Abstract
Katsuno and Mendelzon divide theory change, the problem of adding new information to a logical theory, into two types: revision and update. We propose a third type of theory change: arbitration. The key idea is the following: the new information is considered neither better nor worse than the old information represented by the logical theory. The new information is simply one voice against a set of others already incorporated into the logical theory. From this follows that arbitration should be commutative. First we define arbitration by a set of postulates and then describe a model-theoretic characterization of arbitration for the case of propositional logical theories. We also study weighted arbitration where different models of a theory can have different weights.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
