Deriving properties of belief update from theories of action

AbstractWe present an approach to database update as a form of non monotonic temporal reasoning, the main idea of which is the (circumscriptive) minimization of changes with respect to a set of facts declared “persistent by default”. The focus of the paper is on the relation between this approach and the update semantics recently proposed by Katsuno and Mendelzon. Our contribution in this regard is twofold: We prove a representation theorem for KM semantics in terms of a restricted subfamily of the operators defined by our construction.We show how the KM semantics can be generalized by relaxing our construction in a number of ways, each justified in certain intuitive circumstances and each corresponding to one specific postulate. It follows that there are reasonable update operators outside the KM family.Our approach is not dependent for its plausibility on this connection with KM semantics. Rather, it provides a relatively rich and flexible framework in which the frame and ramification problems can be solved in a systematic way by reasoning about default persistence of facts.

[1]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  On The Semantics of Belief Revision Systems , 1992, TARK.

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

[3]  W. Salmon,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1991 .

[4]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Frames in the Space of Situations , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  On Specifying Database Updates , 1995, J. Log. Program..

[6]  Alvaro del Val.  Belief revision and update , 1993 .

[7]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  What does a Conditional Knowledge Base Entail? , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  On Formalizing Database Updates: Preliminary Report , 1992, EDBT.

[9]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It , 1991, KR.

[10]  Benjamin N. Grosof,et al.  Generalizing Prioritization , 1991, KR.

[11]  David E. Smith,et al.  The Persistence of Derived Information , 1988, AAAI.

[12]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  Provably Correct Theories of Action (Preliminary Report) , 1991, AAAI.

[13]  C. E. Alchourrón,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985 .

[14]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression , 1991, Artificial and Mathematical Theory of Computation.

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

[16]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Nonmonotonic Temporal Reasoning , 1992 .

[17]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  Concurrent Actions in the Situation Calculus , 1992, AAAI.

[18]  Lenhart K. Schubert.  Monotonic Solution of the Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: An Efficient Method for Worlds wi , 1990 .

[19]  Henry E. Kyburg,et al.  Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning , 1990 .

[20]  Marianne Winslett.  Sometimes Updates Are Circumscription , 1989, IJCAI.

[21]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  On the Satisfiability of Circumscription , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[23]  Robert E. Mercer,et al.  On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed‐world reasoning , 1985, Comput. Intell..

[24]  Y. Shoham.  What is the frame problem , 1987 .

[25]  Moisés Goldszmidt,et al.  Rank-based Systems: A Simple Approach to Belief Revision, Belief Update, and Reasoning about Evidence and Actions , 1992, KR.