Revising Beliefs Received from Multiple Sources

  • Aldo Franco Dragoni
  • Paolo Giorgini
Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 22)


During the last decade, the logical framework layed down by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson [1985] deeply influenced the notion of belief revision. Conceiving both, the knowledge space K and incoming information p, as sentences of a propositional language L, they introduced three rational principles for the revision operator (*):

AGM1 Consistency: K*p must be consistent

AGM2 Minimal Change: K*p should alter as little as possible K

AGM3 Priority to the Incoming Information: p must belong to K*p


Cognitive State Epistemic State Belief Revision Incoming Information Focal Element 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Alchourrón et al., 1985]
    C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530, 1985.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Benferhat et al, 1993]
    S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois D., J. Lang and H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 640–645, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [Dalai, 1988]
    M. Dalai. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision. In Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 475–479, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [Doyle, 1979]
    J. Doyle. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–272, 1979.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Dragoni, 1992]
    A. F. Dragoni. A model for belief revision in a multi-agent environment. In Decentralized A.1. 3, E. Werner and Y. Demazeau, eds. North Holland Elsevier Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [Dragoni, 1997]
    A. F. Dragoni. Belief revision: from theory to practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 12, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [Dragoni et al., 1996]
    A. F. Dragoni, C. Ceresi and V. Pasquali. A system to support complex detective inquiries. In Proceedings of the V Iberoamerican Conference on Computer Science and Law, La Habana, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [Dragoni and Giorgini, 1997a]
    A. F. Dragoni and P. Giorgini. Belief revision through the belief function formalism in a multi-agent environment. In Intelligent Agents III, M. Wooldridge, N. R. Jennings and J. Muller, eds. Volume 1193 LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [Dragoni and Giorgini, 1997b]
    A. F. Dragoni and P. Giorgini. Distributed knowledge revision-integration. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Information Technlogy and Management. ACM Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. [Dragoni and Giorgini, 1998]
    A. F. Dragoni and P. Giorgini. Sensor data validation for nuclear power plants through bayesian conditioning and dempster’s rule of combination. Computers and Arti f icial Intelligence, 17, 151–168, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [Dragoni and Di Manzo, 1995]
    A. F. Dragoni and M. Di Manzo. Supporting complex inquiries. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 10, 959–986, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dragoni et al.,1995] A. F. Dragoni, F.Mascaretti and P. Puliti. A generalized approach to consistency-based belief revision. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence,M. God and G. Soda, eds. Volume 992, LNAI. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. Dubois and Prade, 1992] D. Dubois and H.Prade. Belief change and possibility theory. In Belief Revision,P. Gärdenfors, ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. [Gärdenfors, 1988]
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [Gärdenfors, 1992]
    P. Gärdenfors. Belief Revision: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press., 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [Kennes, 1992]
    R. Kennes. Computational aspects of the möbius transform of a graph. IEEE Transactions in Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 201–223, 1992.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [De Kleer, 1986]
    J. De Kleer. An assumption based truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 127–162, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Martins and Shapiro, 1988]
    J. P. Martins and S. C. Shapiro. A model for belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 35, 25–97, 1988.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Moral and Wilson, 1996]
    S. Moral and N. Wilson. Importance sampling monte-carlo algorithms for calculation of Dempster—Shafer belief. In Proceedings of IPMU’96, Granada, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [Nebel, 1994]
    B. Nebel. Base revision operations and schemes: Semantics, representation, and complexity. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, A. G. Cohn, editor, John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [Parsons, 1994]
    S. Parsons. Some qualitative approaches to applying the dempster-shafer theory. Information and Decision Technologies, 19, 321–337, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [Pearl, 1988]
    J. Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning for Intelligent Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. [Reiter, 1987]
    R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [Shafer, 1990]
    G. Shafer. Belief functions. In Readings in Uncertain Reasoning. G. Shafer and J. Pearl, eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. [Shafer and Srivastava, 1990]
    G. Shafer and R. Srivastava. The Bayesian and belief-function formalisms a general perspective for auditing. In Readings in Uncertain Reasc’ ing. G. Shafer and J. Pearl, eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. [Williams, 1995]
    M. A. Williams. Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1541–1547, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. [Wilson, 1991]
    N. Wilson. A monte-carlo algorithm for dempster-shafer belief. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, P. Smets, B. D. D’Ambrosio and P. Bonissone, eds. pp. 414–417, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Franco Dragoni
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations