School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China"/> School of Mathematics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China E-mail: menghua@swjtu.edu.cn"/> School of Information Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China"/> Faculty of Information Systems and Applied Computer Sciences, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany"/>
Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
Submit Manuscript
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2022 Volume 37
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A framework for belief revision under restrictions

  • School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

  • School of Mathematics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China E-mail: menghua@swjtu.edu.cn

  • School of Information Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

  • Faculty of Information Systems and Applied Computer Sciences, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

More Information
  • Abstract: Traditional belief revision usually considers generic logic formulas, whilst in practical applications some formulas might even be inappropriate for beliefs. For instance, the formula $p \wedge q$ is syntactically consistent and is also an acceptable belief when there are no restrictions, but it might become unacceptable under restrictions in some context. If we assume that p represents ‘manufacturing product A’ and q represents ‘manufacturing product B’, an example of such a context would be the knowledge that there are not enough resources to manufacture them both and, hence, $p \wedge q$ would not be an acceptable belief. In this article, we propose a generic framework for belief revision under restrictions. We consider restrictions of either fixed or dynamic nature, and devise several postulates to characterize the behaviour of changing beliefs when new evidence emerges or the restriction changes. Moreover, we show that there is a representation theorem for each type of restriction. Finally, we discuss belief revision of qualitative spatio-temporal information under restrictions as an application of this new framework.
  • 加载中
  • Alchourron , C. E., Gärdenfors , P. & Makinson , D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530.

    Google Scholar

    Alirezaie , M., Längkvist , M., Sioutis , M. & Loutfi , A. 2019. Semantic referee: a neural-symbolic framework for enhancing geospatial semantic segmentation. Semantic Web 10(5), 863–880.

    Google Scholar

    Benferhat , S., Lagrue , S., Papini , O.2005. Revision of partially ordered information: axiomatization, semantics and iteration. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 376–381.

    Google Scholar

    Booth , R. 2002. On the logic of iterated non-prioritised revision. In Conditionals, Information, and Inference, International Workshop, WCII 2002, Hagen, Germany, 86–107.

    Google Scholar

    Booth , R., Fermé , E., Konieczny , S. & Pérez , R. P. 2012. Credibility-limited revision operators in propositional logic. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 116–125.

    Google Scholar

    Boutilier , C. 1996. Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3), 263–305.

    Google Scholar

    Condotta , J. F., Kaci , S., Marquis , P. & Schwind , N. 2009a. Merging qualitative constraint networks defined on different qualitative formalisms. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, 106–123.

    Google Scholar

    Condotta , J. F., Kaci , S., Marquis , P. & Schwind , N. 2009b. Merging qualitative constraints networks using propositional logic. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 347–358.

    Google Scholar

    Condotta , J. F., Kaci , S. & Schwind , N. 2008. A framework for merging qualitative constraints networks. In International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 586–591.

    Google Scholar

    Darwiche , A. & Pearl , J. 1997. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar

    Delgrande , J. P. 2012. Revising beliefs on the basis of evidence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 53(3), 396–412.

    Google Scholar

    Dufour-Lussier , V., Hermann , A., Ber , F. L. & Lieber , J. 2014. Belief revision in the propositional closure of a qualitative algebra. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

    Google Scholar

    Dufour-Lussier , V., Le Ber , F., Lieber , J. & Martin , L. 2012. Adapting spatial and temporal cases. In International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, 77–91.

    Google Scholar

    Egenhofer , M. J. & Mark , D. M. 1995. Naive geography. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, 1–15.

    Google Scholar

    Fernyhough , J., Cohn , A. G. & Hogg , D. C. 2000. Constructing qualitative event models automatically from video input. Image and Vision Computing 18(2), 81–103.

    Google Scholar

    Grüne-Yanoff , T. & Hansson , S. O. 2009. From belief revision to preference change. In Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, Grüne-Yanoff, T. & Hansson, S. O. (eds). Springer, 159–184.

    Google Scholar

    Hamilton , A. G. 1988. Logic for Mathematicians, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Hansson , S. O., Fermé , E. L., Cantwell , J. & Falappa , M. A. 2001. Credibility limited revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(4), 1581–1596.

    Google Scholar

    Hue , J. & Westphal , M. 2012. Revising qualitative constraint networks: definition and implementation. In International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 548–555.

    Google Scholar

    Jin , Y. & Thielscher , M. 2007. Iterated belief revision, revised. Artificial Intelligence 171(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar

    Katsuno , H. & Mendelzon , A. O. 1991. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294.

    Google Scholar

    Konieczny , S., Marquis , P. & Schwind , N. 2011. Belief base rationalization for propositional merging. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 951–956.

    Google Scholar

    Konieczny , S. & Pérez , R. P. 2000. A framework for iterated revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 10(3–4), 339–367.

    Google Scholar

    Konieczny , S. & Pérez , R. P. 2002. Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5), 773–808.

    Google Scholar

    Ligozat , G. & Renz , J. 2004. What is a qualitative calculus? a general framework. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 53–64.

    Google Scholar

    Lin , J. 1996. Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence 83(2), 363–378.

    Google Scholar

    Lin , J. & Mendelzon , A. O. 1996. Merging databases under constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 7, 55–76.

    Google Scholar

    Liu , J. & Daneshmend , L. K. 2004. Spatial Reasoning and Planning: Geometry, Mechanism, and Motion. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Ma , J., Liu , W. & Benferhat , S. 2015. A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 59(C), 20–40.

    Google Scholar

    Papini , O. 2001. Iterated Revision Operations Stemming from the History of an Agent’s Observations. Springer Netherlands, 279–301.

    Google Scholar

    Pham , D. N., Thornton , J. & Sattar , A. 2006. Towards an efficient SAT encoding for temporal reasoning. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 421–436.

    Google Scholar

    Qi , G., Liu , W. & Bell , D. A. 2006. Merging stratified knowledge bases under constraints. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 281–286.

    Google Scholar

    Randell , D. A., Cui , Z. & Cohn , A. G. 1992. A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 165–176.

    Google Scholar

    Randell , D. A., Galton , A., Fouad , S., Mehanna , H. & Landini , G. 2017. Mereotopological correction of segmentation errors in histological imaging. Journal of Imaging 3(4), 63.

    Google Scholar

    Revesz , P. Z. 1997. On the semantics of arbitration. International Journal of Algebra and Computation 7(2), 133–160.

    Google Scholar

    Sioutis , M., Alirezaie , M., Renoux , J. & Loutfi , A. 2017. Towards a synergy of qualitative spatio-temporal reasoning and smart environments for assisting the elderly at home. In IJCAI Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, 901–907.

    Google Scholar

    Spohn , W. 1988. Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Irvine Conference on Probability and Causation, 105–134.

    Google Scholar

    Vilain , M. B. & Kautz , H. A. 1986. Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 377–382.

    Google Scholar

    Wallgrün , J. O. & Dylla , F. 2010. A relation-based merging operator for qualitative spatial data integration and conflict resolution, Technical report. Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Zhiguo Long, Hua Meng, Tianrui Li, Heng-Chao Li, Michael Sioutis. 2022. A framework for belief revision under restrictions. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000054
    Zhiguo Long, Hua Meng, Tianrui Li, Heng-Chao Li, Michael Sioutis. 2022. A framework for belief revision under restrictions. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000054
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(68) PDF downloads(63)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A framework for belief revision under restrictions

  • School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

  • School of Mathematics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China E-mail: menghua@swjtu.edu.cn

  • School of Information Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

  • Faculty of Information Systems and Applied Computer Sciences, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

  • Received: 13 July 2021
  • Revised: 20 July 2022
  • Accepted: 16 August 2022
  • Published online: 12 September 2022
The Knowledge Engineering Review  37,  2022, 37(1)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: Traditional belief revision usually considers generic logic formulas, whilst in practical applications some formulas might even be inappropriate for beliefs. For instance, the formula $p \wedge q$ is syntactically consistent and is also an acceptable belief when there are no restrictions, but it might become unacceptable under restrictions in some context. If we assume that p represents ‘manufacturing product A’ and q represents ‘manufacturing product B’, an example of such a context would be the knowledge that there are not enough resources to manufacture them both and, hence, $p \wedge q$ would not be an acceptable belief. In this article, we propose a generic framework for belief revision under restrictions. We consider restrictions of either fixed or dynamic nature, and devise several postulates to characterize the behaviour of changing beliefs when new evidence emerges or the restriction changes. Moreover, we show that there is a representation theorem for each type of restriction. Finally, we discuss belief revision of qualitative spatio-temporal information under restrictions as an application of this new framework.

    HTML

    Acknowledgments

    • This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61806170 and 61773324), the Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of Ministry of Education (Grant No. 18XJC72040001), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2682018CX25 and 2682014ZT28), and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2019YFB1706104).

    Rights and permissions
    • © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press2022Cambridge University Press
References (39)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Zhiguo Long, Hua Meng, Tianrui Li, Heng-Chao Li, Michael Sioutis. 2022. A framework for belief revision under restrictions. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000054
    Zhiguo Long, Hua Meng, Tianrui Li, Heng-Chao Li, Michael Sioutis. 2022. A framework for belief revision under restrictions. The Knowledge Engineering Review 37(1), doi: 10.1017/S0269888922000054
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return