Nebel, `Base Revision Operations and Schemes: Semantics, Representation, and Complexity', in Cohn A.G. (eds.), Proc. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (John Wiley & Sons 1994). Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Distributed Belief Revision as Applied Within a.. - Dragoni, Giorgini.. (Correct)
....this cognitive process belief revision . Since the seminal, philosophical and influential works of Alchourr on, Gardenfors and Makinson (1985) ideas on belief revision have been progressively refined (Gardenfors 1988) toward normative, effective and computable paradigms (Benferhat et al. 1993; Nebel 1994). They introduced three rational principles to whom belief revision should obey: AGM1 Consistency: revision must yield a consistent knowledge space. AGM2 Minimal Change: revision should alter as little as possible the knowledge space. AGM3 Priority to the Incoming Information: incoming ....
....syntactically different but logically equivalent formulae represent the same knowledge space. The partisans of syntax dependent belief revision consider knowledge spaces made up of a limited number of sentences. They claim that asserting facts is more important than deriving others from them. Nebel s (1994) epistemic relevance ordering stratifies a base B into n priority classes B 1 ; Bn . Epistemic relevance does not respect the logical contents of the sentences as epistemic and partial entrenchment do. A justification seems to rely on the logical paradoxes of the material implication: a rule ....
B. Nebel (1994) "Base revision operations and schemes: Semantics, representation, and complexity". In: A.G. Cohn, ed., Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. John Wiley & Sons.
Belief Revision under Uncertainty in a Multi Agent Environment - Dragoni (Correct)
....be hard because knowledge is only partially explicit. Since the seminal, influential and philosophical work of Alchourr n, G rdenfors and Makinson [1] the ideas on belief revision have been progressively refined [2,3] and ameliorated toward normative, effective and quasi computable paradigms [4,5]. In this chapter, we begin by surveying some of the following contributes: 2 Symbolic approaches 2.1 Sentence based Revision 2.1.1 AGM Revision [1] respects the logical content of the beliefs but works with infinite sets of sentences 2.1.2 Revision as Transmutation of Partial Epistemic ....
....approaches 2.1 Sentence based Revision 2.1.1 AGM Revision [1] respects the logical content of the beliefs but works with infinite sets of sentences 2.1.2 Revision as Transmutation of Partial Epistemic Rankings [5] seems to be computationally intractable 2.1. 3 Revision for finite bases [4]: the outcome depends on the syntax of the beliefs 2.2 Model Based Revision 2.2.1 KM Updating [6] 2.2.2 Possible Model Approach [7] 3 Numerical approaches [8] generally, they do not respect the logical content of the sentences 3.1 probabilistic approaches [9] do not deal with inconsistencies ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Nebel, `Base Revision Operations and Schemes: Semantics, Representation, and Complexity', in Cohn A.G. (eds.), Proc. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (John Wiley & Sons 1994).
Belief Revision under Uncertainty in a Multi Agent Environment - Dragoni (Correct)
No context found.
Nebel, `Base Revision Operations and Schemes: Semantics, Representation, and Complexity', in Cohn A.G. (eds.), Proc. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (John Wiley & Sons 1994).
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