Interval Orders, Biorders and Credibility-limited Belief Revision
The paper explores the use of interval orders and biorders in credibility-limited belief revision, extending traditional preference-based models in artificial intelligence. Interval orders assign plausibility intervals to possible worlds, while biorders allow negative interval lengths to model instability or dissonance in belief systems. The authors provide axiomatic characterizations of belief revision operators based on these orders and propose non-prioritised revisions that maintain consistency by rejecting incredible inputs.
- ▪The study introduces interval orders and biorders as generalized preference structures for belief revision.
- ▪Biorder-based revisions can handle dissonance but may produce inconsistent results without modification.
- ▪Modified biorder-based operators lead to credibility-limited revision, where only credible information is accepted.
- ▪These operators do not require the set of credible sentences to satisfy single-sentence closure.
- ▪The approach supports scenarios where agents reject initial information but accept it after further explanation.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2604.27156 (cs) [Submitted on 29 Apr 2026] Title:Interval Orders, Biorders and Credibility-limited Belief Revision Authors:Richard Booth, Ivan Varzinczak View a PDF of the paper titled Interval Orders, Biorders and Credibility-limited Belief Revision, by Richard Booth and Ivan Varzinczak View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Rational belief revision is commonly viewed as being based on a preference order between possible worlds, with the resulting new belief set being those sentences true in all the most preferred models of the incoming new information. Usually, such a preference order is taken to be a total preorder. Nevertheless, there are other, more general classes of ordering that can also be employed.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv.org.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv.org
