Abstract
We develop a high-level ASM specification for the Condor system that provides powerful methods and tools for managing knowledge represented by conditionals. Thereby, we are able to elaborate crucial interdependencies between different aspects of knowledge representation, knowledge discovery, and belief revision. Moreover, this specification provides the basis for a stepwise refinement development process of the Condor system based on the ASM methodology.
The research reported here was partially supported by the DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant BE 1700/5-1).
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
C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and P. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2):510–530, 1985. 193, 194
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Representing default rules in possibilistic logic. In Proceedings 3th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR’92, pages 673–684, 1992. 188
C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt. Revision by conditional beliefs. In Proceedings 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’93), pages 649–654, Washington, DC., 1993. 193
C. Beierle and G. Kern-Isberner. Footprints of conditionals. In Festschrift in Honor of Jörg H. Siekmann. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. (to appear). 191
C. Beierle and G. Kern-Isberner. Knowledge discovery and the inverse representation problem. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering, IKE’02, 2002. 197
I. Csisz→. I-divergence geometry of probability distributions and minimization problems. Ann. Prob., 3:146–158, 1975. 195
A. Darwiche and J. Pearl. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 89:1–29, 1997. 193, 194
D. Dubois and H. Prade. Focusing vs. belief revision: A fundamental distinction when dealing with generic knowledge. In Proceedings First International Joint Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, ECSQARU-FAPR’97, pages 96–107, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1997. Springer. 193
P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988. 193
J. Gebhardt and R. Kruse. Background and perspectives of possibilistic graphical models. In Proceedings First International Joint Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, ECSQARU-FAPR’97,, pages 108–121. Springer, 1997. 198
Y. Gurevich. Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide. In E. Börger, editor, Specification and Validation Methods, pages 9–36. Oxford University Press, 1995. 189
G. Kern-Isberner. Characterizing the principle of minimum cross-entropy within a conditional-logical framework. Artificial Intelligence, 98:169–208, 1998. 191
G. Kern-Isberner. Solving the inverse representation problem. In Proceedings 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’2000, pages 581–585, Berlin, 2000. IOS Press. 197
G. Kern-Isberner. Conditionals in nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision. Springer, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 2087, 2001. 189, 193, 194, 195, 196
G. Kern-Isberner. Discovering most informative rules from data. In Proceedings International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce, IAWTIC’2001, 2001. 198
H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR’91, pages 387–394, San Mateo, Ca., 1991. Morgan Kaufmann. 193
J.B. Paris. The uncertain reasoner’s companion-A mathematical perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1994. 191, 195
J.B. Paris and A. Vencovská. A method for updating that justifies minimum cross entropy. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 7:1–18, 1992. 195
J.B. Paris and A. Vencovská. In defence of the maximum entropy inference process. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 17:77–103, 1997. 191
F.P. Ramsey. General propositions and causality. In R. B. Braithwaite, editor, Foundations of Mathematics and other logical essays, pages 237–257. Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York, 1950. 193
W. Rödder and G. Kern-Isberner. Léa Sombé und entropie-optimale Informationsverarbeitung mit der Expertensystem-Shell SPIRIT. OR Spektrum, 193, 1997. 192
W. Rödder and G. Kern-Isberner. Representation and extraction of information by probabilistic logic. Information Systems, 21(8):637–652, 1997. 192
J. E. Shore. Relative entropy, probabilistic inference and AI. In L.N. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 211–215. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986. 195
W. Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms, editors, Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, II, pages 105–134. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988. 188
R. Stärk, J. Schmid, and E. Börger. Java and the Java Virtual Machine: Definition, Verification, Validation. Springer-Verlag, 2001. 189
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Beierle, C., Kern-Isberner, G. (2003). Modelling Conditional Knowledge Discovery and Belief Revision by Abstract State Machines. In: Börger, E., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E. (eds) Abstract State Machines 2003. ASM 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2589. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36498-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36498-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00624-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36498-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive