Eduardo Fermé

AGM 25 Years : Twenty-Five Years of Research in Belief Change

The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrón (1931–1996), Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson (AGM), “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions” was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twenty-five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model.

Credibility limited revision

Five types of constructions are introduced for non-prioritized belief revision, i.e., belief revision in which the input sentence is not always accepted. These constructions include generalizations of entrenchment-based and sphere-based revision. Axiomatic characterizations are provided, and close interconnections are shown to hold between the different constructions.

Multiple kernel contraction

This paper focuses on the extension of AGM that allows change for a belief base by a set of sentences instead of a single sentence. In [FH94], Fuhrmann and Hansson presented an axiomatic for Multiple Contraction and a construction based on the AGM Partial Meet Contraction. We propose for their model another way to construct functions: Multiple Kernel Contraction, that is a modification of Kernel Contraction, proposed by Hansson [Han94] to construct classical AGM contractions and belief base contractions. This construction works out the unsolved problem pointed out by Hansson in [Han99, pp. 369].

System of Spheres-based Multiple Contractions

We propose a new class of multiple contraction operations — the system of spheres-based multiple contractions — which are a generalization of Grove’s system of spheres-based (singleton) contractions to the case of contractions by (possibly non-singleton) sets of sentences. Furthermore, we show that this new class of functions is a subclass of the class of the partial meet multiple contractions.

An Axiomatic Characterization of Ensconcement-Based Contraction

In this article, we propose an axiomatic characterization for ensconcement-based contraction functions, belief base functions proposed by Williams. We relate this function with other kinds of base contraction functions.

Possible Worlds Semantics for Partial Meet Multiple Contraction

In the logic of theory change, the standard model is AGM, proposed by Alchourrón et al. (J Symb Log 50:510–530, 1985). This paper focuses on the extension of AGM that accounts for contractions of a theory by a set of sentences instead of only by a single sentence. Hansson (Theoria 55:114–132, 1989), Fuhrmann and Hansson (J Logic Lang Inf 3:39–74, 1994) generalized Partial Meet Contraction to the case of contractions by (possibly non-singleton) sets of sentences. In this paper we present the possible worlds semantics for partial meet multiple contractions.

On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction without Recovery

The postulate of Recovery, among the six postulates for theory contraction, formulated and studied by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson is the one that has provoked most controversy. In this article we construct withdrawal functions that do not satisfy Recovery, but try to preserve minimal change, and relate these withdrawal functions with the AGM contraction functions.

Irrevocable Belief Revision and Epistemic Entrenchment

In recent papers [10, 11] Krister Segerberg introduced Irrevocable Belief Revision, as closely related to AGM revision [2]. In this paper we present irrevocable belief revision in terms of an epistemic entrenchment relation. 1

Credibility‐limited Functions for Belief Bases

This thesis consists in six articles and a comprehensive summary. • The pourpose of the summary is to introduce the AGM theory of belief change and to exemplify the diversity and significance of the research that has been inspired by the AGM article in the last 25 years. The research areas associated with AGM was divided in three parts: criticisms, where we discussed some of the more common criticisms of AGM. Extensions where the most common extensions and variations of AGM are presented and applications where we provided an overview of applications and connections with other areas of research. • Article I elaborates on the connection between partial meet contractions [AGM85] and kernel contractions [Han94a] in belief change theory. Also both functions are equivalent in belief sets, there are notequivalent in belief bases. A way to define incision functions (used in kernel contractions) from selection functions (used in partial meet contractions) and vice versa is presented. It is explained under which conditions there are exact correspondences between selection and incision functions so that the same contraction operations can be obtained by using either of them. • Article II proposes an axiomatic characterization for ensconcement-based contraction functions, belief base functions proposed byWilliams and relates this function with other kinds of base contraction functions. • Article III adapts the Ferme and Hansson model of Shielded Contraction [FH01] as well as Hansson et all Credibility-Limited Revision [HFCF01] for belief bases, to join two of the many variations of the AGM model [AGM85], i.e. those in which knowledge is represented through belief bases instead of logic theories, and those in which the object of the epistemic change does not get the priority over the existing information as it is the case in the AGM model. • Article IV introduces revision by comparison a refined method for changing beliefs by specifying constraints on the relative plausibility of propositions. Like the earlier belief revision models, the method proposed is a qualitative one, in the sense that no numbers are needed in order to specify the posterior plausibility of the new information. The method uses reference beliefs in order to determine the degree of entrenchment of the newly accepted piece of information. Two kinds of semantics for this idea are proposed and a logical characterization of the new model is given. • Article V focuses on the extension of AGM that allows change for a belief base by a set of sentences instead of a single sentence. In [FH94], Fuhrmann and Hansson presented an axiomatic for Multiple Contraction and a construction based on the AGM Partial Meet Contraction. This essay proposes for their model another way to construct functions: Multiple Kernel Contraction, that is a modification of Kernel Contraction,proposed by Hansson [Han94a] to construct classical AGM contractions and belief base contractions. • Article VI relates AGM model with the DFT model proposed by Carlos Alchourron [Alc93]. Alchourron devoted his last years to the analysis of the notion of defeasible conditionalization. His definition of the defeasible conditional is given in terms of strict implication operator and a modal operator f which is interpreted as a revision function at the language level. This essay points out that this underlying revision function is more general than AGM revision. In addition, a complete characterization of that more general kind of revision that permits to unify models of revision given by other authors is given.

Five Faces of Recovery

One of the basic principles of the AGM theory [Alchourron et al., 1985] is that belief changes should take place with minimal loss of previous beliefs. In the opinion of the AGM trio, the postulate of recovery guarantees minimal loss of contents in the contraction process.1 However, several authors have criticised the recovery postulate [Ferme, 1998; Makinson, 1987; Levi, 1991; Levi, 1997; Lindstrom and Rabinowicz, 1991; Hansson, 1991; Niederee, 1991; Nayak, 1994; Makinson, 19971. The present work describes recovery from five angles or models in which it is possible to define the AGM contraction: Postulates, partial meet functions, epistemic entrenchment, safe/kernel contraction and sphere-systems. It also shows how the intuitions or non-intuitions that surround recovery appear or disappear in each of them and consequently, the status of recovery turns out to differ substantially among the five approaches.