An investigation of parametrized difference revision operators

In this article, we provide the epistemic-entrenchment and partial-meet characterizations of a new, important class of concrete revision operators (all of which satisfy the AGM postulates for revision), called Parametrized Difference revision operators (PD operators, for short). PD operators are natural generalizations of Dalal’s revision operator, with a much greater range of applicability, hence, the epistemic-entrenchment and partial-meet characterizations of the latter are also provided, as a by-product. Lastly, we prove that PD operators satisfy the strong version of Parikh’s relevance-sensitive axiom for belief revision, showing that they are fully compatible with the notion of relevance.

[1]  R. Parikh.  Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages , 1999 .

[2]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Relevance in belief revision , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Maurice Pagnucco,et al.  Entrenchment-Based Horn Contraction , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[5]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  Two axiomatic characterizations for the system of spheres-based (and the Epistemic Entrenchment-based) multiple contractions , 2016, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[6]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation Edited Belief Revision Pavlos Peppas 8.1 Introduction , 2022 .

[7]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Constructive Modelings for Theory Change , 1995, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[8]  Judea Pearl,et al.  On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[10]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  A Panorama of Iterated Revision , 2014 .

[11]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Parametrised Difference Revision , 2018, KR.

[12]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Kinetic Consistency and Relevance in Belief Revision , 2016, JELIA.

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

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

[15]  Hans Rott,et al.  A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision. Part 1: Semantics and logic of simple conditionals , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

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

[17]  Ken Satoh.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Minimal Belief Revision , 1988, FGCS.

[18]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Epistemic-entrenchment Characterization of Parikh's Axiom , 2017, IJCAI.

[19]  Maurice Pagnucco,et al.  Model Based Horn Contraction , 2012, KR.

[20]  Wlodzimierz Rabinowicz,et al.  Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

[21]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

[22]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Maps in Multiple Belief Change , 2012, TOCL.

[23]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Answer Set Solving in Practice , 2012, Answer Set Solving in Practice.

[25]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[26]  James P. Delgrande,et al.  Belief revision in Horn theories , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Measuring similarity in belief revision , 2000, J. Log. Comput..

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

[29]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems , 1985, TODS.