Results 1  10
of
16
Epistemic logic and information update
 In P. Adriaans
, 2008
"... Epistemic logic investigates what agents know or believe about certain factual descriptions of the world, and about each other. It builds on a model of what information is (statically) available in a given system, and isolates general principles concerning knowledge and belief. The information in a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Epistemic logic investigates what agents know or believe about certain factual descriptions of the world, and about each other. It builds on a model of what information is (statically) available in a given system, and isolates general principles concerning knowledge and belief. The information in a system may well change as a result of various changes: events from the outside, observations by the agents, communication between the agents, etc. This requires information updates. These have been investigated in computer science via interpreted systems; in philosophy and in artificial intelligence their study leads to the area of belief revision. A more recent development is called dynamic epistemic logic. Dynamic epistemic logic is an extension of epistemic logic with dynamic modal operators for belief change (i.e., information update). It is the focus of our contribution, but its relation to other ways to model dynamics will also be discussed in some detail. Situating the chapter This chapter works under the assumption that knowledge is a variety of true justifiable belief. The suggestion that knowledge is nothing but true justified belief is very old in philosophy, going back to Plato if not further. The picture is that we are faced with alternative “worlds”, including perhaps our own world but in addition other
Epistemic actions as resources
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 2007
"... We provide algebraic semantics together with a sound and complete sequent calculus for information update due to epistemic actions. This semantics is flexible enough to accommodate incomplete as well as wrong information e.g. deceit. We give a purely algebraic treatment of the muddy children puzzle, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We provide algebraic semantics together with a sound and complete sequent calculus for information update due to epistemic actions. This semantics is flexible enough to accommodate incomplete as well as wrong information e.g. deceit. We give a purely algebraic treatment of the muddy children puzzle, which moreover extends to situations where the children are allowed to lie and cheat. Epistemic actions, that is, information exchanges between agents A, B,... ∈ A, are modeled as elements of a quantale, hence conceiving them as resources. Indeed, quantales are to locales what monoidal closed categories are to Cartesian closed categories, respectively providing semantics for Intuitionistic Logic, and for noncommutative Intuitionistic Linear Logic, including Lambek calculus. The quantale (Q, � , •) acts on an underlying Qright module (M, � ) of epistemic propositions and facts. The epistemic content is encoded by appearance maps, one pair f M A: M → M and f Q A: Q → Q of (lax) morphisms for each agent A ∈ A. By adjunction, they give rise to epistemic modalities [12], capturing the agents ’ knowledge on propositions and actions. The module action is epistemic update and gives rise to dynamic modalities [20] — cf. weakest preconditions. This model subsumes the crucial fragment of Baltag, Moss and Solecki’s [6] dynamic epistemic logic, abstracting it in a constructive fashion while introducing resourcesensitive structure on the epistemic actions. Keywords: Multiagent communication, knowledge update, resourcesensitivity, quantale, Galois adjoints, dynamic epistemic logic, sequent calculus, Lambek calculus, Linear Logic.
The algebra of multiagent dynamic belief revision
 Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science
, 2006
"... We refine our algebraic axiomatization in [8, 9] of epistemic actions and epistemic update (notions defined in [5, 6] using a relational, Kripkestyle semantics), to incorporate a mechanism for dynamic belief revision in a multiagent setting. Our approach has a number of novel features, when compar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We refine our algebraic axiomatization in [8, 9] of epistemic actions and epistemic update (notions defined in [5, 6] using a relational, Kripkestyle semantics), to incorporate a mechanism for dynamic belief revision in a multiagent setting. Our approach has a number of novel features, when compared with traditional belief revision systems such as AGM [2]. Firstly: while traditional belief revision was
OPEN PROBLEMS IN LOGICAL DYNAMICS
, 2005
"... In recent years, a number of 'dynamic epistemic logics' have been developed for dealing with information, communication, and interaction. This paper is a survey of conceptual issues and open mathematical problems emanating from this development. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In recent years, a number of 'dynamic epistemic logics' have been developed for dealing with information, communication, and interaction. This paper is a survey of conceptual issues and open mathematical problems emanating from this development.
Open Problems in Logic and Games
 Logical Construction Games', Acta Philosophica Fennica 78, T. Aho & AV Pietarinen, eds., Truth and Games, essays in honour of Gabriel Sandu, 123  138. J. van Benthem, 2006B, 'The Epistemic Logic of IF Games', in
, 2005
"... Dov Gabbay is a prolific logician just by himself. But beyond that, he is quite good at making other people investigate the many further things he cares about. As a result, King's College London has become a powerful attractor in our field worldwide. Thus, it is a great pleasure to be an organi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Dov Gabbay is a prolific logician just by himself. But beyond that, he is quite good at making other people investigate the many further things he cares about. As a result, King's College London has become a powerful attractor in our field worldwide. Thus, it is a great pleasure to be an organizer for one of its flagship events: the Augustus de Morgan Workshop of 2005. Benedikt Loewe and I proposed the topic of 'interactive logic ' for this occasion, with an emphasis on social software – the logical analysis and design of social procedures – and on games, arguably the formal interactive setting par excellence. This choice reflects current research interests in our logic community at ILLC Amsterdam and beyond. In this broad area of interfaces between logic, computer science, and game theory, this paper is my own attempt at playing Dov. I am, perhaps not telling, but at least asking other people to find out for me what I myself cannot. A word of historical clarification may help here. The last time the Dutch came up the Thames (in 1667), we messed up the harbour, burnt down a few buildings, and took the English flagship the Royal Charles with us as a souvenir. The Medway Raid was still commemorated as late as 1967 in a joint ceremony. This time, however, our intentions
Generalized DELsequents
 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2012
"... Abstract. Let us consider a sequence of formulas providing partial information about an initial situation, about a set of events occurring sequentially in this situation, and about the resulting situation after the occurrence of each event. From this whole sequence, we want to infer more information ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Let us consider a sequence of formulas providing partial information about an initial situation, about a set of events occurring sequentially in this situation, and about the resulting situation after the occurrence of each event. From this whole sequence, we want to infer more information, either about the initial situation, or about one of the events, or about the resulting situation after one of the events. Within the framework of Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL), we show that these different kinds of problems are all reducible to the problem of inferring what holds in the final situation after the occurrence of all the events. We then provide a tableau method deciding whether this kind of inference is valid. We implement it in LotrecScheme and show that these inference problems are NEXPTIMEcomplete. We extend our results to the cases where the accessibility relation is serial and reflexive and illustrate them with the coordinated attack problem. 1
Reasoning about Dynamic Epistemic Logic
"... We present an algebra and sequent calculus to reason about dynamic epistemic logic, a logic for information update in multiagent systems. We contribute to it by equipping it with a logical account of resources, a semiautomatic way of reasoning through the algebra and sequent calculus, and finally ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present an algebra and sequent calculus to reason about dynamic epistemic logic, a logic for information update in multiagent systems. We contribute to it by equipping it with a logical account of resources, a semiautomatic way of reasoning through the algebra and sequent calculus, and finally by generalizing it to nonboolean settings. Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) is a PDLstyle logic [14] to reason about epistemic actions and updates in a multiagent system. It focuses in particular on epistemic programs, i.e. programs that update the information state of agents, and it has applications to modelling and reasoning about informationflow and information exchange between agents. This is a major problem in several fields such as secure communication where one has to deal with the privacy and authentication of communication protocols, software reliability for concurrent programs, Artificial Intelligence where agents are to be provided with reliable tools to reason about their environment and each other’s knowledge, and ecommerce where agents need to have knowledge acquisition strategies over complex networks. The standard approach to information flow in a multiagent system has been presented in [8] but it does not present a formal description of epistemic programs and their updates. The first attempts to
Argumentation as a metacognitive skill of passing acceptance
 Metacognition in Computation: Papers from the 2005 AAAI Spring Symposium. (Menlo Park, CA
, 2005
"... Automated decisionmaking is a significant concern for the AI community and especially for multiagent systems. Although it has long been known among scholars of rhetoric that human decisionmaking can be systematically influenced by skillful argumentation, there seems to be a lack of formalizations ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Automated decisionmaking is a significant concern for the AI community and especially for multiagent systems. Although it has long been known among scholars of rhetoric that human decisionmaking can be systematically influenced by skillful argumentation, there seems to be a lack of formalizations which handle the impact rhetoric has on the concealment of logical fallacies to the human mind. In this paper, we highlight the need of metacognition for the successful formal representation and interpretation of human argumentation and thus successful automated decisionmaking. The relevance of such investigations is illustrated with a realworld example taken from the discourse of neuroscience.
Automated quantum reasoning: Nonlogic ❀ semilogic ❀ hyperlogic
 Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Quantum Interaction
"... Quantum theory does not necessitate the breakdown of fullblown deduction. On the contrary, it comes with substantially enhanced logical reasoning power as compared to its classical counterpart. It features a codeductive mechanism besides a deductive one, resulting in a sound purely graphical calcu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Quantum theory does not necessitate the breakdown of fullblown deduction. On the contrary, it comes with substantially enhanced logical reasoning power as compared to its classical counterpart. It features a codeductive mechanism besides a deductive one, resulting in a sound purely graphical calculus which admits an informationflow interpretation. (Abramsky & Coecke 2004; Coecke 2005a; 2005b; Coecke & Pavlovic 2006). The key physical concept represented by the logic is the interaction of quantum systems i.e. the tensor product structure, contra (Birkhoff & von Neumann 1936)logic which only addresses individual systems. The trace structure, important in IR applications (van Rijsbergen 2004), is an intrincic part of the logic, together with many other quantitative concepts, again contra BvNlogic where the trace only arises indirectly via Gleason’s theorem. Hence we provide a powerful highlevel formalism for designing, controlling and even automating quantum informatic tasks, which can involve multiple agents. We also mention several existing applications to nonquantum domains such as linguistics, multiagent systems and concurrency.
OPEN PROBLEMS IN LOGICAL DYNAMICS
"... In recent years, a number of 'dynamic epistemic logics ' have been developed for dealing with information, communication, and interaction. This paper is a survey of conceptual issues and open mathematical problems emanating from this development. 1 Logical Dynamics The traditional paradigm ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
In recent years, a number of 'dynamic epistemic logics ' have been developed for dealing with information, communication, and interaction. This paper is a survey of conceptual issues and open mathematical problems emanating from this development. 1 Logical Dynamics The traditional paradigm of logic is drawing a conclusion from some given premises. But derivation from data already at our disposal is just one way in which information can be obtained. We can also observe new facts, or just ask some betterinformed person whom we trust. Concomitantly with all this information flow, our knowledge and beliefs change, and this adaptation process may even be triggered by further cues. Such cognitive actions are of logical interest per se, and their explicit study and its various repercussions has been described as a 'Dynamic Turn ' in logic (van Benthem 1996). In particular, relevant actions in this broader setting need not be singleagent tasks such as drawing a conclusion or observing some fact. After all, perhaps the simplest logical scenario for getting or giving information is asking a question. But