Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #134315. 	[Title] Belief Revision: A Critique [Abstract] We examine carefully the rationale underlying the approaches to belief change taken in the literature, and highlight what we view as methodological problems. We argue that to study belief change carefully, we must be quite explicit about the "ontology" or scenario underlying the belief change process. This is something that has been missing in previous work, with its focus on postulates. Our analysis shows that we must pay particular attention to two issues that have often been taken for granted: The first is how we model the agent's epistemic state. (Do we use a set of beliefs, or a richer structure, such as an ordering on worlds? And if we use a set of beliefs, in what language are these beliefs are expressed?) We show that even postulates that have been called "beyond controversy" are unreasonable when the agent's beliefs include beliefs about her own epistemic state as well as the external world. The second is the status of observations. (Are observations known to be true, or just believed? In the latter case, how firm is the belief?) Issues regarding the status of observations arise particularly when we consider iterated belief revision, and we must confront the possibility of revising by ' and then by :'. fl Some of this work was done while both authors were at the IBM Almaden Research Center. The first author was also at Stanford while much of the work was done. IBM and Stanford's support are gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported in part by NSF under grants IRI-95-03109 and IRI-96-25901, by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant F49620-96-1-0323, and by an IBM Graduate Fellowship to the first author. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, and S. C. Shapiro (Eds.) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning : proc. Fifth International Conference (KR '96), pp. 421-431, 1996. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #74700. 	[Title] Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs [Abstract] We describe a model of iterated belief revision that extends the AGM theory of revision to account for the effect of a revision on the conditional beliefs of an agent. In particular, this model ensures that an agent makes as few changes as possible to the conditional component of its belief set. Adopting the Ramsey test, minimal conditional revision provides acceptance conditions for arbitrary right-nested conditionals. We show that problem of determining acceptance of any such nested conditional can be reduced to acceptance tests for unnested conditionals. Thus, iterated revision can be accomplished in a virtual manner, using uniterated revision. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #134320. 	[Title] Qualitative Probabilities for Default Reasoning, Belief Revision, and Causal Modeling [Abstract] This paper presents recent developments toward a formalism that combines useful properties of both logic and probabilities. Like logic, the formalism admits qualitative sentences and provides symbolic machinery for deriving deductively closed beliefs and, like probability, it permits us to express if-then rules with different levels of firmness and to retract beliefs in response to changing observations. Rules are interpreted as order-of-magnitude approximations of conditional probabilities which impose constraints over the rankings of worlds. Inferences are supported by a unique priority ordering on rules which is syntactically derived from the knowledge base. This ordering accounts for rule interactions, respects specificity considerations and facilitates the construction of coherent states of beliefs. Practical algorithms are developed and analyzed for testing consistency, computing rule ordering, and answering queries. Imprecise observations are incorporated using qualitative versions of Jef-frey's Rule and Bayesian updating, with the result that coherent belief revision is embodied naturally and tractably. Finally, causal rules are interpreted as imposing Markovian conditions that further constrain world rankings to reflect the modularity of causal organizations. These constraints are shown to facilitate reasoning about causal projections, explanations, actions and change. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23069. 	[Title] On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision [Abstract] We show in this paper that the AGM postulates are too week to ensure the rational preservation of conditional beliefs during belief revision, thus permitting improper responses to sequences of observations. We remedy this weakness by proposing four additional postulates, which are sound relative to a qualitative version of probabilistic conditioning. Contrary to the AGM framework, the proposed postulates characterize belief revision as a process which may depend on elements of an epistemic state that are not necessarily captured by a belief set. We also show that a simple modification to the AGM framework can allow belief revision to be a function of epistemic states. We establish a model-based representation theorem which characterizes the proposed postulates and constrains, in turn, the way in which entrenchment orderings may be transformed under iterated belief revision. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23070. 	[Title] A Knowledge-Based Framework for Belief Change Part I: Foundations [Abstract] We propose a general framework in which to study belief change. We begin by defining belief in terms of knowledge and plausibility: an agent believes ' if he knows that ' is true in all the worlds he considers most plausible. We then consider some properties defining the interaction between knowledge and plausibility, and show how these properties affect the properties of belief. In particular, we show that by assuming two of the most natural properties, belief becomes a KD45 operator. Finally, we add time to the picture. This gives us a framework in which we can talk about knowledge, plausibility (and hence belief), and time, which extends the framework of Halpern and Fagin [HF89] for modeling knowledge in multi-agent systems. We show that our framework is quite expressive and lets us model in a natural way a number of different scenarios for belief change. For example, we show how we can capture an analogue to prior probabilities, which can be updated by "conditioning". In a related paper, we show how the two best studied scenarios, belief revision and belief update, fit into the framework. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #134315 has the title `Belief Revision: A Critique  
` and the abstract `We examine carefully the rationale underlying the approaches to belief change taken in the literature, and highlight what we view as methodological problems. We argue that to study belief change carefully, we must be quite explicit about the "ontology" or scenario underlying the belief change process. This is something that has been missing in previous work, with its focus on postulates. Our analysis shows that we must pay particular attention to two issues that have often been taken for granted: The first is how we model the agent's epistemic state. (Do we use a set of beliefs, or a richer structure, such as an ordering on worlds? And if we use a set of beliefs, in what language are these beliefs are expressed?) We show that even postulates that have been called "beyond controversy" are unreasonable when the agent's beliefs include beliefs about her own epistemic state as well as the external world. The second is the status of observations. (Are observations known to be true, or just believed? In the latter case, how firm is the belief?) Issues regarding the status of observations arise particularly when we consider iterated belief revision, and we must confront the possibility of revising by ' and then by :'. fl Some of this work was done while both authors were at the IBM Almaden Research Center. The first author was also at Stanford while much of the work was done. IBM and Stanford's support are gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported in part by NSF under grants IRI-95-03109 and IRI-96-25901, by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant F49620-96-1-0323, and by an IBM Graduate Fellowship to the first author. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, and S. C. Shapiro (Eds.) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning : proc. Fifth International Conference (KR '96), pp. 421-431, 1996. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #134315 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #134315 has the title `Belief Revision: A Critique  
` and the abstract `We examine carefully the rationale underlying the approaches to belief change taken in the literature, and highlight what we view as methodological problems. We argue that to study belief change carefully, we must be quite explicit about the "ontology" or scenario underlying the belief change process. This is something that has been missing in previous work, with its focus on postulates. Our analysis shows that we must pay particular attention to two issues that have often been taken for granted: The first is how we model the agent's epistemic state. (Do we use a set of beliefs, or a richer structure, such as an ordering on worlds? And if we use a set of beliefs, in what language are these beliefs are expressed?) We show that even postulates that have been called "beyond controversy" are unreasonable when the agent's beliefs include beliefs about her own epistemic state as well as the external world. The second is the status of observations. (Are observations known to be true, or just believed? In the latter case, how firm is the belief?) Issues regarding the status of observations arise particularly when we consider iterated belief revision, and we must confront the possibility of revising by ' and then by :'. fl Some of this work was done while both authors were at the IBM Almaden Research Center. The first author was also at Stanford while much of the work was done. IBM and Stanford's support are gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported in part by NSF under grants IRI-95-03109 and IRI-96-25901, by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant F49620-96-1-0323, and by an IBM Graduate Fellowship to the first author. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, and S. C. Shapiro (Eds.) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning : proc. Fifth International Conference (KR '96), pp. 421-431, 1996. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #134315 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods