back to the initial state of the agent.
KeywordsTransition System Belief Revision Belief State Action Language Revision Operator
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Baral, C., McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Formulating diagnostic problem solving using an action language with narratives and sensing. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 311–322 (2000)Google Scholar
- 4.Boutilier, C.: Generalized update: Belief change in dynamic settings. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1550–1556 (1995)Google Scholar
- 5.Dalal, M.: Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision. In: Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 449–479 (1988)Google Scholar
- 7.Delgrande, J., Peppas, P.: Revising Horn theories. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 839–844 (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3 (1998)Google Scholar
- 12.Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 623–630 (1998)Google Scholar
- 16.Levesque, H.J., Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: Foundations for the situation calculus. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science 3(18) (1998)Google Scholar
- 20.Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, pp. 455–462 (1988)Google Scholar
- 22.Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M.: Iterated belief change and exogeneous actions in the situation calculus. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
- 25.Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Harper, W.L., Skyrms, B. (eds.) Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. II, pp. 105–134. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988)Google Scholar