S. E. Dixon and W. R. Wobcke. The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system. In Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Conference on Tools with AI, pages 40--47. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... occurs in [5] A comprehensive collection of papers dealing with relevance may be found in [1] A permissive model of belief revision that retains weakenings of formulas is presented in [4] while an implementation of a AGM style revision system using first order theorem provers may be found in [6]. Our model incorporates the insights offered in [11] and [3] These models offered a syntactic definition of relevance based on sharing of non logical symbols between formulas and used it to guide the revision process. An extension to a first order setting was left as an open problem. We have ....

S. E. Dixon and W. R. Wobcke. The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system. In Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Conference on Tools with AI, pages 40--47. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.

....than the AGM logic. Although the belief revision operations in AGM logic are well defined, they do not give unique entrenchment orderings after each operation. In fact, they do not suggest any entrenchment ordering. Proposals such as the conservative entrenchment ordering [Williams, 1992; Dixon and Wobcke, 1993] have been made during the last few years to overcome this problem. In a NLBN, the belief orderings that are not affected by the operation are always preserved and a unique ordering is always obtainable. The possibility of infinite beliefs in the belief sets and the logical closure assumption ....

Simon Dixon and Wayne Wobcke. The implementation of a first-order logic agm belief revision system. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 40--47, Boston, 1993.

....or directly asserted by some knowledge engineer. Guiding the search for candidate facts to refute using a preference based inversely on some notion of the strength or utility of the refutation candidates is common to other approaches to resolving inconsistencies in knowledge bases (e.g. GP94, DW93] 71 While searching for essential support, KI maintains a single fix preference: some support (e.g. assumption or inferred belief) will participate in every explanation and so constitute essential support. KI thus avoids having to search for preferred combinations of inessential support ....

....knowledge base for :a now includes b, while as noted above, this revision on the unreorganized knowledge base does not include b. Formalizing belief revision for belief bases permits approximate implementations of the AGM model for the three belief change operators for first order theories [DW93, Wob94] Belief bases can be stored in finite space, but their potentially infinite inferential closure precludes ensuring consistency during belief change operators. Consequently, such implementations must sacrifice a guarantee of either termination or consistency. 7.1.3 Belief revision and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Dixon and W. Wobcke. The implementation of a first-order logic agm belief revision system. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Tools with AI, pages 40--47, 1993.

....finite base revision [Nebel, 1989] Willams [Williams, 1994] and Nayak [Nayak, 1994] both proposed changes for entrenchment on finite bases of theories that bear relationships to finite base revision analogous to the AGM entrenchment and revision relationships for closed theories. Dixon and Wobcke [Dixon and Wobcke, 1993] implemented a version of the Williams scheme in part of their AGM program. Doyle indicated that both the AGM logic and Nebel s approach imposed unnecessarily strong standards for correct revisions. Instead, he modified the AGM theory according to an economic standard of rationality in which ....

....Zhang and Foo proposed an algebraic model for entrenchment [Zhang and Foo, 1992a] More further topics related to the AGM belief revision have been investigated. For instance, Dixon and Foo implemented a system which encodded the ATMS reasoning [de Kleer, 1986] within the AGM belief revision logic [Dixon and Foo, 1993]. Foo and Rao applied the AGM frame in reasoning about action [Foo and Rao, 1991] while Peppas and Wobcke discussed a similar problem but by using the epistemic entrenchment [Peppas and Wobcke, 1992] 1.7 Katsuno and Mendelzon s Update Semantics The motivation of Katsuno and Mendelzon s proposal ....

S. Dixon and W. Wobcke. The implementation of a first order logic AGM belief revision system. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 40--47. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.

....paradigm in that we acknowledge certain constraints are definitional in character. Other reasons are (a) belief revision as captured by the AGM [GA88] and KM [KM91] postulates are now widely accepted as rational ways to change theories, and (b) computational versions of AGM are available [WI94, DW93] and easy to use. Definitions are of interest because they appear frequently in knowledge representation as a result of abstraction. Causal constraints as in (ii) above appear often as quasidefinitions; these will also be considered here. The effect of our approach is not different from ....

....gives door open as the KM update on the reduct H, and the correct result door open, bright door open window open as the basis for the new state. In it the status of bright is unknown. One strength of the AGM framework is that both a finite base theory [WI94] and an implementation in C [DW93] of this theory are available. The original AGM logic assumes closure, but the finite base theory and implementation can be made faithful to the original logic through lifting conditions that are easy to satisfy. Hence, the proposal in this paper can be quickly coded and a state update engine ....

Dixon, S.E. and Wobcke, W.R., "The Implementation of a First-Order Logic AGM Belief Revision System", Proc. of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Tools in AI", 1993.

....are now widely accepted as rational ways to change theories, and (b) computational 1 Knowledge Systems Group, Basser Department of Computer Science, Madsen Building, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: fnorman j abhaya j morrig cs.su.oz.au. versions of AGM are available [15, 3] and easy to use. Definitional constraints are of interest because they appear frequently in knowledge representation as a result of abstraction while causal constraints often appear as quasi definitions (see below) While the effect of our approach is not different from priority based schemes, ....

S. E. Dixon and W. Wobcke. The implementation of a first-order logic AGM belief revision system. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Tools in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC