The belief revision field is opulent in new proposals and indigent in analyses of existing approaches. Much work hinge on postulates, employed as syntactic characterizations: some revision mechanism is equivalent to some properties. Postulates constraint specific revision instances: certain revisions update certain beliefs in a certain way. As an example, if the revision is consistent with the current beliefs, it is incorporated with no other change. A postulate like this tells what revisions must do and neglect what they can do. Can they reach a certain state of beliefs? Can they reach all possible states of beliefs? Can they reach all possible states of beliefs from no previous belief? Can they reach a dogmatic state of beliefs, where everything not believed is impossible? Can they make two conditions equally believed? An application where every possible state of beliefs is sensible requires each state of beliefs to be reachable. An application where conditions may be equally believed requires such a belief state to be reachable. An application where beliefs may become dogmatic requires a way to make them dogmatic. Such doxastic states need to be reached in a way or another. Not in specific way, as dictated by a typical belief revision postulate. This is an ability, not a constraint: the ability of being plastic, equating, dogmatic. Amnesic, correcting, believer, damascan, learnable are other abilities. Each revision mechanism owns some of these abilities and lacks the others: lexicographic, natural, restrained, very radical, full meet, radical, severe, moderate severe, deep severe, plain severe and deep severe revisions, each of these revisions is proved to possess certain abilities.

Natural revision seems so natural: it changes beliefs as little as possible to incorporate new information. Yet, some counterexamples show it wrong. It is so conservative that it never fully believes. It only believes in the current conditions. This is right in some cases and wrong in others. Which is which? The answer requires extending natural revision from simple formulae expressing universal truths (something holds) to conditionals expressing conditional truth (something holds in certain conditions). The extension is based on the basic principles natural revision follows, identified as minimal change, indifference and naivety: change beliefs as little as possible; equate the likeliness of scenarios by default; believe all until contradicted. The extension says that natural revision restricts changes to the current conditions. A comparison with an unrestricting revision shows what exactly the current conditions are. It is not what currently considered true if it contradicts the new information. It includes something more and more unlikely until the new information is at least possible.

Several forms of iterable belief change exist, differing in the kind of change and its strength: some operators introduce formulae, others remove them; some add formulae unconditionally, others only as additions to the previous beliefs; some only relative to the current situation, others in all possible cases. A sequence of changes may involve several of them: for example, the first step is a revision, the second a contraction and the third a refinement of the previous beliefs. The ten operators considered in this article are shown to be all reducible to three: lexicographic revision, refinement and severe withdrawal. In turn, these three can be expressed in terms of lexicographic revision at the cost of restructuring the sequence. This restructuring needs not to be done explicitly: an algorithm that works on the original sequence is shown. The complexity of mixed sequences of belief change operators is also analyzed. Most of them require only a polynomial number of calls to a satisfiability checker, some are even easier.

Recent work has considered the problem of extending to the case of iterated belief change the so-called `Harper Identity' (HI), which defines single-shot contraction in terms of single-shot revision. The present paper considers the prospects of providing a similar extension of the Levi Identity (LI), in which the direction of definition runs the other way. We restrict our attention here to the three classic iterated revision operators--natural, restrained and lexicographic, for which we provide here the first collective characterisation in the literature, under the appellation of `elementary' operators. We consider two prima facie plausible ways of extending (LI). The first proposal involves the use of the rational closure operator to offer a `reductive' account of iterated revision in terms of iterated contraction. The second, which doesn't commit to reductionism, was put forward some years ago by Nayak et al. We establish that, for elementary revision operators and under mild assumptions regarding contraction, Nayak's proposal is equivalent to a new set of postulates formalising the claim that contraction by $\neg A$ should be considered to be a kind of `mild' revision by $A$. We then show that these, in turn, under slightly weaker assumptions, jointly amount to the conjunction of a pair of constraints on the extension of (HI) that were recently proposed in the literature. Finally, we consider the consequences of endorsing both suggestions and show that this would yield an identification of rational revision with natural revision. We close the paper by discussing the general prospects for defining iterated revision in terms of iterated contraction.

This article proposes a solution to the problem of obtaining plausibility information, which is necessary to perform belief revision: given a sequence of revisions, together with their results, derive a possible initial order that has generated them; this is different from the usual assumption of starting from an all-equal initial order and modifying it by a sequence of revisions. Four semantics for iterated revision are considered: natural, restrained, lexicographic and reinforcement. For each, a necessary and sufficient condition to the existence of an order generating a given history of revisions and results is proved. Complexity is proved coNP complete in all cases but one (reinforcement revision with unbounded sequence length).

This paper discusses belief revision under uncertain inputs in the framework of possibility theory. Revision can be based on two possible definitions of the conditioning operation, one based on min operator which requires a purely ordinal scale only, and another based on product, for which a richer structure is needed, and which is a particular case of Dempster's rule of conditioning. Besides, revision under uncertain inputs can be understood in two different ways depending on whether the input is viewed, or not, as a constraint to enforce. Moreover, it is shown that M.A. Williams' transmutations, originally defined in the setting of Spohn's functions, can be captured in this framework, as well as Boutilier's natural revision.

As partial justification of their framework for iterated belief revision Darwiche and Pearl convincingly argued against Boutilier's natural revision and provided a prototypical revision operator that fits into their scheme. We show that the Darwiche-Pearl arguments lead naturally to the acceptance of a smaller class of operators which we refer to as admissible. Admissible revision ensures that the penultimate input is not ignored completely, thereby eliminating natural revision, but includes the Darwiche-Pearl operator, Nayak's lexicographic revision operator, and a newly introduced operator called restrained revision. We demonstrate that restrained revision is the most conservative of admissible revision operators, effecting as few changes as possible, while lexicographic revision is the least conservative, and point out that restrained revision can also be viewed as a composite operator, consisting of natural revision preceded by an application of a "backwards revision" operator previously studied by Papini. Finally, we propose the establishment of a principled approach for choosing an appropriate revision operator in different contexts and discuss future work.