Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model

The AGM paradigm is a formal approach to ideal and rational information change From a practical perspective it suffers from two shortcomings, the first involves difficulties with respect to the finite representation of information, and the second involves the lack of support for the iteration of change operators. In this paper we show that these practical problems can be solved in theoretically satisfying ways wholely with in the AGM paradigm. We introduce a partial entrenchment ranking which serves as a canonical representation for a theory base and a well-ranked episterruc entrenchment, and we provide a computational model for adjusting partial entrenchment rankings when they receive new information using a procedure based on the principle of minimal change. The connection between the standard AGM theory change operators and the theory base change operators developed herein suggest that the proposed computational model for iterated theory base change exhibits desirable behaviour.

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

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

[3]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[4]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  A Knowledge Level Analysis of Belief Revision , 1989, KR.

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

[6]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Plausible reasoning , 1976 .

[7]  Hans Rott,et al.  A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision. Part 1: Semantics and logic of simple conditionals , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

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

[9]  Hans Rott,et al.  Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[10]  David Makinson,et al.  On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change , 1987, J. Philos. Log..

[11]  Abhaya C. Nayak.  Studies in belief change , 1993 .

[12]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[13]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Nonmonotonic Inference Based on Expectations , 1994, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[16]  Mary-Anne Williams.  Changing Nonmonotonic Inference Relations , 1995, WOCFAI.

[17]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Determining Explanations using Transmutations , 1995, IJCAI.

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

[19]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  On the Logic of Theory Base Change , 1994, JELIA.

[20]  Mary-Anne Williams.  Explanation and Theory Base Transmutations , 1994, ECAI.

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