Talk:Belief revision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Page limits 2 Content to add 3 Piaget 4 First sentence? 5 Enumeration of operators 6 Relationship to theory revision?

[edit] Page limits

The article has gone over the 32K limit... For now, it is better to leave it as is. If some section grows further, the article can be rewritten in the Wikipedia:Summary style. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about page limits, they affect hardly any editors. Get the content right and we can figure out how best to carve it into pages. --- Charles Stewart 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I do not think this paper will grow much further in the near future, so there is probably no need to worry, at least for now. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content to add

Some things still missing from the article:

1. belief revision and abduction (Boutilier)
2. relevance axiom (Parikh et al.)
3. compartments (Wassermann et al.)

I am pretty sure I am still missing something else... let me know if this is the case. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piaget

I have removed the following from the article:

The concepts of update and revision echo Piaget's ideas of accommodation and assimilation in schema formation. Accommodation is similar to updating, in that existing structures are changed in light of new information. Assimilation is similar to revision, in that new events are incorporated into preexisting cognitive structures.

I could not find sources for it. Most importantly, from what I could find, this is incorrect. If a parallel can be established, assimilation is expansion (simple addition of new information) while accomodation is revision (addition of new information that requires reorganization of the current body of knowledge). - Liberatore(T) 19:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence?

Does the first sentence

"Belief revision is the process changing beliefs to take into account a new piece of information. "

make sense to everyone but me? I am not really sure what it is trying to say, so I don't know how to change it to make it clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyOrb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2006

The "of" you added was indeed in the original version of that sentence I wrote. I am happy to see that someone else agrees with me :-> (Liberatore, 2006). 11:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enumeration of operators

Is there any reason why Hegner and Weber are not iterated like the others here in the model-based revision update section? --Juxi 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship to theory revision?

What is the relationship to theory revision? Greiner[1] (pdf) suggests that belief revision and theory revision are related (last paragraph of section 1) but the relationship isn't clear.

Finally, note that, in some cases, our task can require extracting the best consistent sub-theory from a given inconsistent theory From this perspective, our work is related to "Knowledge Representation" form of theory revision, a la Gardenfors [Gar88, AGM85], Katsuno and Mendelzon [KM9l] and many others Our work differs by using the notion of expected accuracy to dictate which of the "revisions" is best

Pgr94 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)