User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

The dynamics of relevance: adaptive belief revision

Primary tabs

Van De Putte, Frederik Verdée, Peter [UCL]

This paper presents eight (previously unpublished) adaptive logics for belief revision, each of which define a belief revision operation in the sense of the AGM framework. All these revision operations are shown to satisfy the six basic AGM postulates for belief revision, and Parikh’s axiom of Relevance. Using one of these logics as an example, we show how their proof theory gives a more dynamic flavor to belief revision than existing approaches. It is argued that this turns belief revision (that obeys Relevance) into a more natural undertaking, where analytic steps are performed only as soon as they turn out to be necessary in order to uphold certain beliefs.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article)
Access type Accès restreint
Publication date 2012
Language Anglais
Journal information "Synthese : an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science" - Vol. 187, no. S1, p. 1-42 (2012)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht)
issn 0039-7857
e-issn 1573-0964
Publication status Publié
Affiliation UCL - SSH/ISP - Institut supérieur de philosophie
Links
  1. Alchourrón Carlos E., Gärdenfors Peter, Makinson David, On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 10.2307/2274239
  2. Batens D. (1999) Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In: Orłowska E. (ed) Logic at work. Essays dedicated to the memory of Helena Rasiowa. Physica Verlag (Springer), Heidelberg, pp 445–472
  3. Batens, D. (2001). A general characterization of adaptive logics. Logique et Analyse, 173–175, 45–68. Appeared 2003.
  4. Batens Diderik, A procedural criterion for final derivability in inconsistency-adaptive logics, 10.1016/j.jal.2004.07.018
  5. Batens Diderik, A Universal Logic Approach to Adaptive Logics, 10.1007/s11787-006-0012-5
  6. Batens Diderik, Clercq Kristof De, Verdée Peter, Meheus Joke, Yes fellows, most human reasoning is complex, 10.1007/s11229-007-9268-4
  7. Batens D., Meheus J., Provijn D., Verhoeven L. (2003) Some adaptive logics for diagnosis. Logic and Logical Philosophy 11/12: 39–65
  8. Batens D., Straßer C., Verdée P. (2009) On the transparency of defeasible logics: Equivalent premise sets, equivalence of their extensions, and maximality of the lower limit. Logique et Analyse 207: 281–304
  9. Bienvenu, M., Herzig, A., & Qi, G. (2008). Prime implicate-based belief revision operators. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on ECAI 2008: 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 741–742). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  10. Chopra Samir, Parikh Rohit, 10.1023/a:1018960323808
  11. Gärdenfors P. (1978) Conditionals and changes of belief. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30: 381–404
  12. Gärdenfors P. (1982) Rules for rational changes of belief. Philosophical Studies 34: 88–101
  13. Hansson Sven Ove, A Textbook of Belief Dynamics, ISBN:9780792353294, 10.1007/978-94-007-0814-3
  14. Hansson, S. O. (2006). The logic of belief revision. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision .
  15. Horsten Leon, Welch Philip, The Undecidability of Propositional Adaptive Logic, 10.1007/s11229-006-9049-5
  16. Jackson Peter, Computing prime implicates, 10.1145/131214.131223
  17. Kourousias G., Makinson D. (2006) Respecting relevance in belief change. Análisis Filosófico 26: 53–61
  18. Kourousias George, Makinson David, Parallel interpolation, splitting, and relevance in belief change , 10.2178/jsl/1191333851
  19. Makinson David, Propositional relevance through letter-sharing, 10.1016/j.jal.2008.12.001
  20. Parikh R. (1999) Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. Logic, Language, and Computation 2: 266–278
  21. Perrussel, L., Marchi, J., & Zhang, D. (2011). Characterizing relevant belief revision operators. In AI 2010: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6464, pp. 42–51). Heidelberg: Springer.
  22. Pollock John L., Defeasible Reasoning, 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
  23. Shoham Y. (1987) A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics. In: Ginsberg M. L. (ed) Readings in non-monotonic reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp 227–249
  24. Stolpe, A. (2010). Relevance, derogation and permission: A case for a normal form for a code of norms. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) (Vol. 6181, pp. 98–115). Heidelberg: Springer.
  25. Van De Putte F., Hierarchic adaptive logics, 10.1093/jigpal/jzr025
  26. Van De Putte F., Prime implicates and relevant belief revision, 10.1093/logcom/exr040
  27. Verdée Peter, Adaptive logics using the minimal abnormality strategy are $$\Pi^1_1$$ -complex, 10.1007/s11229-007-9291-5
  28. Verdée, P. (2012). A proof procedure for adaptive logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL, in press. http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/verdee.pdf .
  29. Verhoeven L. (2001) All premisses are equal, but some are more equal than others. Logique et Analyse 173–174–175: 165–188
  30. Verhoeven L. (2003) Proof theories for some prioritized consequence relations. Logique et Analyse 183–184: 325–344
  31. Wu Maonian, Zhang Mingyi, Algorithms and application in decision-making for the finest splitting of a set of formulae, 10.1016/j.knosys.2009.08.001
  32. Wu, M., Zhu, Z., Zhang, M. (2008). Partial meet contraction based on relevance criterion. In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong.
Bibliographic reference Van De Putte, Frederik ; Verdée, Peter. The dynamics of relevance: adaptive belief revision. In: Synthese : an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Vol. 187, no. S1, p. 1-42 (2012)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/164431