Iterated belief revision: from postulates to abilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02319v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 05:11:41 GMT
• Title: Iterated belief revision: from postulates to abilities
• Authors: Paolo Liberatore,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The belief revision field is opulent in new proposals and indigent in analyses of existing approaches. Much work hinge on postulates, employed as syntactic characterizations: some revision mechanism is equivalent to some properties. Postulates constraint specific revision instances: certain revisions update certain beliefs in a certain way. As an example, if the revision is consistent with the current beliefs, it is incorporated with no other change. A postulate like this tells what revisions must do and neglect what they can do. Can they reach a certain state of beliefs? Can they reach all possible states of beliefs? Can they reach all possible states of beliefs from no previous belief? Can they reach a dogmatic state of beliefs, where everything not believed is impossible? Can they make two conditions equally believed? An application where every possible state of beliefs is sensible requires each state of beliefs to be reachable. An application where conditions may be equally believed requires such a belief state to be reachable. An application where beliefs may become dogmatic requires a way to make them dogmatic. Such doxastic states need to be reached in a way or another. Not in specific way, as dictated by a typical belief revision postulate. This is an ability, not a constraint: the ability of being plastic, equating, dogmatic. Amnesic, correcting, believer, damascan, learnable are other abilities. Each revision mechanism owns some of these abilities and lacks the others: lexicographic, natural, restrained, very radical, full meet, radical, severe, moderate severe, deep severe, plain severe and deep severe revisions, each of these revisions is proved to possess certain abilities.

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)
• 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)
• Interpretability Needs a New Paradigm [49.134097841837715]
  Interpretability is the study of explaining models in understandable terms to humans. At the core of this debate is how each paradigm ensures its explanations are faithful, i.e., true to the model's behavior. This paper's position is that we should think about new paradigms while staying vigilant regarding faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T19:31:06Z)
• An Investigation of Darwiche and Pearl's Postulates for Iterated Belief Update [11.363254633032023]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T14:21:21Z)
• Natural revision is contingently-conditionalized revision [0.0]
  Natural revision seems so natural: it changes beliefs as little as possible.<n>Yet, some counterexamples show it wrong.<n>This is right in some cases and wrong in others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-22T06:52:30Z)
• 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)
• Perspectival Quantum Realism [0.0]
  We argue that the problems identified by QBism and Quantum Pragmatism do not necessitate abandoning the ideal of representing the physical world. We can avail ourselves of the same puzzle-solving strategies as employed by QBists and pragmatists by adopting a emphperspectival quantum realism
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-10T16:23:54Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Quantum realism: axiomatization and quantification [77.34726150561087]
  We build an axiomatization for quantum realism -- a notion of realism compatible with quantum theory. We explicitly construct some classes of entropic quantifiers that are shown to satisfy almost all of the proposed axioms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-10T18:08:42Z)
• Non-Boolean Hidden Variables model reproduces Quantum Mechanics' predictions for Bell's experiment [91.3755431537592]
  Theory aimed to violate Bell's inequalities must start by giving up Boolean logic. "Hard" problem is to predict the time values when single particles are detected. "Soft" problem is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities within (non-Boolean) Local Realism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T21:46:35Z)
• Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness? [58.13152510843004]
  With the growing popularity of deep-learning based NLP models, comes a need for interpretable systems. What is interpretability, and what constitutes a high-quality interpretation? We call for more clearly differentiating between different desired criteria an interpretation should satisfy, and focus on the faithfulness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-07T20:15:28Z)

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.