Belief Revision: Belief revision: An introduction

Now suppose that, as a matter of fact , the bird caught in the trap turns out to be black. This means that you want to add the fact ¬ ε, i.e., the negation of ε, to the database. But then the database becomes inconsistent . If you want to keep the database consistent, which is normally a sound methodology, you need to revise it. This means that some of the beliefs in the original database must be retracted. You don't want to give up all of the beliefs since this would be an unnecessary loss of valuable information. So you have to choose between retracting α, β, γ or δ.

[1]  David S. Touretzky,et al.  A Skeptical Theory of Inheritance in Nonmonotonic Semantic Networks , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[3]  David Makinson,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction , 1985, Stud Logica.

[4]  P. Gärdenfors.  Belief Revisions and the Ramsey Test for Conditionals , 1986 .

[5]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems , 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  William Harper,et al.  Rational Conceptual Change , 1976, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[7]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[8]  D. Lewis.  Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities , 1976 .

[9]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Ilkka Niiniluoto,et al.  The Logic and epistemology of scientific change , 1979 .

[11]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Rational Belief Revision (Preliminary Report) , 1994 .

[12]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  A Unified View of Propositional Knowledge Base Updates , 1989, IJCAI.

[13]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On the semantics of updates in databases , 1983, PODS.

[14]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[15]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Epistemic Entrenchment and Possibilistic Logic , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[16]  David Makinson.  How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change , 2004, Synthese.

[17]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[18]  Hans Rott,et al.  Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment , 1992, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[19]  Hans Rott,et al.  Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[20]  David Makinson,et al.  On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change , 1987, J. Philos. Log..

[21]  Marianne Winslett,et al.  Reasoning about Action Using a Possible Models Approach , 1988, AAAI.

[22]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment , 1988, TARK.

[23]  D Dubois,et al.  Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets , 1986 .

[24]  Adam J. Grove,et al.  Two modellings for theory change , 1988, J. Philos. Log..