Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 97–129 | Cite as

Developing Bounded Reasoning

Article

Abstract

We introduce a three-tiered framework for modelling and reasoning about agents who (i) can use possibly complete reasoning systems without any restrictions but who nevertheless are (ii) bounded in the sense that they never reach infinitely many results and, finally, who (iii) perform their reasoning in time. This last aspect does not concern so much the time it takes for agents to actually carry out their reasoning, as the time which can bring about external changes in the agents’ states such as arriving of new information or discarding previously available information due to bounds of the agent’s resources. These three aspects are treated with the maximal possible degree of independence from each other. The treatment of layer (iii) can be combined with arbitrary logic at level (ii) which, in turn, can be combined with arbitrary agent logic at level (i). At the level (iii), we discuss briefly the duality (or rather, complementarity) of system descriptions based on actions and transitions, on the one hand, and states and their changes, on the other. We settle for the latter and present a simple language, for describing state changes, which is parameterized by an arbitrary language for describing properties of the states. The language can be viewed as a simple fragment of step logic, admitting however various extensions by appropriate choices of the underlying logic. Alternatively, it can be seen as a very specific fragment of temporal logic (with a variant of ‘until’ or ‘chop’ operator), and is interpreted over dense linear time. The reasoning system presented here is sound, as well as strongly complete and decidable (provided that so is the parameter logic for reasoning about single states). We give the main idea of the completeness proof and suggest a wide range of possible applications, which is a simple consequence of the parametric character of both the language and the reasoning system. We address then in more detail the case of non-omniscient rational agents, (ii). Their models are syntactic structures (sets of available formulae) similar in spirit, though not in the technical formulation, to the models used in other syntax oriented approaches and in active logic. We give a new sound, complete and decidable system for reasoning about such agents. Finally, we illustrate its extensions with the internal reasoning of agents, (i), by equipping them with some example logics.

Keywords

Agents Bounded resources Temporal reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ågotnes, T. (2004). A logic of finite syntactic epistemic states. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  2. Ågotnes, T., & Walicki, M. (2006a). Complete axiomatizations of finite syntactic epistemic states. In M. Baldoni, U. Endriss, A. Omicini, & P. Torroni (Eds.), Declarative agent languages and technologies III: Third international workshop, DALT 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 25, 2005, Selected and Revised Papers. LNCS, Vol. 3904 pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
  3. Ågotnes, T., & Walicki, M. (2006b). Strongly complete axiomatizations of “knowing at most” in syntactic structures. In F. Toni, & P. Torroni (Eds.), Computational logic in multi-agent systems, 6-the international workshop, CLIMA 2005, London, Selected and Revised Papers. LNAI, Vol. 3900, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
  4. Alechina, N., Logan, B., & Whitsey, M. (2004). A complete and decidable logic for resource-bounded agents. In 3rd Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’04).Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, M. L., Gomaa, W., Grant, J., & Perlis, D. (2005). On the reasoning of real-world agents: toward a semantics of active logic. In 7-th Annual Symposium on the Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning. Corfu, Greece.Google Scholar
  6. Bezem, M., Langholm, T., & Walicki, M. (2007). Completeness and decidability in sequence logic. In N. Dershowitz, A. Veoronkov (Eds.), Proceedings of LPAR’07, Vol. 4790 of LNAI.Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown D.J., Suszko R. (1973) Abstract logics. Dissertationes mathematicae 102: 9–42Google Scholar
  9. Dolev, D., & Yao, A. (1981). On the security of public key protocols. In Proceedings of the IEEE 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 350–357).Google Scholar
  10. Drapkin, J., & Perlis, D. (1986). A preliminary excursion into step-logics. In: SIGART International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems.Google Scholar
  11. Duc, H. N., (2001). Resource-bounded reasoning about knowledge. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  12. Elgot-Drapkin, J. (1988). Step-logic: reasoning situated in time. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Elgot-Drapkin, J., Kraus, S., Miller, M., Nirkhe, M., & Perlis, D. (1999). Active logics: A unified formal approach to episodic reasoning. Technical Report CS-TR-3680 and UMIACS-TR-99-65, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Elgot-Drapkin J., Miller M., Perlis D. (1991) Memory, reason and time: The step-logic approach. In: Cummins R., Pollock J.(eds) Philosophy and AI: Essays at the interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  15. Fagin, R., & Halpern, J. Y. (1985). Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. In Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-85) (pp. 480–490).Google Scholar
  16. Goranko V., Montanari A., Sciavicco G. (2004) A road map of interval temporal logics and duration calculi. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 14(1–2): 9–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant J., Kraus S., Perlis D. (2000) A logic for characterizing multiple bounded agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 3(4): 351–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halperm J.Y., Shoham Y. (1991) A propositional modal logic of time intervals. Journal of the ACM 38(4): 935–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1994). Algorithmic knowledge. In R. Fagin (Ed.), 5th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK’94).Google Scholar
  20. Kurucz A., Németi I., Sain I., Simon A. (1995) Decidable and undecidable logics with a binary modality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 4(3): 191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levesque, H. J. (1984). A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84) (pp. 198–202).Google Scholar
  22. Montanari, A., Sciavicco, G., & Vitacolonna, N. (2002). Decidability of interval temporal logics over split-frames via granularity. In Logics in AI, Proceedings of 8-th European Conference, JELIA. LNAI, Vol. 2424, pp. 259–270.Google Scholar
  23. Sistla A.P., Clarke E.M. (1985) The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics. Journal of the ACM 32(3): 733–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Szajnkenig, W. forthcoming, ‘Sequence Logic’. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  25. Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, semantics, metamathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Walicki
    • 1
  • Marc Bezem
    • 1
  • Wojtek Szajnkenig
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations