Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Updating epistemic states

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
AI 2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2256))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Belief update is usually defined by means of operators acting on belief sets. We propose here belief update operators acting on epistemic states which convey much more information than belief sets since they express the relative plausibilities of the pieces of information believed by the agent. In the following, epistemic states are encoded as rankings on worlds. We extend a class of update operators (dependency- based updates) to epistemic states, by defining an operation playing the same role as knowledge transmutations [21] do for belief revision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Salem Benferhat, Sébastien Konieczny, Odile Papini and Ramon Pino-Perez. Iterated revision by epistemic states: axioms, semantics and syntax. Proceedings of ECAI’2000, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Craig Boutilier. Revision sequences and nested conditionals. Proceedings of IJCAI’93, 519–525.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Craig Boutilier. Generalized update: belief change in dynamic settings. Proceedings of IJCAI’95, 1550–1556.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gerhard Brewka and Joachim Hertzberg. How to do things with worlds: on formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3 (5), 517–532, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Adnan Darwiche and Judea Pearl. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Proceedings of TARK’94, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Patrick Doherty and Witold Lukaszewicz and Ewa Madalinska-Bugaj. The PMA and relativizing change for action update. Proceedings of KR’98, 258–269.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. Belief revision and updates in numerical formalisms. Proceedings of IJCAI’93, 620–625.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hélène Fargier, Jérôme Lang and Pierre Marquis. Propositional logic and one-stage decision making. Proceedings of KR’2000, 445–456.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nir Friedman and Joseph Halpern. Modeling beliefs in dynamic systems. Part 2: revision and update, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 117–167, 1999.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Andreas Herzig. The PMA revisited. Proceedings of KR’96, 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Andreas Herzig and Omar Rifi. Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence, 115(1), 107–138, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Andreas Herzig, Jérôme Lang, Pierre Marquis and Thomas Polacsek. Actions, updates and planning. Proceedings of IJCAI’2001, 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and resvising it. Artificial Intelligence 52:263–294, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Sébastien Konieczny. Sur la logique du changement: révision et fusion de bases de connaissances. Thèse de l’Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 1999. In French.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jérôme Lang, Paolo Liberatore and Pierre Marquis. Complexity results for propositional independence. In preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jérôme Lang and Pierre Marquis. Complexity results for independence and definability in propositional logic. Proceedings of KR’98, 356–367.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shai Berger, Daniel Lehmann and Karl Schlechta. Preferred history semantics for iterated updates. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(6), 817–833.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fangzhen Lin and Ray Reiter. Forget it! Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, New Orleans, 1994, 154–159.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Steven Shapiro, Maurice Pagnucco, Yves Lespérance and Hector Levesque. Iterated change in the situation calculus. Proceedings of KR’2000, 527–538.

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. 2, 105–134, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mary-Anne Williams. Transmutations of knowledge systems. Proceedings of KR’94, 619–629.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mary-Anne Williams. Iterated theory base change: a computational model. Proceedings of IJCAI’95, 1541–1547.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible model approach. Proceedings of AAAI’88, 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yan Zhang and Normal Foo. Reasoning about persistence: a theory of actions. Proceedings of IJCAI’93, 718–723.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

    Jérôme Lang

  2. CRIL, Université d’Artois, Lens, France

    Pierre Marquis

  3. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    Mary-Anne Williams

Authors
  1. Jérôme Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre Marquis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary-Anne Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer and Information Science, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, 5095, SA, Australia

    Markus Stumptner  & Dan Corbett  & 

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Adelaide, 5001, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Mike Brooks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lang, J., Marquis, P., Williams, MA. (2001). Updating epistemic states. In: Stumptner, M., Corbett, D., Brooks, M. (eds) AI 2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2256. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45656-2_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45656-2_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42960-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45656-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation