Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. On the logic of iterated belief revision.Adnan Darwiche & Judea Pearl - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence 89 (1-2):1-29.
    We show in this paper that the AGM postulates are too weak to ensure the rational preservation of conditional beliefs during belief revision, thus permitting improper responses to sequences of observations. We remedy this weakness by proposing four additional postulates, which are sound relative to a qualitative version of probabilistic conditioning. Contrary to the AGM framework, the proposed postulates characterize belief revision as a process which may depend on elements of an epistemic state that are not necessarily captured by a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   141 citations  
  • Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs.Craig Boutilier - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (3):263 - 305.
    We describe a model of iterated belief revision that extends the AGM theory of revision to account for the effect of a revision on the conditional beliefs of an agent. In particular, this model ensures that an agent makes as few changes as possible to the conditional component of its belief set. Adopting the Ramsey test, minimal conditional revision provides acceptance conditions for arbitrary right-nested conditionals. We show that problem of determining acceptance of any such nested conditional can be reduced (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   65 citations  
  • The lexicographic closure as a revision process.Richard Booth - 2001 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 11 (1):35-58.
    The connections between nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision are well-known. A central problem in the area of nonmonotonic reasoning is the problem of default entailment, i.e., when should an item of default information representing “if θ is true then, normally, φ is true” be said to follow from a given set of items of such information. Many answers to this question have been proposed but, surprisingly, virtually none have attempted any explicit connection to belief revision. The aim of this paper (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson - 1985 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2):510-530.
    This paper extends earlier work by its authors on formal aspects of the processes of contracting a theory to eliminate a proposition and revising a theory to introduce a proposition. In the course of the earlier work, Gardenfors developed general postulates of a more or less equational nature for such processes, whilst Alchourron and Makinson studied the particular case of contraction functions that are maximal, in the sense of yielding a maximal subset of the theory (or alternatively, of one of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   735 citations  
  • Coherence and Conservatism in the Dynamics of Belief Part I: Finding the right framework.Hans Rott - 1999 - Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):387-412.
    In this paper I discuss the foundations of a formal theory of coherent and conservative belief change that is (a) suitable to be used as a method for constructing iterated changes of belief, (b) sensitive to the history of earlier belief changes, and (c) independent of any form of dispositional coherence. I review various ways to conceive the relationship between the beliefs actually held by an agent and her belief change strategies (that also deal with potential belief sets), show the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Constructive Modelings for Theory Change.Pavlos Peppas & Mary-Anne Williams - 1995 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36 (1):120-133.
    Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson have developed and investigated a set of rationality postulates which appear to capture much of what is required of any rational system of theory revision. This set of postulates describes a class of revision functions, however it does not provide a constructive way of defining such a function. There are two principal constructions of revision functions, namely an epistemic entrenchment and a system of spheres. We refer to their approach as the AGM paradigm. We provide a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment.Abhaya C. Nayak - 1994 - Erkenntnis 41 (3):353-390.
    In this paper it is argued that, in order to solve the problem of iterated belief change, both the belief state and its input should be represented as epistemic entrenchment (EE) relations. A belief revision operation is constructed that updates a given EE relation to a new one in light of an evidential EE relation. It is shown that the operation in question satisfies generalized versions of the Gärdenfors revision postulates. The account offered is motivated by Spohn's ordinal conditionalization functions, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  • Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics.Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann & Menachem Magidor - 1990 - Artificial Intelligence 44 (1-2):167-207.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   365 citations  
  • Two modellings for theory change.Adam Grove - 1988 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (2):157-170.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   307 citations  
  • Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations.Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson - 1994 - Artificial Intelligence 65 (2):197-245.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   77 citations