scholarly journals Iterated belief revision, revised

2007 ◽  
Vol 171 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Jin ◽  
Michael Thielscher
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

scholarly journals On the logic of iterated belief revision

1997 ◽  
Vol 89 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Darwiche ◽  
Judea Pearl
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

Convergence Analysis of Iterated Belief Revision in Complex Fusion Environments

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 598-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanuka L. Wickramarathne ◽  
Kamal Premaratne ◽  
Manohar N. Murthi ◽  
Nitesh V. Chawla
Keyword(s):  
Convergence Analysis ◽  
Belief Revision ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

scholarly journals Admissible and Restrained Revision

2006 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 127-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Booth ◽  
T. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Composite Operator ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Future Work

As partial justification of their framework for iterated belief revision Darwiche and Pearl convincingly argued against Boutilier's natural revision and provided a prototypical revision operator that fits into their scheme. We show that the Darwiche-Pearl arguments lead naturally to the acceptance of a smaller class of operators which we refer to as admissible. Admissible revision ensures that the penultimate input is not ignored completely, thereby eliminating natural revision, but includes the Darwiche-Pearl operator, Nayak's lexicographic revision operator, and a newly introduced operator called restrained revision. We demonstrate that restrained revision is the most conservative of admissible revision operators, effecting as few changes as possible, while lexicographic revision is the least conservative, and point out that restrained revision can also be viewed as a composite operator, consisting of natural revision preceded by an application of a "backwards revision" operator previously studied by Papini. Finally, we propose the establishment of a principled approach for choosing an appropriate revision operator in different contexts and discuss future work.

scholarly journals Observations on Darwiche and Pearl's Approach for Iterated Belief Revision

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theofanis Aravanis ◽  
Pavlos Peppas ◽  
Mary-Anne Williams
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Belief State ◽  
Strong Sense ◽  
Preference Ordering ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
Entire Class ◽  
Seminal Work ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Belief States

Notwithstanding the extensive work on iterated belief revision, there is, still, no fully satisfactory solution within the classical AGM paradigm. The seminal work of Darwiche and Pearl (DP approach, for short) remains the most dominant, despite its well-documented shortcomings. In this article, we make further observations on the DP approach. Firstly, we prove that the DP postulates are, in a strong sense, inconsistent with Parikh's relevance-sensitive axiom (P), extending previous initial conflicts. Immediate consequences of this result are that an entire class of intuitive revision operators, which includes Dalal's operator, violates the DP postulates, as well as that the Independence postulate and Spohn's conditionalization are inconsistent with (P). Lastly, we show that the DP postulates allow for more revision polices than the ones that can be captured by identifying belief states with total preorders over possible worlds, a fact implying that a preference ordering (over possible worlds) is an insufficient representation for a belief state.

scholarly journals Revision by Conditionals: From Hook to Arrow

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake Chandler ◽  
Richard Booth
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Independent Interest ◽  
Plug And Play ◽  
Ramsey Test ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

The belief revision literature has largely focussed on the issue of how to revise one’s beliefs in the light of information regarding matters of fact. Here we turn to an important but comparatively neglected issue: How to model agents capable of acquiring information regarding which rules of inference (‘Ramsey Test conditionals’) they ought to use in reasoning about these facts. Our approach to this second question of so-called ‘conditional revision’ is distinctive insofar as it abstracts from the controversial details of how the address the first. We introduce a ‘plug and play’ method for uniquely extending any iterated belief revision operator to the conditional case. The flexibility of our approach is achieved by having the result of a conditional revision by a Ramsey Test conditional (‘arrow’) determined by that of a plain revision by its corresponding material conditional (‘hook’). It is shown to satisfy a number of new constraints that are of independent interest.

scholarly journals Iterated Belief Revision

Erkenntnis ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Stalnaker
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision

scholarly journals Ranking kinematics for revising by contextual information

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meliha Sezgin ◽  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner ◽  
Christoph Beierle
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Ranking Functions ◽  
Ramsey Test ◽  
Local Contexts ◽  
Iterated Belief Revision ◽  
Probability Kinematics ◽  
Set Up

AbstractProbability kinematics is a leading paradigm in probabilistic belief change. It is based on the idea that conditional beliefs should be independent from changes of their antecedents’ probabilities. In this paper, we propose a re-interpretation of this paradigm for Spohn’s ranking functions which we call Generalized Ranking Kinematics as a new principle for iterated belief revision of ranking functions by sets of conditional beliefs with respect to their specific subcontext. By taking into account semantical independencies, we can reduce the complexity of the revision task to local contexts. We show that global belief revision can be set up from revisions on the local contexts via a merging operator. Furthermore, we formalize a variant of the Ramsey-Test based on the idea of local contexts which connects conditional and propositional revision in a straightforward way. We extend the belief change methodology of c-revisions to strategic c-revisions which will serve as a proof of concept.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document