Truth-Tracking by Belief Revision

1. Alchourrón, C. E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510–530, 1985.

   Article  Google Scholar 

2. Angluin, D., Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data, Information and Control 45(2): 117–135, 1980.

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Aucher, G., A combined system for update logic and belief revision, in M. W. Barley, and N. Kasabov, (eds.), Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3371 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 1–17.

4. Baltag, A., N. Gierasimczuk, A. Özgün, A. L. Vargas Sandoval, and S. Smets, A Dynamic Logic for Learning Theory, in A. Madeira, and M. Benevides (eds.), Dynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications: Proceedings of First International Workshop, DALI 2017, Brasilia, Brazil, September 23–24, 2017, vol. 10669 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2018, pp. 35–54.

5. Baltag, A., N. Gierasimczuk, and S. Smets, Belief revision as a truth-tracking process, in K. Apt, (ed.), TARK’11: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Groningen, The Netherlands, July 12–14, 2011, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2011, pp. 187–190.

6. Baltag, A., N. Gierasimczuk, and S. Smets, On the Solvability of Inductive Problems: A Study in Epistemic Topology, in R. Ramanujam, (ed.), TARK’15: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 4–6, 2015, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 215, Open Publishing Association, 2016, pp. 81–98.

7. Baltag, A., and L. Moss, Logics for epistemic programs, Synthese 139(2): 165–224, 2004.

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Baltag, A., L. S. Moss, and S. Solecki, The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions, in I. Gilboa, (ed.), TARK’98: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998, pp. 43–56.

9. Baltag, A., and S. Smets, Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models, in G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge, (eds.), LOFT’06: Proceedings of 7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, University of Liverpool, 2006, pp. 11–24.

10. Baltag, A., and S. Smets, The logic of conditional doxastic actions, in R. van Rooij, and K. Apt, (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction. Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, pp. 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

11. Baltag, A., and S. Smets, A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision, in G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge, (eds.), LOFT’08: Proceedings of 8th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, no. 3 in Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, pp. 9–58.

12. Baltag, A., and S. Smets, Learning by questions and answers: From belief revision cycles to doxastic fixed points, in H. Ono, M. Kanazawa, and R. de Queiroz, (eds.), Logic, Language, Information and Computation, vol. 5514 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009, pp. 124–139.

13. van Benthem, J., Dynamic logic for belief revision, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 2: 129–155, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. van Benthem, J., Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

15. Blum, L., and M. Blum, Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference, Information and Control 28: 125–155, 1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

16. Bolander T., and N. Gierasimczuk, Learning Actions Models: Qualitative Approach, in W. van der Hoek, and W. H. Holliday, (eds.), LORI’15: Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, Taipei, Taiwan, October 28–31, 2015, vol. 9394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2015, pp. 40–52.

17. Bolander T., and N. Gierasimczuk, Learning to Act: Qualitative Learning of Deterministic Action Models, Journal of Logic and Computation 28(2): 337–365, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. Boutilier, C., Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 263–305, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Dégremont, C., and N. Gierasimczuk, Can doxastic agents learn? On the temporal structure of learning, in X. He, J. F. Horty, and E. Pacuit, (eds.), LORI’09: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, Chongqing, China, October 8–11, 2009, vol. 5834 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009, pp. 90–104.

20. Dégremont, C., and N. Gierasimczuk, Finite identification from the viewpoint of epistemic update, Information and Computation 209(3): 383–396, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. van Ditmarsch, H., Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision, Knowledge, Rationality & Action (Synthese) 147: 229–275 (41–87), 2005.

22. van Ditmarsch, H., W. Van der Hoek, and B. Kooi, Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Springer, The Netherlands, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

23. Gierasimczuk, N., Bridging learning theory and dynamic epistemic logic, Synthese 169(2): 371–384, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Gierasimczuk, N., Learning by erasing in dynamic epistemic logic, in A. H. Dediu, A. M. Ionescu, and C. Martin-Vide, (eds.), LATA’09: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications, Tarragona, Spain, April 2–8, 2009, vol. 5457 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, The Netherlands, 2009, pp. 362–373.

25. Gierasimczuk, N., Knowing One’s Limits. Logical Analysis of Inductive Inference, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010.

26. Gierasimczuk, N., D. de Jongh, and V. F. Hendricks, Logic and learning, in A. Baltag, and S. Smets, (eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logical and Informational Dynamics, Springer, 2014.

27. Gierasimczuk, N., and D. de Jongh, On the complexity of conclusive update, The Computer Journal 56(3): 365–377, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

28. Gold, E. M., Language identification in the limit, Information and Control 10: 447–474, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Jain, S., D. Osherson, J. S. Royer, and A. Sharma, Systems that Learn, MIT Press, Chicago, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

30. Kelly, K. T., Iterated belief revision, reliability, and inductive amnesia, Erkenntnis 50: 11–58, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

31. Kelly, K. T., The learning power of belief revision, in TARK’98: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998, pp. 111–124.

32. Kelly, K. T., Learning theory and epistemology, in I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen, and J. Smolenski, (eds.), Handbook of Epistemology, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 183–203.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

33. Kelly, K. T., Ockham’s razor, truth, and information, in P. Adriaans, and J. van Benthem, (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Information, Elsevier, 2008, pp. 321–359.

34. Kelly, K. T., O. Schulte, and V. Hendricks, Reliable belief revision, in Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995, pp. 383–398.

35. Martin, E., and D. Osherson, Scientific discovery based on belief revision, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 62(4): 1352–1370, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Martin, E., and D. Osherson, Elements of Scientific Inquiry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

37. Osherson, D., M. Stob, and S. Weinstein, Systems that Learn, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

38. Rott, H., Conditionals and theory change: Revisions, expansions and additions, Synthese 81: 91–113, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

39. Spohn, W., Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states, in B. Skyrms, and W. L. Harper, (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. II, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988, pp. 105–134.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references