Relating Belief Revision and Circumscription

Nonmonotonic formalisms and belief revision operators have been introduced as useful tools to describe and reason about evolving scenarios Both approaches have been proven effective in a number of different situations. However, little is known about their relationship Previous work by Winslett has shown some correlations between a specific operator and circumscription In this paper we greatly extend Winslett's work by establishing new relations between circumscription and a large number of belief revision operators. This highlights similarities and differences between these formalisms Furthermore these connections provide us with the possibility of importing results in one field into the other one.

[1]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  The size of a revised knowledge base , 1995, PODS '95.

[2]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Computing Circumscription , 1985, IJCAI.

[4]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Propositional Circumscription and Extended Closed-World Reasoning are IIp2-Complete , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Gabriel M. Kuper,et al.  Updating Logical Databases , 1986, Adv. Comput. Res..

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

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

[8]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision, Updates, and Counterfactuals , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

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

[11]  John McCarthy,et al.  Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning , 1980, Artif. Intell..

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

[13]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  On Compact Representations of Propositional Circumscription , 1995, STACS.

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

[15]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Actions with Indirect Effects (Preliminary Report) , 1994, KR.

[16]  Jean H. Gallier,et al.  Linear-Time Algorithms for Testing the Satisfiability of Propositional Horn Formulae , 1984, J. Log. Program..

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

[18]  Kurt Konolige,et al.  Eliminating the Fixed Predicates from a Circumscription , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  On Compact Representations of Propositional Circumscription , 1995, STACS.

[20]  Kenneth D. Forbus.  Introducing Actions into Qualitative Simulation , 1989, IJCAI.

[21]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision , 1992, CNKBS.

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

[23]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  The Complexity of Propositional Closed World Reasoning and Circumscription , 1994, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

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

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

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