Full Characterization of Parikh's Relevance-Sensitive Axiom for Belief Revision

In this article, the epistemic-entrenchment and partial-meet characterizations of Parikh’s relevance-sensitive axiom for belief revision, known as axiom (P), are provided. In short, axiom (P) states that, if a belief set K can be divided into two disjoint compartments, and the new information φ relates only to the first compartment, then the revision of K by φ should not affect the second compartment. Accordingly, we identify the subclass of epistemic-entrenchment and that of selection-function preorders, inducing AGM revision functions that satisfy axiom (P). Hence, together with the faithful-preorders characterization of (P) that has already been provided, Parikh’s axiom is fully characterized in terms of all popular constructive models of Belief Revision. Since the notions of relevance and local change are inherent in almost all intellectual activity, the completion of the constructive view of (P) has a significant impact on many theoretical, as well as applied, domains of Artificial Intelligence.

[1]  Sven Ove Hansson.  Kernel Contraction , 1994, J. Symb. Log..

[2]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Parametrised Difference Revision , 2018, KR.

[3]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  Using Relevance to Speed Up Inference. Some Empirical Results , 2004, SBIA.

[4]  Maonian Wu,et al.  Maximal Invariable Update Operator Based on Splitting , 2008, RSKT.

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

[6]  Gabriele Kern-Isberner,et al.  On the Logic of Theory Change: Relations Between Incision and Selection Functions , 2006, ECAI.

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

[10]  James P. Delgrande,et al.  Incorporating Relevance in Epistemic States in Belief Revision , 2018, KR.

[11]  David Makinson,et al.  Maps between some different kinds of contraction function: The finite case , 1986, Stud Logica.

[12]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Relevance Sensitive Non-Monotonic Inference on Belief Sequences , 2000, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Belief Revision: Syntax based approaches to belief revision , 1992 .

[14]  Gabriele Kern-Isberner,et al.  Strong Syntax Splitting for Iterated Belief Revision , 2017, IJCAI.

[15]  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.

[16]  Eduardo L. Fermé,et al.  An Axiomatic Characterization of Ensconcement-Based Contraction , 2008, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Relevance sensitive belief structures , 2000, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  An investigation of parametrized difference revision operators , 2019, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Epistemic-entrenchment Characterization of Parikh's Axiom , 2017, IJCAI.

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

[21]  Peter Gärdenfors.  Belief Revision and Relevance , 1990 .

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

[23]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation Edited Belief Revision Pavlos Peppas 8.1 Introduction , 2022 .

[24]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Beth definability, interpolation and language splitting , 2011, Synthese.

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

[26]  Dongmo Zhang,et al.  Characterizing Relevant Belief Revision Operators , 2010, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

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

[28]  Renata Wassermann.  On Structured Belief Bases , 2001 .

[29]  R. Parikh.  Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages , 1999 .

[30]  J. Greenstone.  Relevance , 2007 .

[31]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  Belief Revision in Answer Set Programming , 2017, PCI.

[32]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Relevance in belief revision , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  SATEN: An Object-Oriented Web-Based Revision and Extraction Engine , 2000, ArXiv.

[34]  Renata Wassermann.  Local Diagnosis , 2001, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[35]  Wlodzimierz Rabinowicz,et al.  Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

[36]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  How Hard is it to Revise a Belief Base , 1996 .

[37]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Local Change , 2002, Stud Logica.

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

[39]  David Makinson.  Propositional relevance through letter-sharing , 2009, J. Appl. Log..

[40]  David Makinson,et al.  Parallel interpolation, splitting, and relevance in belief change , 2007, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

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

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