Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)
Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing actions: Laws, observations and hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 201–243 (1997)
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)
Boutilier, C.: Generalized update: Belief change in dynamic settings. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1550–1556 (1995)
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)
Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89, 1–29 (1997)
Delgrande, J., Peppas, P.: Revising Horn theories. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 839–844 (2011)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57(2-3), 227–270 (1992)
Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3 (1998)
Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)
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)
Hunter, A., Delgrande, J.P.: Iterated belief change due to actions and observations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 269–304 (2011)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294 (1991)
Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5), 773–808 (2002)
Levesque, H.J., Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: Foundations for the situation calculus. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science 3(18) (1998)
Lobo, J., Mendez, G., Taylor, S.: Knowledge and the action description language \({\cal A_K}\). Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(2), 129–184 (2001)
Nayak, A.C., Pagnucco, M., Peppas, P.: Dynamic belief revision operators. Artificial Intelligence 146(2), 193–228 (2003)
Peppas, P.: Belief revision. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 317–359. Elsevier Science, San Diego (2008)
Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, pp. 455–462 (1988)
Scherl, R., Levesque, H.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1-2), 1–39 (2003)
Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M.: Iterated belief change and exogeneous actions in the situation calculus. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 (2004)
Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: Iterated belief change in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 175(1), 165–192 (2011)
Son, T., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions: A transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence 125(1-2), 19–91 (2001)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Delgrande, J. (2012). Considerations on Belief Revision in an Action Theory. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds) Correct Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7265. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30742-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30743-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)