Cited by 118Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Abduction as belief revision

Open access
Boutilier, Craig, Beche, Veronica·1995·Artificial Intelligence

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00025-v

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boutilier, C., & Beche, V.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Boutilier, Craig
Venue
Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-08
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
43-94
ISSN
0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074890228
Cited by
118
References
66
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
abduction, belief revision, epistemic states, explanation, nonmonotonic reasoning, explanation preference, normality, plausibility, model-based diagnosis, consistency-based diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review