The AGM framework is the benchmark approach in belief change. Since the framework assumes an underlying logic containing classical Propositional Logic, it can not be applied to systems with a logic weaker than Propositional Logic. To remedy this limitation, several researchers have studied AGM-style contraction and revision under the Horn fragment of Propositional Logic (i.e., Horn logic). In this paper, we contribute to this line of research by investigating the Horn version of the AGM entrenchment-based contraction. The study is challenging as the construction of entrenchment-based contraction refers to arbitrary disjunctions which are not expressible under Horn logic. In order to adapt the construction to Horn logic, we make use of a Horn approximation technique called Horn strengthening. We provide a representation theorem for the newly constructed contraction which we refer to as entrenchment-based Horn contraction. Ideally, contractions defined under Horn logic (i.e., Horn contractions) should be as rational as AGM contraction. We propose the notion of Horn equivalence which intuitively captures the equivalence between Horn contraction and AGM contraction. We show that, under this notion, entrenchment-based Horn contraction is equivalent to a restricted form of entrenchment-based contraction.

Standard belief change assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic. However, there are good reasons for considering belief change in less expressive logics as well. In this paper we build on recent investigations by Delgrande on contraction for Horn logic. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. This result stands in contrast to Delgrandes conjecture that orderly maxichoice is the appropriate form of contraction for Horn logic. We then define a more appropriate notion of basic contraction for the Horn case, influenced by the convexity property holding for full propositional logic and which we refer to as infra contraction. The main contribution of this work is a result which shows that the construction method for Horn contraction for belief sets based on our infra remainder sets corresponds exactly to Hanssons classical kernel contraction for belief sets, when restricted to Horn logic. This result is obtained via a detour through contraction for belief bases. We prove that kernel contraction for belief bases produces precisely the same results as the belief base version of infra contraction. The use of belief bases to obtain this result provides evidence for the conjecture that Horn belief change is best viewed as a 'hybrid' version of belief set change and belief base change. One of the consequences of the link with base contraction is the provision of a representation result for Horn contraction for belief sets in which a version of the Core-retainment postulate features.

Following the recent trend of studying the theory of belief revision under the Horn fragment of propo- sitional logic this paper develops a fully charac- terised Horn contraction which is analogous to the traditional transitively relational partial meet contraction [Alchourron et al., 1985]. This Horn con- traction extends the partial meet Horn contraction studied in [Delgrande and Wassermann, 2010] so that it is guided by a transitive relation that models the ordering of plausibility over sets of beliefs.

Standard belief contraction assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic, but there are good reasons for considering contraction in less expressive logics. In this paper we focus on Horn logic. In addition to being of interest in its own right, our choice is motivated by the use of Horn logic in several areas, including ontology reasoning in description logics. We consider three versions of contraction: entailment-based and inconsistency-basedcontraction (e-contraction and i-contraction, resp.), introduced by Delgrande for Horn logic, and package contraction (p-contraction), studied by Fuhrmann and Hansson for the classical case. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. We define more appropriate notions of basic contraction for all three types above, and provide associated representation results in terms of postulates. Our results stand in contrast to Delgrande's conjectures that orderly maxichoice is the appropriate contraction for both e- and i-contraction. Our interest in p-contraction stems from its relationship with an important reasoning task in ontological reasoning:repairing the subsumption hierarchy in EL. This is closely related to p-contraction with sets of basic Horn clauses (Horn clauses of the form p -> q). We show that this restricted version of p-contraction can also be represented as i-contraction.