An Investigation of Darwiche and Pearl's Postulates for Iterated Belief Update

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18714v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 14:21:21 GMT
• Title: An Investigation of Darwiche and Pearl's Postulates for Iterated Belief Update
• Authors: Quanlong Guan, Tong Zhu, Liangda Fang, Junming Qiu, Zhao-Rong Lai, Weiqi Luo
• Abstract summary: We present a modification of the original KM postulates based on belief states. We migrate several well-known postulates for iterated belief revision to iterated belief update.
• Score: 11.363254633032023
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Belief revision and update, two significant types of belief change, both focus on how an agent modify her beliefs in presence of new information. The most striking difference between them is that the former studies the change of beliefs in a static world while the latter concentrates on a dynamically-changing world. The famous AGM and KM postulates were proposed to capture rational belief revision and update, respectively. However, both of them are too permissive to exclude some unreasonable changes in the iteration. In response to this weakness, the DP postulates and its extensions for iterated belief revision were presented. Furthermore, Rodrigues integrated these postulates in belief update. Unfortunately, his approach does not meet the basic requirement of iterated belief update. This paper is intended to solve this problem of Rodrigues's approach. Firstly, we present a modification of the original KM postulates based on belief states. Subsequently, we migrate several well-known postulates for iterated belief revision to iterated belief update. Moreover, we provide the exact semantic characterizations based on partial preorders for each of the proposed postulates. Finally, we analyze the compatibility between the above iterated postulates and the KM postulates for belief update.

Related papers

• On Lockean beliefs that are deductively closed and minimal change [1.4624458429745086]
  Lockean belief sets are not generally closed under (classical) logical deduction.<n>We show how we can deductively close a belief set via a minimal revision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T14:44:01Z)
• Iterated belief revision: from postulates to abilities [0.0]
  The belief revision field is opulent in new proposals and indigent in analyses of existing approaches.<n>Much work hinge on postulates, employed as syntactic characterizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T05:11:41Z)
• On Definite Iterated Belief Revision with Belief Algebras [19.073043690553867]
  We propose a novel framework for iterated belief revision by characterizing belief information through preference relations.<n>We prove that the revision result is uniquely determined given the current belief state and new evidence.<n>We argue that this approach may offer a more predictable and principled method for belief revision, making it suitable for real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T04:34:43Z)
• Rectifying Belief Space via Unlearning to Harness LLMs' Reasoning [36.74368293113009]
  We propose a method to rectify the belief space by suppressing spurious beliefs while simultaneously enhancing true ones. Our approach first identifies the beliefs that lead to incorrect or correct answers by prompting the model to generate textual explanations. We then apply unlearning to suppress the identified spurious beliefs and enhance the true ones, effectively rectifying the model's belief space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T00:57:45Z)
• Correctness is not Faithfulness in RAG Attributions [47.48625339105129]
  Explicitly citing source documents allows users to verify generated responses and increases trust. Prior work largely evaluates citation correctness - whether cited documents support the corresponding statements. To establish trust in attributed answers, we must examine both citation correctness and citation faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T21:57:11Z)
• Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoning [63.0281286287648]
  We introduce Belief-R, a new dataset designed to test LMs' belief revision ability when presented with new evidence. Inspired by how humans suppress prior inferences, this task assesses LMs within the newly proposed delta reasoning framework. We evaluate $sim$30 LMs across diverse prompting strategies and found that LMs generally struggle to appropriately revise their beliefs in response to new information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T09:09:36Z)
• Logic meets Wigner's Friend (and their Friends) [49.1574468325115]
  We take a fresh look at Wigner's Friend thought-experiment and some of its more recent variants and extensions. We discuss various solutions proposed in the literature, focusing on a few questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T13:31:56Z)
• Language Models with Rationality [57.37201135072838]
  Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at question-answering (QA) It is not always clear how (or even if) an answer follows from their latent "beliefs"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:04:25Z)
• Belief propagation generalizes backpropagation [0.0]
  In spite of their importance, the connection between backpropagation and belief propagation is poorly characterized. We show that when an input to backpropagation is converted into an input to belief propagation so that (loopy) belief propagation can be run on it, then the result of belief propagation encodes the result of backpropagation. In other words, we prove for apparently the first time that belief propagation generalizes backpropagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-02T20:02:41Z)
• A dialog on the fate of information in black hole evaporation [77.34726150561087]
  We present two alternative perspectives for the resolution of Hawking's information puzzle in black hole evaporation. One of them is the central role played by the existence of the interior singularity that we expect to be replaced by a more fundamental quantum gravity formulation. Both views rely on the notion that the standard effective quantum field theoretic perspective would require some deep modifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-17T16:21:22Z)
• Iterated Belief Change, Computationally [3.42658286826597]
  Iterated Belief Change is the research area that investigates principles for the dynamics of beliefs over (possibly unlimited) many subsequent belief changes. In particular, we show that iterative belief revision is Turing complete, even under the condition that broadly accepted principles like the Darwiche-Pearl postulates for iterated revision hold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T19:01:20Z)
• Exhaustivity and anti-exhaustivity in the RSA framework: Testing the effect of prior beliefs [68.8204255655161]
  We focus on cases when sensitivity to priors leads to counterintuitive predictions of the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework. We show that in the baseline RSA model, under certain conditions, anti-exhaustive readings are predicted. We find no anti-exhaustivity effects, but observed that message choice is sensitive to priors, as predicted by the RSA framework overall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T20:35:03Z)
• Do Language Models Have Beliefs? Methods for Detecting, Updating, and Visualizing Model Beliefs [76.6325846350907]
  Dennett (1995) famously argues that even thermostats have beliefs, on the view that a belief is simply an informational state decoupled from any motivational state. In this paper, we discuss approaches to detecting when models have beliefs about the world, and we improve on methods for updating model beliefs to be more truthful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-26T18:33:59Z)
• On Limited Non-Prioritised Belief Revision Operators with Dynamic Scope [2.7071541526963805]
  We introduce the concept of dynamic-limited revision, which are revisions expressible by a total preorder over a limited set of worlds. For a belief change operator, we consider the scope, which consists of those beliefs which yield success of revision. We show that for each set satisfying single sentence closure and disjunction completeness there exists a dynamic-limited revision having the union of this set with the beliefs set as scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-17T17:22:29Z)
• On the use of evidence theory in belief base revision [0.0]
  We propose the idea of credible belief base revision yielding to define two new formula-based revision operators. These operators stem from consistent subbases maximal with respect to credibility instead of set inclusion and cardinality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-24T12:45:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.