Horn clause contraction functions: belief set and belief base approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard approachs to belief change assume that the underlying logic contains classical propositional logic. Recently there has been interest in investigating approaches to belief change, specifically contraction, in which the underlying logic is not as expressive as full propositional logic. In this paper we consider approaches to belief contraction in Horn knowledge bases. We develop two broad approaches for Horn contraction, corresponding to the two major approaches in belief change, based on Horn belief sets and Horn belief bases. We argue that previous approaches, which have taken Horn remainder sets as a starting point, have undesirable properties, and moreover that not all desirable Horn contraction functions are captured by these approaches. This is shown in part by examining model-theoretic considerations involving Horn contraction. For Horn belief set contraction, we develop an account based in terms of weak remainder sets. Maxichoice and partial meet Horn contraction is specified, along with a consideration of package contraction. Following this we consider Horn belief base contraction, in which the underlying knowledge base is not necessarily closed under the Horn consequence relation. Again, approaches to maxi-choice and partial meet belief set contraction are developed. In all cases, constructions of the specific operators and sets of postulates are provided, and representation results are obtained. As well, we show that problems arising with earlier work are resolved by these approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".