Like any other logical theory, domain descriptions in reasoning about actions may evolve, and thus need revision methods to adequately accommodate new information about the behavior of actions. The present work is about changing action domain descriptions in propositional dynamic logic. Its contribution is threefold: first we revisit the semantics of action theory contraction that has been done in previous work, giving more robust operators that express minimal change based on a notion of distance between Kripke-models. Second we give algorithms for syntactical action theory contraction and establish their correctness w.r.t. our semantics. Finally we state postulates for action theory contraction and assess the behavior of our operators w.r.t. them. Moreover, we also address the revision counterpart of action theory change, showing that it benefits from our semantics for contraction.
The work by Eiter al @cite_5 @cite_52 is similar to ours in that they also propose a framework that is oriented to updating action laws. They mainly investigate the case where a new effect law is added to the description (and then has to be true in all models of the modified theory). This problem is the dual of contraction and is then closer to our definition of revision ( ).
@cite_5 @cite_52
2029617471 2028246200 2031477175 1549828304
The Katsuno and Mendelzon theory of belief update has been proposed as a reasonable model for revising beliefs about a changing world. However, the semantics of update relies on information which is not readily available. We describe an alternative semantical view of update in which observations are incorporated into a belief set by: a) explaining the observation in terms of a set of plausible events that might have caused that observation; and b) predicting further consequences of those explanations. We also allow the possibility of conditional explanations. We show that this picture naturally induces an update operator under certain assumptions. However, we argue that these assumptions are not always reasonable, and they restrict our ability to integrate update with other forms of revision when reasoning about action. This paper presents a general, consistency-based framework for expressing belief change. The framework has good formal properties while being well-suited for implementation. For belief revision, informally, in revising a knowledge base K by a sentence α, we begin with α and include as much of K as consistently possible. This is done by expressing K and α in disjoint languages, asserting that the languages agree on the truth values of corresponding atoms wherever consistently possible, and then re-expressing the result in the original language of K. There may be more than one way in which the languages of K and α can be so correlated: in choice revision, one such "extension" represents the revised state; alternately (skeptical) revision consists of the intersection of all such extensions. Contraction is similarly defined although, interestingly, it is not interdefinable with revision.The framework is general and flexible. For example, one could go on and express other belief change operations such as update and erasure, and the merging of knowledge bases. Further, the framework allows the incorporation of static and dynamic integrity constraints. The approach is well-suited for implementation: belief change can be equivalently expressed in terms of a finite knowledge base; and the scope of a belief change operation can be restricted to just those propositions common to the knowledge base and sentence for change. We give a high-level algorithm implementing the procedure, and an expression of the approach in Default Logic. Lastly, we briefly discuss two implementations of the approach. In this paper, we present a semantical approach to multi-agent belief revision and belief update. For this, we introduce relational structures called conditional doxastic models (CDM's, for short). We show this setting to be equivalent to an epistemic version of the classical AGM Belief Revision theory. We present a logic of conditional beliefs that is complete w.r.t. CDM's. Moving then to belief updates (sometimes called ''dynamic'' belief revision) induced by epistemic actions, we consider two particular cases: public announcements and private announcements to subgroups of agents. We show how the standard semantics for these types of updates can be appropriately modified in order to apply it to CDM's, thus incorporating belief revision into our notion of update. We provide a complete axiomatization of the corresponding dynamic doxastic logics. As an application, we solve a ''cheating version'' of the Muddy Children Puzzle. The process of integrating knowledge coming from different sources has been widely investigated in the literature. Three distinct conceptual approaches to this problem have been most succesful: belief revision, merging and update. In this paper we present a framework that integrates these three approaches. In the proposed framework all three operations can be performed. We provide an example that can only be solved by applying more than one single style of knowledge integration and, therefore, cannot be addressed by anyone of the approaches alone. The framework has been implemented, and the examples shown in this paper (as well as other examples from the belief revision literature) have been successfully tested.