Advertisement

Considerations on Belief Revision in an Action Theory

  • James Delgrande
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7265)

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.

Keywords

Transition System Belief Revision Belief State Action Language Revision Operator 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing actions: Laws, observations and hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 201–243 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89, 1–29 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57(2-3), 227–270 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Hunter, A., Delgrande, J.P.: Iterated belief change due to actions and observations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 269–304 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5), 773–808 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nayak, A.C., Pagnucco, M., Peppas, P.: Dynamic belief revision operators. Artificial Intelligence 146(2), 193–228 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Scherl, R., Levesque, H.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1-2), 1–39 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M.: Iterated belief change and exogeneous actions in the situation calculus. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: Iterated belief change in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 175(1), 165–192 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Son, T., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions: A transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence 125(1-2), 19–91 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Delgrande
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations