Revision by comparison
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2004 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/3456 |
Resumo: | Since the early 1980s, logical theories of belief revision have offered formal methods for the transformation of knowledge bases or “corpora” of data and beliefs. Early models have dealt with unconditional acceptance and integration of potentially belief-contravening pieces of information into the existing corpus. More recently, models of “non-prioritized” revision were proposed that allow the agent rationally to refuse to accept the new information. This paper introduces a refined method for changing beliefs by specifying constraints on the relative plausibility of propositions. Like the earlier belief revision models, the method proposed is a qualitative one, in the sense that no numbers are needed in order to specify the posterior plausibility of the new information. We use reference beliefs in order to determine the degree of entrenchment of the newly accepted piece of information. We provide two kinds of semantics for this idea, give a logical characterization of the new model, study its relation with other operations of belief revision and contraction, and discuss its intuitive strengths and weaknesses. |
id |
RCAP_4930be6d44bf156201951a5d7f1bbec9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:digituma.uma.pt:10400.13/3456 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Revision by comparisonBelief revisionTheory changeSphere semanticsEpistemic entrenchmentAGM approachIterated revisionNon-prioritized revisionSevere withdrawalIrrevocable revision.Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e da EngenhariaSince the early 1980s, logical theories of belief revision have offered formal methods for the transformation of knowledge bases or “corpora” of data and beliefs. Early models have dealt with unconditional acceptance and integration of potentially belief-contravening pieces of information into the existing corpus. More recently, models of “non-prioritized” revision were proposed that allow the agent rationally to refuse to accept the new information. This paper introduces a refined method for changing beliefs by specifying constraints on the relative plausibility of propositions. Like the earlier belief revision models, the method proposed is a qualitative one, in the sense that no numbers are needed in order to specify the posterior plausibility of the new information. We use reference beliefs in order to determine the degree of entrenchment of the newly accepted piece of information. We provide two kinds of semantics for this idea, give a logical characterization of the new model, study its relation with other operations of belief revision and contraction, and discuss its intuitive strengths and weaknesses.ElsevierDigitUMaFermé, EduardoRott, Hans2021-05-28T14:20:26Z2004-01-01T00:00:00Z2004-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/3456engFermé, E., & Rott, H. (2004). Revision by comparison. Artificial Intelligence, 157(1-2), 5-47.10.1016/j.artint.2004.04.007info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2022-09-05T12:56:25Zoai:digituma.uma.pt:10400.13/3456Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T15:06:30.628287Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Revision by comparison |
title |
Revision by comparison |
spellingShingle |
Revision by comparison Fermé, Eduardo Belief revision Theory change Sphere semantics Epistemic entrenchment AGM approach Iterated revision Non-prioritized revision Severe withdrawal Irrevocable revision . Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e da Engenharia |
title_short |
Revision by comparison |
title_full |
Revision by comparison |
title_fullStr |
Revision by comparison |
title_full_unstemmed |
Revision by comparison |
title_sort |
Revision by comparison |
author |
Fermé, Eduardo |
author_facet |
Fermé, Eduardo Rott, Hans |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Rott, Hans |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
DigitUMa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Fermé, Eduardo Rott, Hans |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Belief revision Theory change Sphere semantics Epistemic entrenchment AGM approach Iterated revision Non-prioritized revision Severe withdrawal Irrevocable revision . Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e da Engenharia |
topic |
Belief revision Theory change Sphere semantics Epistemic entrenchment AGM approach Iterated revision Non-prioritized revision Severe withdrawal Irrevocable revision . Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e da Engenharia |
description |
Since the early 1980s, logical theories of belief revision have offered formal methods for the transformation of knowledge bases or “corpora” of data and beliefs. Early models have dealt with unconditional acceptance and integration of potentially belief-contravening pieces of information into the existing corpus. More recently, models of “non-prioritized” revision were proposed that allow the agent rationally to refuse to accept the new information. This paper introduces a refined method for changing beliefs by specifying constraints on the relative plausibility of propositions. Like the earlier belief revision models, the method proposed is a qualitative one, in the sense that no numbers are needed in order to specify the posterior plausibility of the new information. We use reference beliefs in order to determine the degree of entrenchment of the newly accepted piece of information. We provide two kinds of semantics for this idea, give a logical characterization of the new model, study its relation with other operations of belief revision and contraction, and discuss its intuitive strengths and weaknesses. |
publishDate |
2004 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2004-01-01T00:00:00Z 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z 2021-05-28T14:20:26Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/3456 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/3456 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Fermé, E., & Rott, H. (2004). Revision by comparison. Artificial Intelligence, 157(1-2), 5-47. 10.1016/j.artint.2004.04.007 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799129935476948992 |