论文信息 - Measuring similarity in belief revision

Measuring similarity in belief revision

ThePossible Models Approach (PMA) introduced by Winslett, proposes, among other things, a domain-independent criterion for measuringsimilarity between different states of a dynamic system. The concept of similarity between states (possible worlds) appears also in the area of Belief Revision in the form of asystem of spheres. Systems of spheres are in turn connected to epistemic entrenchments by means of the AGM revision functions that the two structures induce. In view of these connections, in this article we study the implications of adopting PMA’s criterion of similarity in the context of Belief Revision. More precisely, we formulate conditions that capture PMA’s criterion of similarity in terms of systems of spheres ( PMA systems of spheres) and we provide an axiomatic characterization of the class of epistemic entrenchments corresponding to systems of spheres that comply with PMA’s criterion of similarity (PMA epistemic entrenchments). We also discuss some interesting properties of the class of PMA system of spheres and PMA epistemic entrenchments. Our study is primarily motivated by the role that PMA epistemic entrenchments can play in Reasoning about Action.

[1] John L. Bell,et al. Models and Ultraproducts: An Introduction. , 1969 .

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

[3] Norman Y. Foo,et al. On the expressibility of propositions , 1992 .

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

[5] Pavlos Peppas,et al. On the Use of Epistemic Entrenchment in Reasoning about Action , 1992, ECAI.

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

[7] Perry Smith. Review: J. L. Bell, A. B. Slomson, Models and Ultraproducts: An Introduction , 1972 .

[8] Hans Rott,et al. Modellings for Belief Change: Base Contraction, Multiple Contraction, and Epistemic Entrenchment , 1992, JELIA.

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

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

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

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

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