Article

The semantics of preference-based belief operators

Authors:

Geir B. Asheim,

Ylva SøvikAuthors Info & Claims

TARK '03: Proceedings of the 9th conference on Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge

Pages 90 - 103

https://doi.org/10.1145/846241.846256

Published: 20 June 2003 Publication History

Get Access

References

[1]

Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction functions and their associated revision functions. J Symbolic Logic 50 (1985) 510--530.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[2]

Anscombe, F.J., Aumann, R.: A definition of subjective probability. Annals Math Stat 34 (1963) 199--205.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[3]

Asheim, G.B.: On the epistemic foundation for backward induction. Math Soc Sci 44 (2002) 121--144.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[4]

Asheim, G.B., Dufwenberg, M.: Admissibility and common belief. University of Oslo and Stockholm University (2002), forthcoming in Games Econ Beh.

Google Scholar

[5]

Asheim, G.B., Perea, A.: Sequential and quasi-perfect rationalizability in extensive games. University of Oslo and University of Maastricht (2002). (http://folk.uio.no/gasheim /exgara02.pdf)

Google Scholar

[6]

Battigalli, P., Siniscalchi, M.: Interactive beliefs and forward induction reasoning. J Econ Theory 106 (2002) 356--391.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[7]

Ben-Porath, E.: Rationality, Nash equilibrium, and backwards induction in perfect information games. Rev Econ Stud 64 (1997) 23--46.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

Blume, L., Brandenburger, A., Dekel, E.: Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty. Econometrica 59 (1991) 61--79.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[9]

Boutilier, G.: Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a model framework. Artificial Intelligence 68 (1994) 33--85.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Brandenburger, A.: Lexicographic probabilities and iterated admissibility. In Dasgupta, Gale, Hart, Maskin (Eds.): Economic Analysis of Markets and Games, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1992), pp. 217--234.

Google Scholar

[11]

Brandenburger, A.: On the existence of a 'complete' belief model. Harvard Business School Working Paper 99--056 (1998).

Google Scholar

[12]

Brandenburger, A., Keisler, H.J.: An impossibility theorem on beliefs in games. Harvard Business School Working Paper 00--010 (1999).

Google Scholar

[13]

Brandenburger, A., Keisler, H.J.: Epistemic conditions for iterated admissibility. Harvard Business School and University of Wisconsin-Madison (2002).

Google Scholar

[14]

Feinberg, Y.: Subjecive reasoning in dynamic games. Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper 1793 (2002).

Google Scholar

[15]

Friedman, N., Halpern, J.Y.: Plausibility measures: A user's guide. Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in AI (1995), pp. 175--184.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Grove, A.: Two models for theory change. J Phil Logic 17 (1988) 157--170.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[17]

Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Proportional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52 (1991) 263--294.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logic. Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990).

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Lamarre, P., Shoham, Y.: Knowledge, certainty, belief, and conditionalisation. In Doyle, J., Sandewall, E., Torasso, P. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994) pp. 415--424.

Google Scholar

[20]

Morris, S.: Alternative notions of belief. In Bacharach, Gérard-Varet, Mongin, Shin (Eds.): Epistemic Logic and the Theory of Games and Decisions, Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997) pp. 217--233.

Google Scholar

[21]

Myerson, R.: Multistage games with communication. Econometrica 54 (1986) 323--358.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[22]

Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1994).

Google Scholar

[23]

Shoham, Y.: Reasoning about change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1988).

Google Scholar

[24]

Stalnaker, R.: Knowledge, belief and counterfactual reasoning in games. Econ Phil 12 (1996) 133--163.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[25]

Stalnaker, R.: Belief revision in games: forward and backward induction. Math Soc Sci 36 (1998) 57--68.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[26]

Tan, T., Werlang, S.R.C.: The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games. J Econ Theory 45 (1988) 370--391.

Crossref

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Costa HOlsson E(2010)Decision-Theoretic Contraction and Sequential ChangeKnowledge and Inquiry10.1017/CBO9780511584312.016(201-224)Online publication date: 5-Mar-2010
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584312.016
Asheim GSøvik Y(2005)Preference-based belief operatorsMathematical Social Sciences10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2005.01.00150:1(61-82)Online publication date: Jul-2005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2005.01.001

Index Terms

The semantics of preference-based belief operators

Recommendations

Dynamic belief revision operators

The AGM approach to belief change is not geared to provide a decent account of iterated belief change. Darwiche and Pearl have sought to extend the AGM proposal in an interesting way to deal with this problem. We show that the original Darwiche-Pearl ...
On the semantics of belief revision systems
TARK '92: Proceedings of the 4th conference on Theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge

We give semantics to belief revision operators that satisfy the Alchourrón-Gärden-fors-Makinson postulates by presenting an epistemic logic such that, for any such revision operator, the result of a revision can be described by a sentence in this logic.
...
Constructing Choquet integral-based operators that generalize weighted means and OWA operators

A new class of aggregation operators is proposed to generalize weighted means and OWA operators.SUOWA operators are defined by using Choquet integral.These operators are continuous, monotonic, idempotent, compensative and homogeneous of degree 1 ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

TARK '03: Proceedings of the 9th conference on Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge

June 2003

245 pages

ISBN:1581137311

DOI:10.1145/846241

Conference Chair:
Joe Halpern
Comell University, Ithaca, NY
,
Editor:
Moshe Tennenholtz
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 June 2003

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

SenSys03

SenSys03: The First ACM Conference on Embedded Networked

June 20 - 22, 2003

Indiana, Univerity of Indiana

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 177 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
250
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)3
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 31 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Costa HOlsson E(2010)Decision-Theoretic Contraction and Sequential ChangeKnowledge and Inquiry10.1017/CBO9780511584312.016(201-224)Online publication date: 5-Mar-2010
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584312.016
Asheim GSøvik Y(2005)Preference-based belief operatorsMathematical Social Sciences10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2005.01.00150:1(61-82)Online publication date: Jul-2005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2005.01.001

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Dynamic belief revision operators

On the semantics of belief revision systems

Constructing Choquet integral-based operators that generalize weighted means and OWA operators