12474954
Modeling Belief in Dynamic Systems, Part II: Revisions and Update
The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In recent years two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief update, have been studied in detail. In a companion paper (Friedman & Halpern, 1997), we introduce a new framework to model belief change. This framework combines temporal and epistemic modalities with a notion of plausibility, allowing us to examine the change of beliefs over time. In this paper, we show how belief revision and belief update can be captured in our framework. This allows us to compare the assumptions made by each method, and to better understand the principles underlying them. In particular, it shows that Katsuno and Mendelzon's notion of belief update (Katsuno & Mendelzon, 1991a) depends on several strong assumptions that may limit its applicability in artificial intelligence. Finally, our analysis allow us to identify a notion of minimal change that underlies a broad range of belief change operations including revision and update.
3055934
A knowledge-theoretic analysis of uniform distributed coordination and failure detectors
Abstract.It is shown that, in a precise sense, if there is no bound on the number of faulty processes in a system with unreliable but fair communication, Uniform Distributed Coordination (UDC) can be attained if and only if a system has perfect failure detectors. This result is generalized to the case where there is a bound t on the number of faulty processes. It is shown that a certain type of generalized failure detector is necessary and sufficient for achieving UDC in a context with at most t faulty processes. Reasoning about processes’ knowledge as to which other processes are faulty plays a key role in the analysis.
2990183
Performing work efficiently in the presence of faults
We consider a system of t synchronous processes that communicate only by sending messages to one another, and together the processes must perform n independent units of work. Processes may fail by crashing; we want to guarantee that in every execution of the protocol in which at least one process survives, all n units of work will be performed. We consider three parameters: the number of messages sent, the total number of units of work performed (including multiplicities), and time. We present three protocols for solving the problem. All three are work optimal, doing O(n+t) work. The rst has moderate costs in the remaining two parameters, sends O(t p t) messages, and takes O(n+t) time. This protocol can be easily modied to run in any completely asynchronous system equipped with a failure detection mechanism. The second sends only O(tlogt) messages, but its running time is large (O(t 2 (n+t)2 n+t )). The third is essentially time optimal in the (usual) case in which there are no failures, and its time complexity degrades gracefully as the number of failures increases.
1225089
Defining Explanation in Probabilistic Systems
As probabilistic systems gain popularity and are coming into wider use, the need for a mechanism that explains the system's findings and recommendations becomes more critical. The system will also need a mechanism for ordering competing explanations. We examine two representative approaches to explanation in the literature-- one due to Gardenfors and one due to Pearl--and show that both suffer from significant problems. We propose an approach to defining a notion of "better explanation" that combines some of the features of both together with more recent work by Pearl and others on causality.
8145017
Characterizing the Common Prior Assumption
Abstract Logical characterizations of the common prior assumption (CPA) are investigated. Two approaches are considered. The first is called frame distinguishability , and is similar in spirit to the approaches considered in the economics literature. Results similar to those obtained in the economics literature are proved here as well, namely, that we can distinguish finite spaces that satisfy the CPA from those that do not in terms of disagreements in expectation. However, it is shown that, for the language used here, no formulas can distinguish infinite spaces satisfying the CPA from those that do not. The second approach considered is that of finding a sound and complete axiomatization. Such an axiomatization is provided; again, the key axiom involves disagreements in expectation. The same axiom system is shown to be sound and complete both in the finite and the infinite case. Thus, the two approaches to characterizing the CPA behave quite differently in the case of infinite spaces. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C70, D80.
23622807
Time to publication: a progress report
The process of submitting a paper to a journal can be incredibly frustrating for authors. Practically everyone who has been active in research for more than a few years has either first-or secondhand experience with some real horror stories. One of my goals when I took over JACM was to ease some of these frustrations, by speeding up the time to publication. I'd like to give you a sense of our progress in reaching that goal. Traditionally, a paper submitted to JACM went through many steps: the paper was submitted to the editor-in-chief; the editor-in-chief sent it to an editor; the editor sent it to referees; the paper went through one or more iterations between the referees, editor, editor-in-chief, and author(s); if the paper was accepted, it went on to the publication queue; authors received galleys and corrected them; and the paper finally appeared. As a result, the median time from submission to final acceptance for papers published in 1997 was 20 months. I would like to cut this down to 12 months. Often the most frustrating experience for authors is to submit a paper and then, after more than a year of waiting, to discover that it has been rejected. I don't have reliable statistics yet for how long such papers were in the system, but I would like to see significant progress here too. I would expect that the median time in the system for papers that are ultimately rejected will be 4 months. My predecessor, Tom Leighton, focused on what was the major cause of delay—the amount of time an accepted paper waited in the publication queue before it appeared. This wait used to be measured in years. The fact that the mean time to publication for 1997 was 20 months already shows how significant the improvement has been here. Currently (April 1998) the JACM web site shows that there are 19 papers in the queue, which means that the wait is approximately 3 issues, or 6 months. Since it is considered dangerous for an editor-in-chief to have too small a backlog, this is about the best that can be expected as far as the publication queue, at least until JACM goes completely electronic. Note, however, that final papers submitted in postscript are posted on the web site within a few days of submission; the papers on the queue are available to the world almost immediately. What …
43480866
A Logic for Reasoning about Probabilities
18147986
What Can Machines Know? On the Epistemic Properties of Machines
It has been argued that knowledge is a useful tool for designing and analyzing complex systems in AI. The notion of knowledge that seems most relevant in this context is an external, information-based notion that can be shown to satisfy all the axioms of the modal logic S5. We carefully examine the properties of this notion of knowledge, and show that they depend crucially, and in subtle ways, on assumptions we make about the system. We present a formal model in which we can capture the types of assumptions frequently made about systems (such as whether they are deterministic or nondeterministic, whether knowledge is cumulative, and whether or not the environment affects the transitions of the system). We then show that under some assumptions certain states of knowledge are not attainable, and the axioms of S5 do not completely characterize the properties of knowledge; extra axioms are needed. We provide complete axiomatizations for knowledge in a number of cases of interest.
9543372
A cone-based distributed topology-control algorithm for wireless multi-hop networks
The topology of a wireless multi-hop network can be controlled by varying the transmission power at each node. In this paper, we give a detailed analysis of a cone-based distributed topology-control (CBTC) algorithm. This algorithm does not assume that nodes have GPS information available; rather it depends only on directional information. Roughly speaking, the basic idea of the algorithm is that a node u transmits with the minimum power p/sub u,/spl alpha// required to ensure that in every cone of degree /spl alpha/ around u, there is some node that u can reach with power p/sub u,/spl alpha//. We show that taking /spl alpha/=5/spl pi//6 is a necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee that network connectivity is preserved. More precisely, if there is a path from s to t when every node communicates at maximum power then, if /spl alpha//spl les/5/spl pi//6, there is still a path in the smallest symmetric graph G/sub /spl alpha// containing all edges (u,v) such that u can communicate with v using power p/sub u,/spl alpha//. On the other hand, if /spl alpha/>5/spl pi//6, connectivity is not necessarily preserved. We also propose a set of optimizations that further reduce power consumption and prove that they retain network connectivity. Dynamic reconfiguration in the presence of failures and mobility is also discussed. Simulation results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm and the optimizations.
14107159
Levesque's Axiomatization of only Knowing is Incomplete
Abstract We show that the axiomatization given by Levesque for his logic of “only knowing” [2], which he showed to be sound and complete for the unquantified version of the logic and conjectured to be complete for the full logic, is in fact incomplete.
1036451
A new approach to updating beliefs
We define a new notion of conditional belief, which plays the same role for Dempster-Shafer belief functions as conditional probability does for probability functions. Our definition is different from the standard definition given by Dempster, and avoids many of the well-known problems of that definition. Just as the conditional probability Pr(.IB) is a probability function which is the result of conditioning on B being true, so too our conditional belief function BeZ(-IB) is a belief function which is the result of conditioning on B being true. We define the conditional belief as the lower envelope (that is, the inf) of a family of conditional probability functions, and provide a closedform expression for it. An alternate way of understanding our definition of conditional belief is provided by considering ideas from an earlier paper [Fagin and Halpern, 19891, where we connect belief functions with inner measures. In particular, we show here how to extend the definition of conditional probability to nonmeasurable sets, in order to get notions of inner and outer conditional probabilities, which can be viewed as best approximations to the true conditional probability, given our lack of information. Our definition of conditional belief turns out to be an exact analogue of our definition of inner conditional probability.