Succinct representations of model based belief revision?

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 1770, Issue , 2000, Pages 205-216

  Penna, Paolo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATION;

BELIEF REVISION; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MODEL-BASED OPC; POLYNOMIAL SIZE; POLYNOMIAL-TIME; SUCCINCT REPRESENTATION;

MODEL CHECKING;

EID: 84944076050     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-46541-3_17     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. A. Borgida. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 10:563-603, 1981.
2. M. Cadoli. The complexity of model checking for circumscriptive formulae. Information Processing Letters, 44:113-118, 1992.
3. M. Cadoli, F. M. Donini, P. Liberatore, and M. Schaerf. Comparing space efficiency of propositional knowledge representation formalisms. In Proc. of KR-96, pages 100-109, 1996.
4. M. Cadoli and F.M. Donini. A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Communications-The European Journal for Artificial Intelligence, 10:137-150, 1998.
5. M. Cadoli, F.M. Donini, P. Liberatore, and M. Shaerf. The size of a revised knowledge base. In Proc. of PODS-95, pages 151-162, 1995.
6. M. Cadoli, F.M. Donini, M. Shaerf, and R. Silvestri. On compact representations of propositional circumscription. Theoretical Computer Science, 182:183-202, 1995.
7. M. Cadoli and M. Shaerf. A survey on complexity results for nonmonotonic logics. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:127-160, 1993.
8. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence, 57:227-270, 1992.
9. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Propositional circumscription and extended closed world reasoning are Qp 2-complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 114:231-245, 1993.
10. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. The complexity of nested counterfactuals and iterated knowledge base revisions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 53:497-512, 1996.
11. R. Fagin, J.D. Ullman, and M.Y. Vardi. On the semantics of updates in databases. In Proc. of PODS-83, pages 352-365, 1983.
12. M.L. Ginsberg. Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence, 30:35-79, 1986.
13. G. Gogic, H. Kautz, C. Papadimitriou, and B. Selman. The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, pages 862-869, 1995.
14. P. Liberatore and M. Shaerf. Relating belief revision and circumscription. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, pages 1557-1563, 1995.
15. P. Liberatore and M. Shaerf. The complexity of model checking for belief revision and update. In Proc. of AAAI-96, pages 556-561, 1996.
16. J. McCarthy. Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 13:27-39, 1980.
17. J. McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 28:89-116, 1986.
18. B. Nebel. Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. In Proc. of KR-91, pages 417-428, 1991.
19. B. Nebel. How hard is it to revise a belief base? In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol. 3: Belief Change, pages 77-145, 1998.
20. C.H. Papadimitriou. Computational complexity. Addison Wesley, 1993.
21. K. Satoh. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proc. of FGCS- 88, pages 455-462, 1988.
22. A. Weber. Updating propositional formulas. In Proc. of the First Conference on Expert Database Systems, pages 487-500, 1986.
23. M. Winslett. Sometimes updates are circumscription. In Proc. of IJCAI-89, pages 859-863, 1989.
24. M. Winslett. Updating logical databases. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
25. H.P. Yap. Some consequences of nonuniform conditions on uniform classes. Theoretical Computer Science, 26:287-300, 1983.