Kernel Contraction and Base Dependence: Redundancy in the Base Resulting in Different Types of Dependence

The AGM paradigm of belief change studies the dynamics of belief states in light of new information. Finding, or even approximating, dependent or relevant beliefs to a change is valuable because, for example, it can narrow the set of beliefs considered during belief change operations. Gardenfors' preservation criterion (GPC) suggests that formulas independent of a belief change should remain intact. GPC allows to build dependence relations that are theoretically linked with belief change. Such dependence relations can in turn be used as a theoretical benchmark against which to evaluate other approximate dependence or relevance relations. There are already some studies, based on GPC, on the parallelism between belief change and dependence. One study offers a dependence relation parallel to AGM contraction for belief sets. Another study links base dependence relation to a more general belief base contraction, saturated kernel contraction. Here we offer yet a more general parallelism between kernel contraction and base dependence. At this level of generalization, different types of base dependence emerge. We prove that this differentiation of base dependence types is a result of possible redundancy in the base. This provides a theoretical means to distinguish between redundant and informative parts of a belief base.

[1]  Haythem O. Ismail,et al.  High-Level Perception as Focused Belief Revision , 2010, ECAI.

[2]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  Using Relevance to Speed Up Inference. Some Empirical Results , 2004, SBIA.

[3]  Moshe Y. Vardi Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, March 1988 , 1988, TARK.

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

[5]  J. Meigs,et al.  WHO Technical Report , 1954, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

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

[7]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A Modularization-Based Approach to Finding All Justifications for OWL DL Entailments , 2008, ASWC.

[8]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[9]  Dongmo Zhang,et al.  Characterizing Relevant Belief Revision Operators , 2010, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

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

[12]  Dana,et al.  JSL volume 88 issue 4 Cover and Front matter , 1983, The Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[13]  David Makinson,et al.  Respecting relevance in belief change , 2006 .

[14]  Moshe Y. Vardi Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge , 1990 .

[15]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States , 2008 .

[16]  Peter Gärdenfors Belief Revision and Relevance , 1990 .

[17]  C. Bicchieri,et al.  PSA: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 2002 .

[18]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Relevance sensitive belief structures , 2000, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Stratified Belief Bases Revision with Argumentative Inference , 2011, Journal of Philosophical Logic.

[20]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Local Change , 2002, Stud Logica.

[21]  Sven Ove Hansson Kernel Contraction , 1994, J. Symb. Log..

[22]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A Relevance-Directed Algorithm for Finding Justifications of DL Entailments , 2009, ASWC.

[23]  Dongmo Zhang,et al.  Language Splitting and Relevance-Based Belief Change in Horn Logic , 2011, AAAI.

[24]  Luis Fariñas del Cerro,et al.  Belief Change and Dependence , 1996, TARK.

[25]  Fred Popowich,et al.  Belief Change and Base Dependence , 2014, KR.

[26]  David Makinson,et al.  Parallel interpolation, splitting, and relevance in belief change , 2007, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[27]  Bernardo Cuenca Grau,et al.  History Matters: Incremental Ontology Reasoning Using Modules , 2007, ISWC/ASWC.

[28]  David Makinson Propositional Relevance through Letter-Sharing: Review and Contribution , 2007, Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents.