Preliminary considerations on the modelling of belief change operators by metric spaces

In this paper, a possible worlds framework for representing general belief change operators is presented. In common with many approaches, an agent’s set of beliefs are specified by a subset of the set of possible worlds. The central intuition is that there is a distance given between every pair of possible worlds, giving the similarity of one world to another; the set of worlds together with this distance form a metric space. An operator such as revision is defined as expected: in revising by proposition A, the revised belief state is characterised by those worlds closest to the worlds characterising the agent’s original beliefs in which A is true. We propose that a suitable fundamental change operator is one where an agent’s beliefs are decreased as a result of the agent becoming more skeptical to a specified degree. This approach is compared and contrasted with the central quantitative framework for belief change, that due to Spohn.

[1]  Timothy Williamson,et al.  First-order logics for comparative similarity , 1988, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[2]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Transmutations of Knowledge Systems , 1994, KR.

[3]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A consistency-based approach for belief change , 2003, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[6]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Measuring similarity in belief revision , 2000, J. Log. Comput..

[7]  Andreas Weber,et al.  Updating Propositional Formulas , 1986, Expert Database Conf..

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

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

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

[11]  Thomas Andreas Meyer.  On the semantics of combination operations , 2001, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[12]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  The logic of knowledge bases , 2000 .

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

[14]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Arbitration (or How to Merge Knowledge Bases) , 1998, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

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

[16]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Maurice Pagnucco,et al.  Severe Withdrawal (and Recovery) , 1999, J. Philos. Log..

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

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

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

[21]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Similarity semantics and minimal changes of belief , 1992 .

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

[23]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Revision Sequences and Nested Conditionals , 1993, IJCAI.

[24]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model , 1995, IJCAI.

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

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