Semantic Splitting of Conditional Belief Bases

Author(s):  
Christoph Beierle ◽  
Jonas Haldimann ◽  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner
Author(s):  
Meliha Sezgin ◽  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner

In non-monotonic reasoning, conditional belief bases mostly contain positive information in the form of standard conditionals. However, in practice we are often confronted with negative information, stating that a conditional does \emph{not} hold, i.e. we need a suitable approach for reasoning over belief bases $\Delta$ with positive and negative information. In this paper, we investigate the interaction of positive and negative information in a conditional belief base and establish a property for partitions of $\Delta$ that is equivalent to consistency. Based on this property, we develop a non-trivial extension of system Z for mixed conditional belief bases and provide an algorithm to compute this partition.


Author(s):  
Christoph Beierle ◽  
Gabriele Kern-Isberner

Given a belief base ∆ consisting of a set of conditionals,there are many different ways an agent may inductivelycomplete the knowledge represented by ∆ to a completeepistemic state; two well-known approaches are given by systemP and system Z, and also each ranking model of ∆ induces afull inference relation. C-representations are special rankingmodels that obey the principle of conditional indifference.Inductive reasoning using c-representations can be done withrespect to all c-representations, with respect to a subclass of,e.g., minimal c-representations, or with respect to singlec-representations. In this paper, we present and investigateselection strategies for determining single c-representations tobe used for inductive reasoning from belief bases. We developaxioms for specifying characteristics of selection strategies.We illustrate which desirable properties, like syntaxsplitting, are ensured by the axioms, and develop constructionsfor obtaining selection strategies satisfying the axioms.Furthermore, we also present and study the extension of selectionstrategies to c-revisions that follow the principle ofconditional preservation and that have been employed successfullyin various belief change settings.


2002 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. 215-232
Author(s):  
Scott Sturgeon

Consider the frameS believes that—.Fill it with a conditional, sayIf you eat an Apple, you'll drink a Coke.what makes the result true? More generally, what facts are marked by instances ofS believes (A→C)?In a sense the answer is obious: beliefs are so marked. Yet that bromide leads directly to competing schools of thought. And the reason is simple.Common-sense thinks of belief two ways. Sometimes it sees it as a three-part affair. When so viewed either you believe, disbelieve, or suspend judgment. This take on belief is coarse-grained. It says belief has three flavours: acceptance, rejection, neither. But it's not the only way common-sense thinks of belief. Sometimes it's more subtle: ‘How strong is your faith?’ can be apposite between believers. That signals an important fact. Ordinary practice also treats belief as a fine-grained affair. It speaks of levels of confidence. It admits degrees of belief. It contains a fine-grained take as well. There are two ways belief is seen in everyday life. One is coarse-grained. The other is fine-grained.


Author(s):  
EMILIANO LORINI

Abstarct We present a general logical framework for reasoning about agents’ cognitive attitudes of both epistemic type and motivational type. We show that it allows us to express a variety of relevant concepts for qualitative decision theory including the concepts of knowledge, belief, strong belief, conditional belief, desire, conditional desire, strong desire, and preference. We also present two extensions of the logic, one by the notion of choice and the other by dynamic operators for belief change and desire change, and we apply the former to the analysis of single-stage games under incomplete information. We provide sound and complete axiomatizations for the basic logic and for its two extensions.


Author(s):  
Thi Hong Khanh Nguyen ◽  
Trong Hieu Tran ◽  
Tran Van Nguyen ◽  
Thi Thanh Luu Le
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Korpusik ◽  
Witold Łukaszewicz ◽  
Ewa Madalińska-Bugaj
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document