On Definite Iterated Belief Revision with Belief Algebras

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06505v1
• Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 04:34:43 GMT
• Title: On Definite Iterated Belief Revision with Belief Algebras
• Authors: Hua Meng, Zhiguo Long, Michael Sioutis, Zhengchun Zhou,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 19.073043690553867
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Traditional logic-based belief revision research focuses on designing rules to constrain the behavior of revision operators. Frameworks have been proposed to characterize iterated revision rules, but they are often too loose, leading to multiple revision operators that all satisfy the rules under the same belief condition. In many practical applications, such as safety critical ones, it is important to specify a definite revision operator to enable agents to iteratively revise their beliefs in a deterministic way. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for iterated belief revision by characterizing belief information through preference relations. Semantically, both beliefs and new evidence are represented as belief algebras, which provide a rich and expressive foundation for belief revision. Building on traditional revision rules, we introduce additional postulates for revision with belief algebra, including an upper-bound constraint on the outcomes of revision. We prove that the revision result is uniquely determined given the current belief state and new evidence. Furthermore, to make the framework more useful in practice, we develop a particular algorithm for performing the proposed revision process. We argue that this approach may offer a more predictable and principled method for belief revision, making it suitable for real-world applications.

Related papers

• AlignRAG: An Adaptable Framework for Resolving Misalignments in Retrieval-Aware Reasoning of RAG [61.28113271728859]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a foundational paradigm for knowledge-grounded text generation.<n>Existing RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that the reasoning trajectories align with the evidential constraints imposed by retrieved content.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel test-time framework that mitigates reasoning misalignment through iterative Critique-Driven Alignment steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Human-Aware Belief Revision: A Cognitively Inspired Framework for Explanation-Guided Revision of Human Models [4.2356833681644055]
  We introduce Human-Aware Belief Revision, a cognitively-inspired framework for modeling human belief revision dynamics. We conduct two human-subject studies to empirically evaluate our framework under real-world scenarios. Our findings support our hypotheses and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies, offering some guidance for developing more effective human-aware AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T16:20:51Z)
• Crystal: Introspective Reasoners Reinforced with Self-Feedback [118.53428015478957]
  We propose a novel method to develop an introspective commonsense reasoner, Crystal. To tackle commonsense problems, it first introspects for knowledge statements related to the given question, and subsequently makes an informed prediction that is grounded in the previously introspected knowledge. Experiments show that Crystal significantly outperforms both the standard supervised finetuning and chain-of-thought distilled methods, and enhances the transparency of the commonsense reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T21:23:58Z)
• SCREWS: A Modular Framework for Reasoning with Revisions [58.698199183147935]
  We present SCREWS, a modular framework for reasoning with revisions. We show that SCREWS unifies several previous approaches under a common framework. We evaluate our framework with state-of-the-art LLMs on a diverse set of reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T15:59:54Z)
• Cognitive Bias and Belief Revision [0.0]
  We formalise three types of cognitive bias within the framework of belief revision. These are confirmation bias, framing bias, and anchoring bias. We investigate the reliability of biased belief revision methods in truth tracking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T07:13:52Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Evaluate Confidence Instead of Perplexity for Zero-shot Commonsense Reasoning [85.1541170468617]
  This paper reconsiders the nature of commonsense reasoning and proposes a novel commonsense reasoning metric, Non-Replacement Confidence (NRC) Our proposed novel method boosts zero-shot performance on two commonsense reasoning benchmark datasets and further seven commonsense question-answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T14:42:14Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Unified Taylor Framework for Revisiting Attribution Methods [49.03783992773811]
  We propose a Taylor attribution framework and reformulate seven mainstream attribution methods into the framework. We establish three principles for a good attribution in the Taylor attribution framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T22:07:06Z)
• Belief Base Revision for Further Improvement of Unified Answer Set Programming [0.0]
  The base revision operator is developed using Removed Set Revision strategy. The operator is characterized by respect to the postulates for base revisions operator satisfies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T08:31:01Z)

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.