Anytime belief revision

IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 1, Issue , 1997, Pages 74-79

  Williams, Mary Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BELIEF REVISION; DECISION PROCEDURE; THEOREM PROVERS;

THEOREM PROVING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0038555089     PISSN: 10450823     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Alchourr6n, C, Gardenfors, P., and Makinson, D. [1985], On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510-530.
2. Antoniou, G. and Williams, M.A. [1996], Reasoning with Incomplete and Changing Information, in N. Terashima and E. Altman (eds), Advanced Information Technology Tools, Chapman and Hill, 395-401.
3. Dubois, D., Lang, J., and Prade, H. [1994], Possibilistic Logic, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Gabbay, D., Hogger, C, and Robinson, J. (eds), Claredon Press, Oxford.
4. Eiter, T and Gottlob, G. [1992], The Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision, Artificial Intelligence 57: 227-270.
5. Gardenfors, P. [1988], Knowledge in Flux, A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.
6. Gardenfors, P., and Makinson, D. [1988], Revisions of Knowledge Systems using Epistemic Entrenchment, Proceedings of TARK, 83-96.
7. Gardenfors, P. and Makinson, D. [1994], Nonmonotonic Inference Based on Expectations, Artificial Intelligence 65: 197-245.
8. Lang, J. [1997], Possibilistic Logic: Algorithms and Complexity in J. Kohlas and S. Moral (eds), Handbook of Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Lehmann, D. [1992], What should a Knowledge Base Entail, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.
10. MacNish, C.K. and Williams M.A. [1996], From Belief Revision to Design Revision: Applying Theory Change to Changing Requirements, in Reasoning about Incomplete and Changing Information, Lecture Note Series, Springer Verlag, 1997.
11. Makinson, D. [1987], On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16: 383-394.
12. Nebel, B., [1991] Belief Revision and Default Reasoning, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 417-428.
13. Rott, H. [1992] Preferential Belief Change using Generalised Epistemic Entrenchment, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 1: 45-78.
14. Spohn, W., [1983] Deterministic and Probabilistic Reasons, Erkenntis 19: 371-396.
15. Williams M.A. [1992], Two functions for theory base change, in the Proceedings of the Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p259-265.
16. Williams, M.A. [1995] Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model, IJCAI-95, Morgan Kaufmann, 1541-1550.
17. M.A. Williams, [1996] A Practical Appraoch to Belief Revision: Reason-Based Change, in L. Aiello, and S. Shapiro (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 412-421, 1996.
18. Williams, M.A., and Williams, D.M., A Belief Revision System for the World Wide Web, IJCAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, 1997, http://u2.newcastle.edu.au/webworld/papers/ai-internet.html