Abstract
In the Belief Change domain, Katsuno and Mendelzon have proposed a set of postulates that should be satisfied by update operators. In 1989, Forbus semantically defined an update operator that satisfies these postulates. In order to calculate the resulting belief base all models of the relevant belief bases must be known. This paper proposes to use the prime implicants and prime implicates normal forms to represent these bases. Using this representation, a syntactical and computationally cheaper version of Forbus belief update operator is defined and a new minimal distance is proposed. We claim that this minimal distance ensures a better commitment between the minimal change criterion and the belief update definition.
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
Bittencourt, G., Marchi, J., Padilha, R.S.: A syntactic approach to satisfaction. In: Y. Vardi, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2850, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Bittencourt, G., Perrussel, L., Marchi, J.: A syntactical approach to revision. In: Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) Proc. of the 16th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Valencia, Spain, August 2004, pp. 788–792. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)
Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of AAAI 1988, vol. 2, pp. 475–479. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1988)
Darwiche, A., Marquis, P.: A perspective on knowledge compilation. In: IJCAI, pp. 175–182 (2001)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57, 227–270 (1992)
Forbus, K.: Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. In: Proceedings IJCAI 1989, Detroit, MI, pp. 1273–1278 (1989)
Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Bradford Books, MIT Press (1988)
Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 115, 107–138 (1999)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Allen, J.F., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) KR 1991: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 387–394. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1991)
Kean, A., Tsiknis, G.: An incremental method for generating prime implicants/implicates. Journal of Symbolic Computation 9, 185–206 (1990)
Ramesh, A., Becker, G., Murray, N.V.: CNF and DNF considered harmful for computing prime implicants/implicates. Journal of Automated Reasoning 18, 337–356 (1997)
Socher, R.: Optimizing the clausal normal form transformation. Journal of Automated Reasoning 7, 325–336 (1991)
Winslett, M.: Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 89–93 (1988)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Marchi, J., Bittencourt, G., Perrussel, L. (2005). A Syntactical Approach to Belief Update. In: Gelbukh, A., de Albornoz, Á., Terashima-Marín, H. (eds) MICAI 2005: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. MICAI 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3789. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11579427_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11579427_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29896-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31653-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)