In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

Ex Input:
Standard belief change assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic. However, there are good reasons for considering belief change in less expressive logics as well. In this paper we build on recent investigations by Delgrande on contraction for Horn logic. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. This result stands in contrast to Delgrande’s conjecture that orderly maxichoice is the appropriate form of contraction for Horn logic. We then define a more appropriate notion of basic contraction for the Horn case, influenced by the convexity property holding for full propositional logic and which we refer to as infra contraction. The main contribution of this work is a result which shows that the construction method for Horn contraction for belief sets based on our infra remainder sets corresponds exactly to Hansson’s classical kernel contraction for belief sets, when restricted to Horn logic. This result is obtained via a detour through contraction for belief bases. We prove that kernel contraction for belief bases produces precisely the same results as the belief base version of infra contraction. The use of belief bases to obtain this result provides evidence for the conjecture that Horn belief change is best viewed as a ‘hybrid’ version of belief set change and belief base change. One of the consequences of the link with base contraction is the provision of a representation result for Horn contraction for belief sets in which a version of the Core-retainment postulate features.

Ex Output:
On the Link between Partial Meet, Kernel, and Infra Contraction and its Application to Horn Logic


Ex Input:
This paper presents a theoretical, idealized model of the thinking process with the following characteristics: 1) the model can produce complex thought sequences and can be generalized to new inputs, 2) it can receive and maintain input information indefinitely for the generation of thoughts and later use, and 3) it supports learning while executing. The crux of the model lies within the concept of internal consistency, or the generated thoughts should always be consistent with the inputs from which they are created. Its merit, apart from the capability to generate new creative thoughts from an internal mechanism, depends on the potential to help training to generalize better. This is consequently enabled by separating input information into several parts to be handled by different processing components with a focus mechanism to fetch information for each. This modularized view with the focus binds the model with the computationally capable Turing machines. And as a final remark, this paper constructively shows that the computational complexity of the model is at least, if not surpass, that of a universal Turing machine.

Ex Output:
(Yet) Another Theoretical Model of Thinking


Ex Input:
This paper investigates stochastic and adversarial combinatorial multi-armed bandit problems. In the stochastic setting, we first derive problem-specific regret lower bounds, and analyze how these bounds scale with the dimension of the decision space. We then propose COMBUCB, algorithms that efficiently exploit the combinatorial structure of the problem, and derive finite-time upper bound on their regrets. These bounds improve over regret upper bounds of existing algorithms, and we show numerically thatCOMBUCB significantly outperforms any other algorithm. In the adversarial setting, we propose two simple algorithms, namely COMBEXP-1 and COMBEXP-2 for semi-bandit and bandit feedback, respectively. Their regrets have similar scaling as state-of-the-art algorithms, in spite of the simplicity of their implementation.

Ex Output:

Stochastic and Adversarial Combinatorial Bandits