Belief Revision: A Critique

We examine carefully the rationale underlying the approaches to belief change taken in the literature, and highlight what we view as methodological problems. We argue that to study belief change carefully, we must be quite explicit about the “ontology” or scenario underlying the belief change process. This is something that has been missing in previous work, with its focus on postulates. Our analysis shows that we must pay particular attention to two issues that have often been taken for granted: the first is how we model the agent's epistemic state. (Do we use a set of beliefs, or a richer structure, such as an ordering on worlds? And if we use a set of beliefs, in what language are these beliefs are expressed?) We show that even postulates that have been called “beyond controversy” are unreasonable when the agent's beliefs include beliefs about her own epistemic state as well as the external world. The second is the status of observations. (Are observations known to be true, or just believed? In the latter case, how firm is the belief?) Issues regarding the status of observations arise particularly when we consider iterated belief revision, and we must confront the possibility of revising by φ and then by ¬ φ.     

Diversity of Agents and Their Interaction

Diversity of agents occurs naturally in epistemic logic, and dynamic logics of information update and belief revision. In this paper we provide a systematic discussion of different sources of diversity, such as introspection ability, powers of observation, memory capacity, and revision policies, and we show how these can be encoded in dynamic epistemic logics allowing for individual variation among agents. Next, we explore the interaction of diverse agents by looking at some concrete scenarios of communication and learning, and we propose a logical methodology to deal with these as well. We conclude with some further questions on the logic of diversity and interaction. This work was supported by the Chinese National Social Science Foundation (Grant Number: 04CZX011) and the Dutch Science Organization NWO.     

A Power Algebra for Theory Change

Various representation results have been established for logics of belief revision, in terms of remainder sets, epistemic entrenchment, systems of spheres and so on. In this paper I present another representation for logics of belief revision, as an algebra of theories. I show that an algebra of theories, enriched with a set of rejection operations, provides a suitable algebraic framework to characterize the theory change operations of systems of belief revision. The theory change operations arise as power operations of the conjunction and disjunction connectives of the underlying logic.     

Announcements to Attentive Agents

In public announcement logic it is assumed that all agents pay attention to the announcement. Weaker observational conditions can be modelled in action model logic. In this work, we propose a version of public announcement logic wherein it is encoded in the states of the epistemic model which agents pay attention to the announcement. This logic is called attention-based announcement logic. We give an axiomatization of the logic and prove that complexity of satisfiability is the same as that of public announcement logic, and therefore lower than that of action model logic. An attention-based announcement can also be described as an action model. We extend our logic by integrating attention change. Finally, we add the notion of common belief to the language, we exploit this to formalize the concept of joint attention, that has been widely discussed in the philosophical and cognitive science literature, and we provide a corresponding axiomatization. This axiomatization also employs the auxiliary notion of attention-based relativized common belief.     

Double preference relations for generalised belief change

Many belief change formalisms employ plausibility orderings over the set of possible worlds to determine how the beliefs of an agent ought to be modified after the receipt of a new epistemic input. While most such possible world semantics rely on a single ordering, we investigate the use of an additional preference ordering—representing, for instance, the epistemic context the agent finds itself in—to guide the process of belief change. We show that the resultant formalism provides a unifying semantics for a wide variety of belief change operators. By varying the conditions placed on the second ordering, different families of known belief change operators can be captured, including AGM belief contraction and revision, Rott and Pagnucco's severe withdrawal, the systematic withdrawal of Meyer et al., as well as the linear liberation and σ-liberation operators of Booth et al. Our approach also identifies novel classes of belief change operators worthy of further investigation.     

A Formal Model of Multi-Agent Belief-Interaction

A semantics is presented for belief revision in the face of common announcements to a group of agents that have beliefs about each other’s beliefs. The semantics is based on the idea that possible worlds can be viewed as having an internal-structure, representing the belief independent features of the world, and the respective belief states of the agents in a modular fashion. Modularity guarantees that changing one aspect of the world (a belief independent feature or a belief state) has no effect on any other aspect of the world. This allows us to employ an AGM-style selection function to represent revision. The semantics is given a complete axiomatisation (identical to the axiomatisation found by Gerbrandy and Groeneveld for a semantics based on non-wellfounded set theory) for the special case of expansion.     

The Strength of Desires: A Logical Approach

The aim of this paper is to propose a formal approach to reasoning about desires, understood as logical propositions which we would be pleased to make true, also acknowledging the fact that desire is a matter of degree. It is first shown that, at the static level, desires should satisfy certain principles that differ from those to which beliefs obey. In this sense, from a static perspective, the logic of desires is different from the logic of beliefs. While the accumulation of beliefs tend to reduce the remaining possible worlds they point at, the accumulation of desires tends to increase the set of states of affairs tentatively considered as satisfactory. Indeed beliefs are expected to be closed under conjunctions, while, in the positive view of desires developed here, one can argue that endorsing \(\varphi \vee \psi\) as a desire means to desire \(\varphi\) and to desire \(\psi\). However, desiring \(\varphi\) and \(\lnot \varphi\) at the same time is not usually regarded as rational, since it does not make much sense to desire one thing and its contrary at the same time. Thus when a new desire is added to the set of desires of an agent, a revision process may be necessary. Just as belief revision relies on an epistemic entrenchment relation, desire revision is based on a hedonic entrenchment relation satisfying other properties, due to the different natures of belief and desire. While epistemic entrenchment relations are known to be qualitative necessity relations (in the sense of possibility theory), hedonic relations obeying a set of reasonable postulates correspond to another set-function in possibility theory, called guaranteed possibility, that drive well-behaved desire revision operations. Then the general framework of possibilistic logic provides a syntactic setting for encoding desire change. The paper also insists that desires should be carefully distinguished from goals.     

一种基于可信度的迭代信念修正方法

信念修正主要解决在接收到新信息时,如何对原有知识库进行操作的问题．经典的迭代信念修正主要关注信念修正的一致性,并未考虑多agent系统中信息具有不可靠性,以及信念修正过程对修正结果的影响．基于可信度的迭代信念修正方法,通过证据理论以及信度函数方法估计信息的可信度,并由此确定最优的最大协调子集作为信念修正的结果．基于可信度的迭代信念修正算子具有历史依赖性,即修正结果不仅与当前的信念集和接收到的新信息有关,也与信念集中曾经接收到的信息相关．     

一种广义信念修正的计算方法

AGM理论中新知识为单个语句，而实际上新知识通常是以多语句甚至无穷语句的形式出现．广义信念修正从理论上扩充了AGM系统，但在具体实现上还缺乏有效的算法．通过构造优序划分的方法解决信念间的关系问题，采用新知识的信度与冲突知识相关的方法解决新知识的信度问题．给出了一种基于链表的计算方法，从而解决了广义信念修正理论的信念库维护操作问题．     

A Formal Model of Multi-Agent Belief-Interaction

A semantics is presented for belief-revision in the face of common announcements to a group of agents that have beliefs about each other's beliefs. The semantics is based on the idea that possible worlds can be viewed as having an internal structure, representing the belief independent features of the world, and the respective belief states of the agents in a modular fashion. Modularity guarantees that changing one aspect of the world (a belief independent feature or a belief state) has no effect on any other aspect of the world. This allows us to employ an AGM-style selection function to represent revision. The semantics is given a complete axiomatisation (identical to the axiomatisation found by Gerbrandy and Groeneveld for a semantics based on non-wellfounded set theory) for the special case of expansion.     

Belief revision within fragments of propositional logic

Belief revision has been extensively studied in the framework of propositional logic, but just recently revision within fragments of propositional logic has gained attention. Hereby it is not only the belief set and the revision formula which are given within a certain language fragment, but also the result of the revision has to be located in the same fragment. So far, research in this direction has been mainly devoted to the Horn fragment of classical logic. Here we present a general approach to define new revision operators derived from known operators, such that the result of the revision remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the Horn case but applicable to any fragment of propositional logic where the models of the formulas are closed under a Boolean function. Thus we are able to uniformly treat cases as dual Horn, Krom and affine formulas, as well.     

Making Beliefs Coherentl. The Subtraction and Addition Strategies.

The notion of epistemic coherence is interpreted as involving not only consistency but also stability. The problem how to consolidate a belief system, i.e., revise it so that it becomes coherent, is studied axiomatically as well as in terms of set-theoretical constructions. Representation theorems are given for subtractive consolidation (where coherence is obtained by deleting beliefs) and additive consolidation (where coherence is obtained by adding beliefs).     

Dynamic belief revision operators

The AGM approach to belief change is not geared to provide a decent account of iterated belief change. Darwiche and Pearl have sought to extend the AGM proposal in an interesting way to deal with this problem. We show that the original Darwiche-Pearl approach is, on the one hand excessively strong and, on the other rather limited in scope. The later Darwiche-Pearl approach, we argue, although it addresses the first problem, still remains rather permissive. We address both these issues by (1) assuming a dynamic revision operator that changes to a new revision operator after each instance of belief change, and (2) strengthening the Darwiche-Pearl proposal. Moreover, we provide constructions of this dynamic revision operator via entrenchment kinematics as well as a simple form of lexicographic revision, and prove representation results connecting these accounts.     

Iterated belief revision, revised

The AGM postulates for belief revision, augmented by the DP postulates for iterated belief revision, provide widely accepted criteria for the design of operators by which intelligent agents adapt their beliefs incrementally to new information. These postulates alone, however, are too permissive: They support operators by which all newly acquired information is canceled as soon as an agent learns a fact that contradicts some of its current beliefs. In this paper, we present a formal analysis of the deficiency of the standard postulates alone, and we show how to solve the problem by an additional postulate of independence. We give a representation theorem for this postulate and prove that it is compatible with AGM and DP.     

Epistemic Logic for Rule-Based Agents

The logical omniscience problem, whereby standard models of epistemic logic treat an agent as believing all consequences of its beliefs and knowing whatever follows from what else it knows, has received plenty of attention in the literature. But many attempted solutions focus on a fairly narrow specification of the problem: avoiding the closure of belief or knowledge, rather than showing how the proposed logic is of philosophical interest or of use in computer science or artificial intelligence. Sentential epistemic logics, as opposed to traditional possible worlds approaches, do not suffer from the problems of logical omniscience but are often thought to lack interesting epistemic properties. In this paper, I focus on the case of rule-based agents, which play a key role in contemporary AI research but have been neglected in the logical literature. I develop a framework for modelling monotonic, nonmonotonic and introspective rule-based reasoners which have limited cognitive resources and prove that the resulting models have a number of interesting properties. An axiomatization of the resulting logic is given, together with completeness, decidability and complexity results.     

Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment

A sentence A is epistemically less entrenched in a belief state K than a sentence B if and only if a person in belief state K who is forced to give up either A or B will give up A and hold on to B. This is the fundamental idea of epistemic entrenchment as introduced by Gärdenfors (1988) and elaborated by Gärdenfors and Makinson (1988). Another distinguishing feature of relations of epistemic entrenchment is that they permit particularly simple and elegant construction recipes for minimal changes of belief states. These relations, however, are required to satisfy rather demanding conditions. In the present paper we liberalize the concept of epistemic entrenchment by removing connectivity, minimality and maximality conditions. Correspondingly, we achieve a liberalization of the concept of rational belief change that does no longer presuppose the postulates of success and rational monotony. We show that the central results of Gärdenfors and Makinson are preserved in our more flexible setting. Moreover, the generalized concept of epistemic entrenchment turns out to be applicable also to relational and iterated belief changes.     

Infobase Change: A First Approximation

Generalisations of theory change involving operations on arbitrary sets ofwffs instead of on belief sets (i.e., sets closed under a consequencerelation), have become known as base change. In one view, a base should bethought of as providing more structure to its generated belief set, whichmeans that it can be employed to determine the theory contraction operationassociated with a base contraction operation. In this paper we follow suchan approach as the first step in defining infobase change. We think of an infobase as a finite set of wffs consisting of independently obtainedbits of information. Taking AGM theory change (Alchourrón et al. 1985) as the general framework, we present a method that uses the structure of aninfobase B to obtain an AGM theory contraction operation for contractingthe belief set Cn(B). Both the infobase and the obtained theory contraction operation then play a role in constructing a unique infobasecontraction operation. Infobase revision is defined in terms of an analogueof the Levi Identity, and it is shown that the associated theory revisionoperation satisfies the AGM postulates for revision. Because every infobaseis associated with a unique infobase contraction and revision operation, the method also allows for iterated base change.     

Distributed Belief Revision

In this paper, a distributed approach to belief revision is presented. It is conceived as a collective activity of a group of interacting agents, in which each component contributes with its own local beliefs. The integration of the different opinions is performed not by an external supervisor, but by the entire group through an election mechanism. Each agent exchanges information with the other components and uses a local belief revision mechanism to maintain its cognitive state consistent. We propose a model for local belief revision/integration based on what we called: Principle of Recoverability. Computationally, our way to belief revision consists of three steps acting on the symbolic part of the information, so as to deal with consistency and derivation, and two other steps working with the numerical weight of the information, so as to deal with uncertainty. In order to evaluate and compare the characteristics and performance of the centralized and of the distributed approaches, we made five different experiments simulating a simple society in which each agent is characterized by a degree of competence, communicates with some others, and revise its cognitive state. The results of these experiments are presented in the paper.     

A FRAMEWORK FOR LOGICS OF EXPLICIT BELIEF

The epistemic notions of knowledge and belief have most commonly been modeled by means of possible worlds semantics. In such approaches an agent knows (or believes) all logical consequences of its beliefs. Consequently, several approaches have been proposed to model systems of explicit belief, more suited to modeling finite agents or computers. In this paper a general framework is developed for the specification of logics of explicit belief. A generalization of possible worlds, called situations, is adopted. However the notion of an accessibility relation is not employed; instead a sentence is believed if the explicit proposition expressed by the sentence appears among a set of propositions associated with an agent at a situation. Since explicit propositions may be taken as corresponding to "belief contexts" or "frames of mind," the framework also provides a setting for investigating such approaches to belief. The approach provides a uniform and flexible basis from which various issues of explicit belief may be addressed and from which systems may be contrasted and compared. A family of logics is developed using this framework, which extends previous approaches and addresses issues raised by these earlier approaches. The more interesting of these logics are tractable, in that determining if a belief follows from a set of beliefs, given certain assumptions, can be accomplished in polynomial time.     

Default reasoning and belief revision: A syntax-independent approach

As an important variant of Reiter‘s default logic.Poole(1988) developed a nonmonotonic reasoning framework in the classical first-order language,Brewka and Nebel extended Poole‘s approach in order to enable a representation of priorities between defaults.In this paper a general framework for default reasoning is presented,which can be viewed as a generalization of the three approaches above.It is proved that the syntax-independent default reasoning in this framework is identical to the general belief revision operation introduced by Zhang et al.(1997).This esult provides a solution to the problem whether there is a correspondence between belief revision and default logic for the infinite case .As a by-product,an answer to the the question,raised by Mankinson and Gaerdenfors(1991),is also given about whether there is a counterpart contraciton in nonmonotonic logic.