Abstract
We develop two specific operators for modifying a knowledge base: Amend updates a knowledge base with a formula, while the complementary operator Forget removes a formula from the knowledge base. The approach differs from other belief change operators in that the definition of the operators is compositional with respect to the sentence added or removed. For example, Forget applied to a conjunction is defined to be the union of Forget applied to the individual conjuncts. In some cases the resulting approach has better complexity characteristics than other operators; however, this is at the expense of irrelevance of syntax and other of the Katsuno-Mendelzon update postulates. Alternately, we achieve full irrelevance of syntax if the sentence for update is replaced by the disjunction of its prime implicants and conversely the sentence for removal is replaced by the conjunction of its prime implicates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C.E. Alchourron, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2):510–530, 1985.
A. Borgida. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 10, 1985.
M. Dalal. Investigations into theory of knowledge base revision. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 449–479, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988.
T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence, 57:227–270, 1992.
K.D. Forbus. Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1273–1278, 1989.
P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.
H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183–203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
K. Satoh. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pages 455–462, Tokyo, 1988.
M. Suderman and J. Delgrande. Considerations on compositional update operators. SFU CMPT TR 2000-02, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, February, 2000.
A. Weber. Updating propositional formulas. Proc. First Conference on Expert Database Systems, pages 487–500, 1986.
M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 89–93, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988.
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
Suderman, M., Delgrande, J. (2000). Considerations on Compositional Update Operators. In: Hamilton, H.J. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Canadian AI 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1822. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45486-1_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45486-1_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67557-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45486-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive