A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states

Belief revision performs belief change on an agent’s beliefs when new evidence (either of the form of a propositional formula or of the form of a total pre-order on a set of interpretations) is received. Jeffrey’s rule is commonly used for revising probabilistic epistemic states when new information is probabilistically uncertain. In this paper, we propose a general epistemic revision framework where new evidence is of the form of a partial epistemic state. Our framework extends Jeffrey’s rule with uncertain inputs and covers well-known existing frameworks such as ordinal conditional function (OCF) or possibility theory. We then define a set of postulates that such revision operators shall satisfy and establish representation theorems to characterize those postulates. We show that these postulates reveal common characteristics of various existing revision strategies and are satisfied by OCF conditionalization, Jeffrey’s rule of conditioning and possibility conditionalization. Furthermore, when reducing to the belief revision situation, our postulates can induce Darwiche and Pearl’s postulates C1 and C2.

Rational Partial Choice Functions and Their Application to Belief Revision.

Necessary and sufficient conditions for choice functions to be rational have been intensively studied in the past. However, in these attempts, a choice function is completely specified. That is, given any subset of options, called an issue, the best option over that issue is always known, whilst in real-world scenarios, it is very often that only a few choices are known instead of all. In this paper, we study partial choice functions and investigate necessary and sufficient rationality conditions for situations where only a few choices are known. We prove that our necessary and sufficient condition for partial choice functions boils down to the necessary and sufficient conditions for complete choice functions proposed in the literature. Choice functions have been instrumental in belief revision theory. That is, in most approaches to belief revision, the problem studied can simply be described as the choice of possible worlds compatible with the input information, given an agent’s prior belief state. The main effort has been to devise strategies in order to infer the agents revised belief state. Our study considers the converse problem: given a collection of input information items and their corresponding revision results (as provided by an agent), does there exist a rational revision operation used by the agent and a consistent belief state that may explain the observed results?

Managing Software Requirements Changes Based On Negotiation-Style Revision

For any proposed software project, when the software requirements specification has been established, requirements changes may result in not only a modification of the requirements specification but also a series of modifications of all existing artifacts during the development. Then it is necessary to provide effective and flexible requirements changes management. In this paper, we present an approach to managing requirements changes based on Booth’s negotiation-style framework for belief revision. Informally, we consider the current requirements specification as a belief set about the system-to-be. The request of requirements change is viewed as new information about the same system-to-be. Then the process of executing the requirements change is a process of revising beliefs about the system-to-be. We design a family of belief negotiation models appropriate for different processes of requirements revision, including the setting of the request of requirements change being fully accepted, the setting of the current requirements specification being fully preserved, and that of the current specification and the request of requirements change reaching a compromise. In particular, the prioritization of requirements plays an important role in reaching an agreement in each belief negotiation model designed in this paper.

Bridging Jeffrey's Rule, AGM Revision and Dempster Conditioning in the Theory of Evidence

Belief revision characterizes the process of revising an agent’s beliefs when receiving new evidence. In the field of artificial intelligence, revision strategies have been extensively studied in the context of logic-based formalisms and probability kinematics. However, so far there is not much literature on this topic in evidence theory. In contrast, combination rules proposed so far in the theory of evidence, especially Dempster rule, are symmetric. They rely on a basic assumption, that is, pieces of evidence being combined are considered to be on a par, i.e. play the same role. When one source of evidence is less reliable than another, it is possible to discount it and then a symmetric combination operation
is still used. In the case of revision, the idea is to let prior knowledge of an agent be altered by some input information. The change problem is thus intrinsically asymmetric. Assuming the input information is reliable, it should be retained whilst the prior information should be changed minimally to that effect. To deal with this issue, this paper defines the notion of revision for the theory of evidence in such a way as to bring together probabilistic and logical views. Several revision rules previously proposed are reviewed and we advocate one of them as better corresponding to the idea of revision. It is extended to cope with inconsistency between prior and input information. It reduces to Dempster
rule of combination, just like revision in the sense of Alchourron, Gardenfors, and Makinson (AGM) reduces to expansion, when the input is strongly consistent with the prior belief function. Properties of this revision rule are also investigated and it is shown to generalize Jeffrey’s rule of updating, Dempster rule of conditioning and a form of AGM revision.

On the Merit of Selecting Different Belief Merging Operators

Belief merging operators combine multiple belief bases (a profile) into a collective one. When the conjunction of belief bases is consistent, all the operators agree on the result. However, if the conjunction of belief bases is inconsistent, the results vary between operators. There is no formal manner to measure the results and decide on which operator to select. So, in this paper we propose to evaluate the result of merging operators by using three ordering relations (fairness, satisfaction and strength) over operators for a given profile. Moreover, a relation of conformity over operators is introduced in order to classify how well the operator conforms to the definition of a merging operator. By using the four proposed relations we provide a comparison of some classical merging operators and evaluate the results for some specific profiles.

Revising Partial Pre-Orders with Partial Pre-Orders: A Unit-Based Revision Framework

Belief revision studies strategies about how agents revise their belief states when receiving new evidence. Both in classical belief revision and in epistemic revision, a new input is either in the form of a (weighted) propositional formula or a total
pre-order (where the total pre-order is considered as a whole).
However, in some real-world applications, a new input can be a partial pre-order where each unit that constitutes the partial pre-order is important and should be considered individually. To address this issue, in this paper, we study how a partial preorder representing the prior epistemic state can be revised by another partial pre-order (the new input) from a different perspective, where the revision is conducted recursively on the individual units of partial pre-orders. We propose different revision operators (rules), dubbed the extension, match, inner and outer revision operators, from different revision points of view. We also analyze several properties for these operators.

Revision over Partial Pre-orders: A Postulational Study

Belief revision is the process that incorporates, in a consistent way,
a new piece of information, called input, into a belief base. When both belief
bases and inputs are propositional formulas, a set of natural and rational properties, known as AGM postulates, have been proposed to define genuine revision operations. This paper addresses the following important issue : How to revise a partially pre-ordered information (representing initial beliefs) with a new partially pre-ordered information (representing inputs) while preserving AGM postulates? We first provide a particular representation of partial pre-orders (called units) using the concept of closed sets of units. Then we restate AGM postulates in this framework by defining counterparts of the notions of logical entailment and logical consistency. In the second part of the paper, we provide some examples of revision operations that respect our set of postulates. We also prove that our revision methods extend well-known lexicographic revision and natural revision for both cases where the input is either a single propositional formula or a total pre-order.

Revision rules in the theory of evidence

Combination rules proposed so far in the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, especially Dempster rule, rely on a basic assumption, that is, pieces of evidence being combined are considered to be on a par, i.e. play the same role. When a source of evidence is less reliable than another, it is possible to discount it and then a symmetric combination operation is still used. In the case of revision, the idea is to let prior knowledge of an agent be altered by some input information. The change problem is thus intrinsically asymmetric. Assuming the input information is reliable, it should be retained whilst the prior information should
be changed minimally to that effect. Although belief revision is already an important subfield of artificial intelligence, so far, it has been little addressed in evidence theory. In this paper, we define the notion of revision for the theory of evidence and propose several different revision rules, called the inner and outer
revisions, and a modified adaptive outer revision, which better corresponds to the idea of revision. Properties of these revision rules are also investigated.

Belief change with noisy sensing in the situation calculus

Situation calculus has been applied widely in arti?cial intelligence to model and reason about actions and changes in dynamic systems. Since actions carried out by agents will cause constant changes of the agents’ beliefs, how to manage
these changes is a very important issue. Shapiro et al. [22] is one of the studies that considered this issue. However, in this framework, the problem of noisy sensing, which often presents in real-world applications, is not considered. As a
consequence, noisy sensing actions in this framework will lead to an agent facing inconsistent situation and subsequently the agent cannot proceed further. In this paper, we investigate how noisy sensing actions can be handled in iterated
belief change within the situation calculus formalism. We extend the framework proposed in [22] with the capability of managing noisy sensings. We demonstrate that an agent can still detect the actual situation when the ratio of noisy sensing actions vs. accurate sensing actions is limited. We prove that our framework subsumes the iterated belief change strategy in [22] when all sensing actions are accurate. Furthermore, we prove that our framework can adequately handle belief introspection, mistaken beliefs, belief revision and belief update even with noisy sensing, as done in [22] with accurate sensing actions only.

Background beliefs and evidence interpretation

In this paper we argue that it is often adaptive to use one’s background beliefs when interpreting information that, from a normative point of view, is incomplete. In both of the experiments reported here participants were presented with an item possessing two features and were asked to judge, in the light of some evidence concerning the features, to which of two categories it was more likely that the item belonged. It was found that when participants received evidence relevant to just one of these hypothesised categories (i.e. evidence that did not form a Bayesian likelihood ratio) they used their background beliefs to interpret this information. In Experiment 2, on the other hand, participants behaved in a broadly Bayesian manner when the evidence they received constituted a completed likelihood ratio. We discuss the circumstances under which participants, when making their judgements, consider the alternative hypothesis. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our results for an understanding of hypothesis testing, belief revision, and categorisation.

A framework for managing uncertain inputs: An axiomization of rewarding

The success postulate in belief revision ensures that new evidence (input) is always trusted. However, admitting uncertain input has been questioned by many researchers. Darwiche and Pearl argued that strengths of evidence should be introduced to determine the outcome of belief change, and provided a preliminary definition towards this thought. In this paper, we start with Darwiche and Pearl’s idea aiming to develop a framework that can capture the influence of the strengths of inputs with some rational assumptions. To achieve this, we first define epistemic states to represent beliefs attached with strength, and then present a set of postulates to describe the change process on epistemic states that is determined by the strengths of input and establish representation theorems to characterize these postulates. As a result, we obtain a unique rewarding operator which is proved to be a merging operator that is in line with many other works. We also investigate existing postulates on belief merging and compare them with our postulates. In addition, we show that from an epistemic state, a corresponding ordinal conditional function by Spohn can be derived and the result of combining two epistemic states is thus reduced to the result of combining two corresponding ordinal conditional functions proposed by Laverny and Lang. Furthermore, when reduced to the belief revision situation, we prove that our results induce all the Darwiche and Pearl’s postulates as well as the Recalcitrance postulate and the Independence postulate.

Can(Plan)+: Extending the Operational Semantics of the BDI Architecture to deal with Uncertain Information

The BDI architecture, where agents are modelled based on their beliefs, desires and intentions, provides a practical approach to develop large scale systems. However, it is not well suited to model complex Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems pervaded by uncertainty. In this paper we address this issue by extending the operational semantics of Can(Plan) into Can(Plan)+. We start by modelling the beliefs of an agent as a set of epistemic states where each state, possibly using a different representation, models part of the agent's beliefs. These epistemic states are stratified to make them commensurable and to reason about the uncertain beliefs of the agent. The syntax and semantics of a BDI agent are extended accordingly and we identify fragments with computationally efficient semantics. Finally, we examine how primitive actions are affected by uncertainty and we define an appropriate form of lookahead planning.