Advertisement

Actions that make you change your mind

Extended Abstract
  • B. van Linder
  • W. van der Hoek
  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
Action and Change
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 981)

Abstract

In this paper we study the dynamics of belief from an agent-oriented, semantics-based point of view. In a formal framework used to specify and to analyze rational agents, we define actions that model three well-known changes of belief, viz. expansions, contractions and revisions. We define both the opportunity for and the result of these belief-changing actions. To define the semantics of the contraction action we introduce selection functions. These functions pick out a set of states that is to be added to the set of doxastic alternatives of an agent, thereby contracting its set of beliefs. The action that models belief revisions is defined as the sequential composition of a contraction and an expansion in a way suggested by the Levi-identity. We show that these belief-changing actions are defined in an intuitively acceptable, reasonable way by proving that the AGM postulates for belief changes are validated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C.E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Cohen and H. Levesque. Intention is choice.... AI, 42:213–261, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. AI, 54:319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. van der Hoek, B. van Linder, and J.-J. Meyer. A logic of capabilities. In Nerode and Matiyasevich, eds., Procs. of LFCS'94, LNCS 813, pp. 366–378.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. van der Hoek, B. van Linder, and J.-J. Meyer. Unravelling nondeterminism. In Procs. of AIMSA '94, pp. 163–172. World Scientific, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Kraus and D. Lehmann. Knowledge, belief and time. TCS, 58:155–174, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. Actions that make you change your mind. Technical Report UU-CS-1994-53. Available at http://www.cs.ruu.nl/∼bernd/Publications.html.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. Communicating rational agents. In Nebel and Dreschler-Fischer, eds., Procs. of KI-94, LNAI 861, pp. 202–213.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. The dynamics of default reasoning. Extended abstract to appear in the proceedings of ECSQARU'95.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. Tests as epistemic updates. In A. Cohn, editor, Procs. of ECAI'94, pages 331–335. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. Seeing is believing. Extended abstract to appear in the proceedings of AI*IA 95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.C. Moore. Reasoning about knowledge and action. TR 191, SRI, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G.H. von Wright. Norm and Action. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. van Linder
    • 1
  • W. van der Hoek
    • 1
  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations