Abstract
In the belief change literature, while the degree of belief (or disbelief) plays a crucial role, it is assumed that potential hypotheses that have neither been accepted nor rejected cannot be compared with each other in any meaningful manner. We start with the assumption that such hypotheses can be non-trivially compared with respect to their plausibility and argue that a comprehensive theory of acceptance should take into account the degree of beliefs (or disbeliefs) as well as the plausibility of such tenable hypotheses. After showing that such a comprehensive theory of acceptance based on the received principle of minimal change does not lend itself to iterated acceptance, we propose, examine and provide representation results for an alternative theory based on the principle of rejecting the worst that can handle repeated acceptance of evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.
Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. Belief change and possibility theory. In Peter Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 142–182. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Peter Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988.
Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspect of Reasoning About Knowledge, pages 83–96, 1988.
Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence, 65:197–245, 1994.
Adam Grove. Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:157–170, 1988.
Abhaya C. Nayak. Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment. Erkenntnis, 41:353–390, 1994.
Abhaya C. Nayak and Norman Y. Foo. Reasoning without minimality. In Hing-Yan Lee and Hiroshi Motoda, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI-98), pages 122–133. Springer Verlag, 1998.
Maurice Pagnucco. The Role of Abductive Reasoning within the Process of Belief revision. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1996. (http://www.comp.mq.edu.au/~ morri/Papers/morri.Phd.ps.gz).
Gabrielle Paul. Approaches to abductive reasoning: An overview. Artificial Intelligence Review, 7:109–152, 1993.
Wolfgang Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In WilliamL. Harper and Brian Skryms, editors, Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, II, pages 105–134. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.
Mary-Anne Williams. Transmutations of knowledge systems. In Jon Doyle, Erik Sandewall, and Pietro Torasso, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 619–629. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nayak, A.C. (2000). Acceptance Without Minimality. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41131-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40006-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive