On the logic of iterated belief revision

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 89, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 1-29

  Darwiche, Adnan ^a,b   Pearl, Judea ^b  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^b University of California   (United States)

Author keywords

AGM postulates; Conditional beliefs; Epistemic states; Iterated revision; Probabilistic conditioning; Qualitative probability

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; FORMAL LOGIC; ITERATIVE METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY;

BELIEF REVISION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0030712510     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0004-3702(96)00038-0     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision, J. Symbolic Logic 50 (1985) 510-530.
2. C. Alchourrón and D. Makinson, On the logic of theory change: safe contraction, Stud. Logica 44 (1985) 405-422.
3. C. Boutilier, Revision sequences and nested conditionals, in: Proceedings IJCAI-93, Chambery (1993).
4. C. Boutilier, Iterated revision and minimal revision of conditional beliefs, J. Philos. Logic 25 (1996) 262-305.
5. A. Darwiche and J. Pearl, On the logic of iterated belief revision, in: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1994 Conference (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1994) 5-23.
6. M. Freund and D. Lehmann, Belief revision and rational inference, Tech. Rept. TR-94-16, Institute of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (1994).
7. N. Friedman and J.Y. Halpern, Belief revision: a critique, in: Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knoweldge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA (1996).
8. P. Gärdenfors, Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).
9. P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations, Artif. Intell. 65 (1994) 197-245.
10. H. Geffner, Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992).
11. M. Goldszmidt, Qualitative probabilities: a normative framework for commonsense reasoning, Tech. Rept. R-190, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (1992).
12. M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl, Reasoning with qualitative probabilities can be tractable, in: Proceedings Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in AI, Stanford, CA (1992) 112-120.
13. M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl, Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modeling, Artif. Intell. 84 (1996) 57-112.
14. S.O. Hansson, A test battery for rational database updating, Artif. Intell. 82 (1982) 341-352.
15. S.O. Hansson, In defense of base contraction, Synthese 91 (1992) 239-245.
16. S.O. Hansson, In defense of the ramsey test, J. Philos. 89 (1992) 522-540.
17. H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon, Prepositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artif. Intell. 52 (1991) 263-294.
18. D. Lehmann, Belief revision, revised, in: Proceedings IJCAI-95, Montreal, Que. (1995) 1534-1540.
19. I. Levi, Iteration of conditionals and the ramsey test, Synthese 76 (1988) 49-81.
20. M. Morreau, Epistemic semantics for counterfactuals, J. Philos. 21 (1992) 33-62.
21. R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning, Artif. Intell. 13 (1980) 81-132.
22. H. Rott, Drawing inferences from conditionals, Tech. Rept. 38, Department of Philosophy, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz (1994).
23. W. Spohn, Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states, in: W.L. Harper and B. Skyrms, eds., Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics 2 (1987) 105-134.
24. W. Spohn, A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning, in: L. Kanal, R. Shachter, T. Levitt and J. Lemmer, eds., Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4 (Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1990) 149-158.