Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

On the Revision of Probabilistic Belief States

Craig Boutilier
Source: Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 36, Number 1 (1995), 158-183.

Abstract

In this paper we describe two approaches to the revision of probability functions. We assume that a probabilistic state of belief is captured by a counterfactual probability or Popper function, the revision of which determines a new Popper function. We describe methods whereby the original function determines the nature of the revised function. The first is based on a probabilistic extension of Spohn's OCFs, whereas the second exploits the structure implicit in the Popper function itself. This stands in contrast with previous approaches that associate a unique Popper function with each absolute (classical) probability function. We also describe iterated revision using these models. Finally, we consider the point of view that Popper functions may be abstract representations of certain types of absolute probability functions, but we show that our revision methods cannot be naturally interpreted as conditionalization on these functions.

First Page: Show Hide
Primary Subjects: 03B48
Secondary Subjects: 68T27, 68T30
Links and Identifiers

Permanent link to this document: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1040308833
Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet): MR1359112
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040308833
Zentralblatt MATH identifier: 0844.03016

References

[1] Adams, E., The Logic of Conditionals, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR58:5043
Zentralblatt MATH: 0324.02002
[2] Alchourrón, C., 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
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2307/2274239
[3] Alchourrón, C. and D. Makinson, ``On the logic of theory change: safe contraction,'' Studia Logica, vol. 44 (1985), pp. 405--422.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR87g:03014
Zentralblatt MATH: 0605.03002
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00370430
[4] Boutilier, C., ``Sequences of revisions: on the semantics of nested conditionals,'' Technical Report 92-24, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1992.
[5] 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.
[6] Boutilier, C., ``Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 68 (1994), pp. 87--154.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR96b:68169
Zentralblatt MATH: 0811.68114
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)90096-5
[7] Boutilier, C., ``Iterated revision and minimal revision of conditional beliefs,'' forthcoming in Journal of Philosophical Logic.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1394593
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00248151
Zentralblatt MATH: 0858.03030
[8] Boutilier, C., ``Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory,'' pp. 75--86 in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, edited by J. Doyle, E. Sandewall and P. Torasso, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1994.
[9] Boutilier, C., ``Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a modal framework,'' Artificial Intelligence, vol. 68 (1994), pp. 33--85.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR95h:68165
Zentralblatt MATH: 0811.68113
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)90095-7
[10] Cheeseman, P., ``In defense of probability,'' pp. 1002--1009 in Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1985.
[11] 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
[12] Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR956051
[13] Gärdenfors, P. and D. Makinson. ``Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment,'' pp. 83--95 in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, edited by M. Y. Vardi, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1988.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1011079
Zentralblatt MATH: 0711.03009
[14] 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
[15] Hansson, S. O., ``In defense of base contraction,'' Synthese, vol. 91 (1992), pp. 239--245.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1166796
Zentralblatt MATH: 0760.03009
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00413568
[16] Hansson, S. O., ``In defense of the Ramsey test,'' Journal of Philosophy, vol. 89 (1992), pp. 522--540.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR94d:03032
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2307/2941006
[17] Harman, G., Change in View, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986.
[18] Harper, W. L., ``Rational belief change, Popper functions and counterfactuals,'' pp.73--115 in Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and Statistical Theories of Science, vol. 1, edited by W. L. Harper and C. A. Hooker, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR58:10298
Zentralblatt MATH: 0352.02024
[19] Jeffrey, R. C., The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR38:1770
[20] Kyburg, Jr., H. E., Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, 1961.
[21] Levi, I., The Enterprise of Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1980.
[22] Lindström, S. and W. Rabinowicz, ``On the probabilitic representation of non-probabilistic belief revision,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 18 (1989), pp. 69--101.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR987847
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00296175
[23] Pearl, J., Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1988.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR90g:68003
Zentralblatt MATH: 0746.68089
[24] Poole, M., ``Decision-theoretic defaults,'' pp. 190--197 in Proceedings of Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence Conference, edited by J. Glasgow and R. Hadley, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1992.
[25] 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
[26] Schlechta, K., ``Theory revision and probability,'' Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 32 (1991), pp. 307--318.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR92g:03016
Zentralblatt MATH: 0748.03009
Project Euclid: euclid.ndjfl/1093635755
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093635755
[27] Spohn, W., ``The representation of popper measures,'' Topoi, vol. 5 (1986), pp. 69--74.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR87k:60005
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF00137831
[28] Spohn, W., ``Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states,'' pp. 105--134 in Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics, volume 2, edited by W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.
[29] Stalnaker, R. C., ``Probability and conditionals,'' pp. 107--128 in Ifs, edited by W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker and G. Pearce, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970.
[30] van Fraassen, B. C., ``Representation of conditional probabilities,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 5 (1976), pp. 417--430.
[31] van Fraassen, B. C., ``Rational belief and probability kinematics,'' Philosophy of Science, vol. 47 (1980), pp. 165--187.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR82e:03011
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1086/288927
[32] Williams, P. M., ``Bayesian conditionalization and the principle of minimum information,'' British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 31 (1980), pp. 131--144.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR582834
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/bjps/31.2.131

2012 © University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Turn MathJax Off
What is MathJax?