Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model

IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 2, Issue , 1995, Pages 1541-1547

  Williams, Mary Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATION THEORY;

AGM THEORY; BASIS CHANGES; CANONICAL REPRESENTATIONS; CHANGE OPERATORS; COMPUTATIONAL MODELLING; FORMAL APPROACH; PRACTICAL PROBLEMS;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS;

EID: 85015470675     PISSN: 10450823     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. [Alchourron et al] Alchourron, C, Gardenfora, P, Makinson, D, On the Logic of Theory Change Partial Meet Functions for Contraction ana Revision, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50 510-530, 1985.
2. [Boutilier, 1993] Boutiher, C, Revision Sequences and Nested Conditionah, Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 519 - 525, 1993.
3. [Darwiche and Pearl, 1994] Darwiche, D and Pearl, J, On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision, in Fagin (ed), Proceedings of the 1994 Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, 5 - 23, 1994.
4. [Freund and Lehmann, 1994] Freund, M and Lehmann, D, Belief Revision and Rational Inference, Technical Report TR 94-16, Institute of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, 1994.
5. [Furhmann, 1991] Fuhrmann, A, Theory Contraction through Base Contraction, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20 175 - 203, 1991.
6. [Gardenfors, 1988] Gardenfors, P, Knowledge in Flux Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford Books, The M l T Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988.
7. [Gardenfors and Makinson 1988] Gardenfors, P, and Makinson, D, Revisions of Knowledge Systems using Epistemic Entrenchment, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, p83 - 96, 1988.
8. [Gardenfors and Makinson, 1994] Gardenfors, P and Makinson, D, Nonmonotonic Inference Based on Expectations, Artificial Intelligence Journal 65, 197 - 245 1994.
9. [Gardenfors and Rott, 1992] [Gardenfors, P and Rott, H, Belief Revision, Report 30, Zentrum Philosophic und Wissenschaftstheone, Universitat Konstanz, Germany, 1992.
10. [Grove, 1988] Grove, A, Two Modellings for Theorg Change, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 157- 170, 1988.
11. [Hansson, 1989] Hansson, S O, New Operators for Theory Change, Theona 55 115 - 132, 1989.
12. [Katsuno and Mendelzon, 1992] Katsuno, H and Mendelzon, A O, On the Difference between Updat ing a Knowledge Database and Revising it, in Belief Revision, Gardenfors, P (ed), Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1992.
13. [Makinson, 1987] Makinson, D, On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16 383 - 394, 1987.
14. [Nayak, 1993] Nayak, A, Studies in Belief Change, PhD Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester, USA, 1993.
15. [Nebel, 1991] Nebel, B, A Knowledge Level Analysis of Belief Revision, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 301 - 311, 1991.
16. [Pearl, 19941 Pearl, J, From Adams' Conditionals to Default Expressions, Causal Conditionals, and Counter]'actuals, in E Eells and B Skyrma (eds), Probability and Conditionals, Cambridge University Press, 47 - 74, 1994.
17. [Peppas, 1993] Peppas, P, Belief Change and Reasoning about Action PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia, 1993.
18. [Peppas and Williams 1995] Peppas, P, and Williams, M A, Constructive Modellings for Theory Change, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, to appear.
19. [Rescher, 1976] Resetter, N, Plausible Reasoning, Van Gorcum, Assen, Amsterdam, 1976.
20. [Rott, 1991a] Rott, H, Two Methods of Constructing Contractions and Revisions of Knowledge Systems, Journal of Philosphical Logic, 20 149 - 173, 1991.
21. [Rott, 1991b] Rott, H, A Nonmonotonic Conditional Logic for Belief Revision/, in A Fuhrmann and M Morreau (eds), The Logic of Theory Change, Springer-Verlag, LNAI 465, Berlin, 135 - 183, 1991.
22. [Spohn, 1983], Spohn, W, Deterministic and Probabilistic Reasons and Causes, Erkenntnis 19 371-396, 1983.
23. [Spohn, 1988], Spohn, W, Ordinal Conditional Functions A Dynamic Theory of Epistemtc States, In Harper, W L, and Skyrms, B (eds), Causation in decision, belief change.and statistics, I I, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pI05 - 134, 1988.
24. [Williams, 1992] Williams M A, Two operators for theory base change, in the Proceedings of the 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. p259 - 265, 1992.
25. [Williams, 1993] Williams, M A, Implementing Knowledge Tronsmutations, Information Systems Group Report ISRR-006-1993, University of Newcastle, 1993.
26. [Williams, 1994a], Williams, M A, Transmutations of Knowledge Systems, in J Doyle, E Sandewall, and P Torasso (eds), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 619 - 629, 1994.
27. [Williams, 1994b] Williams, M A, Ezp/anaiion and Theory Base Transmutations, in the proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, A Cohn (ed), Wiley, 346 - 350, 1994.
28. [Williams, 1994c] Williams, M A, On the Logic of Theory Base Change, in Logics in Artificial Intelligence, C MacNish, D Pearce and L M Pereira (eds), LNCS No 835, 86 - 105, Spnngei Verlag, 1994.
29. [Williams, 1995a] Williams, M A, Changing Nonmonotonic Inference Relations, in the Proceedings of the Second World Conference on the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Paris, 1995 (to appear).
30. [Williams et al, 1995b] Williams, M A, Pagnucco, M, Foo, N Y and Sims, B (1995), Determining Explanations using Knowledge Transmutations, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (this volume).