A Bad Day Surfing Is Better than a Good Day Working: How to Revise a Total Preorder

Most approaches to iterated belief revision are accompanied by some motivation for the use of the proposed revision operator (or family of operators), and typically encode enough information for uniquely determining one-step revision. But in those approaches describing a family of operators, there is usually little indication of how to proceed uniquely after the first revision step. In this paper we take a step towards addressing that deficiency by providing a formal framework which goes beyond the first revision step. The framework is obtained by enriching the preference information starting from the following intuitive idea: we associate to each world x two abstract objects x+ and x-, with the intuition that x+ represents x "on a good day", while x- represents x "on a bad day", and we assume that, in addition to preferences over the set of worlds, we are given preferences over this set of objects as well. The latter can be considered as meta-information which enables us to go beyond the first revision step of the revision operator being applied.

[1]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  Iterated Belief Revision, Revised , 2005, IJCAI.

[2]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Richard Booth,et al.  Admissible and Restrained Revision , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[5]  Odile Papini,et al.  Iterated Revision by Epistemic States: Axioms, Semantics and Syntax , 2000, ECAI.

[6]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[7]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

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

[9]  Maurice Pagnucco,et al.  Dynamic belief revision operators , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Tasneem Hameed,et al.  Change. , 2018, The Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association.

[11]  Hans Rott,et al.  Change, choice and inference , 2001 .

[12]  S. Glaister,et al.  Symmetry and Belief Revision , 1998 .

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

[14]  Karl Schlechta,et al.  Distance semantics for belief revision , 1996, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[15]  H. Kyburg.  Iterated Belief Change Based on Epistemic Entrenchment* , 1994 .

[16]  William Harper,et al.  Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics , 1988 .

[17]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs , 1996, J. Philos. Log..

[18]  John Cantwell,et al.  Credibility limited revision , 2001, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[19]  Richard Booth,et al.  On the Logic of Iterated Non-prioritised Revision , 2002, WCII.

[20]  S. Hansson.  A Survey of non-Prioritized Belief Revision , 1999 .

[21]  Michael Freund,et al.  Injective Models and Disjunctive Relations , 1993, J. Log. Comput..

[22]  Odile Papini.  Iterated Revision Operations Stemming from the History of an Agent’s Observations , 2001 .

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