Belief Revision, Conditional Logic and Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Wayne Wobcke
Source: Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 36, Number 1
(1995), 55-102.
Abstract
We consider the connections between belief revision, conditional logic and nonmonotonic reasoning, using as a foundation the approach to theory change developed by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson (the AGM approach). This is first generalized to allow the iteration of theory change operations to capture the dynamics of epistemic states according to a principle of minimal change of entrenchment. The iterative operations of expansion, contraction and revision are characterized both by a set of postulates and by Grove's construction based on total pre-orders on the set of complete theories of the belief logic. We present a sound and complete conditional logic whose semantics is based on our iterative revision operation, but which avoids Gärdenfors's triviality result because of a severely restricted language of beliefs and hence the weakened scope of our extended postulates. In the second part of the paper, we develop a computational approach to theory dynamics using Rott's E-bases as a representation for epistemic states. Under this approach, a ranked E-base is interpreted as standing for the most conservative entrenchment compatible with the base, reflecting a kind of foundationalism in the acceptance of evidence for a belief. Algorithms for the computation of our iterative versions of expansion, contraction and revision are presented. Finally, we consider the relationship between nonmonotonic reasoning and both conditional logic and belief revision. Adapting the approach of Delgrande, we show that the unique extension of a default theory expressed in our conditional logic of belief revision corresponds to the most conservative belief state which respects the theory: however, this correspondence is limited to propositional default theories. Considering first order default theories, we present a belief revision algorithm which incorporates the assumption of independence of default instances and propose the use of a base logic for default reasoning which incorporates uniqueness of names. We conclude with an examination of the behavior of an implemented system on some of Lifschitz's benchmark problems in nonmonotonic reasoning.
First Page:
Show
Hide
Full-text: Open access
Links and Identifiers
Permanent link to this document: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1040308829
Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet): MR1359108
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040308829
Zentralblatt MATH identifier: 0834.03008
References
[1] Alchourrón, C. E., P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, ``On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions,'' The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 510--530.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR87c:03020
Zentralblatt MATH: 0578.03011
JSTOR: links.jstor.org
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2307/2274239
[2] Arlo-Costa, H. L., and S. J. Shapiro, ``Maps between nonmonotonic and conditional logic,'' pp. 553--564 in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge, Representation, and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1992.
[3] Bell, J., ``Pragmatic logics,'' pp. 50--60 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92h:03037
Zentralblatt MATH: 0760.03007
[4] Boutilier, C., ``Revision sequences and nested conditionals,'' pp. 519--525 in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1993.
[5] Chang, C. L., and R. C. T. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR55:13894
Zentralblatt MATH: 0263.68046
[6] Crocco, G., and P. Lamarre, ``On the connection between non-monotonic inference systems and conditional logics,'' pp. 565--571 in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1992.
[7] Dalal, M., ``Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report,'' pp. 475--479 in Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1988.
[8] Darwiche, A., and J. Pearl, ``On the logic of iterated belief revision,'' pp. 5--23 in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1994.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR98b:68177
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00038-0
Zentralblatt MATH: 1018.03012
[9] Delgrande, J. P., ``A first-order conditional logic for prototypical properties,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33 (1987), pp. 105--130.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR88g:68099
Zentralblatt MATH: 0654.68106
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90053-1
[10] Delgrande, J. P., ``An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: revised report,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36 (1988), pp. 63--90.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR962303
Zentralblatt MATH: 0646.03015
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(88)90079-3
[11] Dixon, S. E., ``A finite base belief revision system,'' pp. 445--451 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australian Computer Science Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 1993.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1239004
[12] Dixon, S. E., and W. R. Wobcke, ``The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system,'' pp. 40--47 in Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1993.
[13] Dixon, S. E. and W. R. Wobcke, ``A nonmonotonic reasoning belief revision system,'' pp. 151--160 in Proceedings of the Eighteenth Australasian Computer Science Conference, Flinders University of South Australia, University of Adelaide, and University of South Australia, Adelaide, 1995.
[14] Elio, R. E., and F. J. Pelletier, ``Human benchmarks on AI's benchmark problems,'' pp, 406--411 in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlhaum, Hillsdale, 1993.
[15] Etherington, D. W., Reasoning with Incomplete Information, Pitman, London, 1987.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR90f:68145
Zentralblatt MATH: 0694.68003
[16] Fariñas del Cerro, L., A. Herzig and J. Lang, ``From ordering-based nonmonotonic reasoning to conditional logics,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 66 (1994), pp. 375--393.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR95f:03039
Zentralblatt MATH: 0807.68083
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)90031-0
[17] Fuhrmann, A., ``Theory contraction through base contraction,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 20 (1991), pp. 175--203.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92g:03013
Zentralblatt MATH: 0723.03010
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00284974
[18] Gabbay, D. M., ``Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems,'' pp. 439--457 in Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, edited by K. R. Apt, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
Zentralblatt MATH: 0581.68068
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR815553
[19] Gärdenfors, P., ``Belief revisions and the Ramsey Test for conditionals,'' Philosophical Review, vol. 95 (1986), pp. 81--93.
[20] Gärdenfors, P., ``Variations on the Ramsey Test: more triviality results,'' Studia Logica, vol. 46 (1987), pp. 319--325.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89g:03024
Zentralblatt MATH: 0639.03024
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00370643
[21] Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89k:00015
[22] Gärdenfors, P., ``Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin?'' pp. 768--773 in Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pitman, London, 1990.
Zentralblatt MATH: 0797.03019
[23] Gärdenfors, P., ``Nonmonotonic inferences based on expectations: a preliminary report,'' pp. 585--590 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1142185
Zentralblatt MATH: 0766.68118
[24] Gärdenfors, P., S. Lindström, M. Morreau and W. Rabinowicz, ``The negative Ramsey Test: another triviality result,'' pp. 129--134 in The Logic of Theory Change, edited by A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1096793
Zentralblatt MATH: 0925.03133
[25] Gärdenfors, P., and D. Makinson, ``Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment,'' pp. 83--95 in Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1988.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1011079
Zentralblatt MATH: 0711.03009
[26] Geffner, H. A., Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR93e:68126
[27] Geffner, H. A., and J. Pearl, ``Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 53 (1992), pp. 209--244.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1154140
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(92)90071-5
[28] Ginsberg, M. L., and D. E. Smith, ``Reasoning about action I: a possible worlds approach,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35 (1988), pp. 165--195.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89m:68128
Zentralblatt MATH: 0645.68109
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(88)90011-2
[29] Goldszmidt, M., P. Morris and J. Pearl, ``A maximum entropy approach to nonmonotonic reasoning,'' pp. 646--652 in Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), AAAI Press, Menlo Park, 1990.
[30] Goldszmidt, M., and J. Pearl, ``On the relation between rational closure and system $Z$,'' pp. 130--140 in Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning.
[31] Goldszmidt, M., and J. Pearl, ``System $Z^+$: a formalism for reasoning with variable-strength defaults,'' pp. 399--404 in Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), AAAI Press, Menlo Park, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1205793
[32] Grove, A., ``Two modellings for theory change,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 17 (1988), pp. 157--170.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89e:03027
Zentralblatt MATH: 0639.03025
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00247909
[33] Hansson, S. O., ``New operators for theory change,'' Theoria, vol. 55 (1989), pp. 114-136.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92i:03010
Zentralblatt MATH: 0722.03028
[34] Hansson, S. O., ``Belief contraction without recovery,'' Studia Logica, vol. 50 (1991), pp. 251-260.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR93a:03017
Zentralblatt MATH: 0748.03008
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00370186
[35] Hansson, S. O., ``A dyadic representation of belief,'' pp. 89--121 in Belief Revision, edited by P. Gärdenfors, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1173425
[36] Katsuno, H. and K. Satoh, ``A unified view of consequence relation, belief revision and conditional logic,'' pp. 406--412 in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1469982
Zentralblatt MATH: 0747.68080
[37] Kraus, S., D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor, ``Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 44 (1990), pp. 167--207.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92e:03033
Zentralblatt MATH: 0782.03012
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5
[38] Lehmann, D. and M. Magidor, ``What does a conditional knowledge base entail?'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 55 (1992), pp. 1--60.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR93i:03035
Zentralblatt MATH: 0762.68057
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(92)90041-U
[39] Levi, I., ``Iteration of conditionals and the Ramsey Test,'' Synthese, vol. 76 (1988), pp. 49--81.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89m:03014
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00869641
[40] Lewis, D. K., Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.
[41] Lifschitz, V., ``Benchmark problems for formal nonmonotonic reasoning,'' pp. 202--219 in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, edited by M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. L. Ginsberg and E. Sandewall, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR90g:68111
Zentralblatt MATH: 0675.68057
[42] Makinson, D., ``On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 16 (1987), pp. 383--394.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR89b:03019
Zentralblatt MATH: 0632.03008
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00431184
[43] Makinson, D., ``General theory of cumulative inference,'' pp. 1--18 in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, edited by M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. L. Ginsberg and E. Sandewall, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR90f:03051
Zentralblatt MATH: 0675.03007
[44] Makinson, D., and P. Gärdenfors, ``Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic,'' pp. 185--205 in The Logic of Theory Change, edited by A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1096795
Zentralblatt MATH: 0925.03130
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BFb0018421
[45] McCarthy, J. M., and P. J. Hayes, ``Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence,'' pp. 463--502 in Machine Intelligence 4, edited by B. Meltzer and D. Michie, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
Zentralblatt MATH: 0226.68044
[46] Moore, R. C., ``Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 25 (1985), pp. 75--94.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR86h:03043
Zentralblatt MATH: 0569.68079
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(85)90042-6
[47] Morreau, M., ``Epistemic semantics for counterfactuals,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 21 (1992), pp. 33--62.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92m:03025
Zentralblatt MATH: 0752.03013
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00126496
[48] Nayak, A. C., ``Foundational belief change'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 23 (1994), pp. 495--533.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR95g:03026
Zentralblatt MATH: 0810.03018
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF01049408
[49] Nayak, A. C., ``Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment,'' Erkenntnis, vol. 41 (1994), pp. 353--390.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR95k:03030
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF01130759
[50] Nayak, A. C., N. Y. Foo, M. Pagnucco and A. Sattar, ``Entrenchment kinematics 101,'' pp. 157--164 in Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.
[51] Nebel, B., ``Belief revision and default reasoning: syntax-based approaches,'' pp. 417--428 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1142171
Zentralblatt MATH: 0765.68198
[52] Pearl, J., ``System $Z$: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning,'' pp. 121--135 in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1990.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92c:03032
[53] Peppas, P., N. Y. Foo and W. R. Wobcke, ``Events as theory operators,'' pp. 413--426 in Proceedings of the First World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Angkor, Paris, 1991.
[54] Poole, D., ``A logical framework for default reasoning,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36 (1988), pp. 27--47.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR962302
Zentralblatt MATH: 0647.68094
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(88)90077-X
[55] Ramsey, F. P., ``General propositions and causality,'' pp. 237--255 in F. P. Ramsey The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York, 1931.
Zentralblatt MATH: 0002.00501
[56] Rott, H., ``A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision,'' pp. 135--181 in The Logic of Theory Change, edited by A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1096794
Zentralblatt MATH: 0925.03134
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BFb0018420
[57] Rott, H., ``Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment,'' Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 1 (1992), pp. 45--78.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR95h:03068
Zentralblatt MATH: 0794.03039
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00203386
[58] Spohn, W., ``Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states,'' pp. 105--134 in Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, II, edited by W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988.
[59] Stalnaker, R. C., ``A theory of conditionals,'' pp. 98--112 in Studies in Logical Theory, edited by N. Rescher, Blackwell, Oxford, 1968.
[60] van Fraassen, B. C., ``Singular terms, truth-value gaps, and free logic,'' Journal of Philosophy, vol. 63 (1966), pp. 481--495.
[61] Williams, M. A., ``Two operators for theory base change,'' pp. 259--265 in Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992.
[62] Williams, M. A., ``Transmutations of knowledge systems,'' pp. 619--629 in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1994.
[63] Wobcke, W. R., ``On the use of epistemic entrenchment in nonmonotonic reasoning,'' pp. 324--328 in Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, Chichester, 1992.
[64] Wobcke, W. R., ``Algorithms for iterative belief revision,'' pp. 165--172 in Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
