Studia Logica

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 381–415 | Cite as

Interactions between Knowledge, Action and Commitment within Agent Dynamic Logic

  • Renate A. Schmidt
  • Dmitry Tishkovsky
  • Ullrich Hustadt
Article

Abstract

This paper considers a new class of agent dynamic logics which provide a formal means of specifying and reasoning about the agents’ activities and informational, motivational and practical aspects of the behaviour of the agents. We present a Hilbert-style deductive system for a basic agent dynamic logic and consider a number of extensions of this logic with axiom schemata formalising interactions between knowledge and commitment (expressing an agent’ s awareness of her commitments), and interactions between knowledge and actions (expressing no learning and persistence of knowledge after actions). The deductive systems are proved sound and complete with respect to a Kripke-style semantics. Each of the considered logics is shown to have the small model property and therefore decidable.

Keywords

Agent logic multi-modal logic dynamic logic knowledge actions abilities commitments soundness and completeness decidability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Blackburn, P., M. De Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic vol. 53 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Chagrov, A., and M. Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic vol. 35 of Oxford Logic Guides Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Fagin, R., J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi, Reasoning about knowledge, MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Fischer, M. J., and R. E. Ladner, ‘Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 18(2):194–211, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Gabbay, D. M., A. Kurucz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev, Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications, vol. 148 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Gabbay, D. M., and V. Shehtman, ‘Products of modal logics, part 1’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6(1):73–146, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Halpern, J. Y., and Y. Moses, ‘A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief’, Artificial Intelligence, 54(2):319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Halpern, J. Y., and M. Y. Vardi, ‘The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time. I. Lower bounds’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 38(1):195–237, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Harel, D., D. Kozen, J. Tiuryn, Dynamic Logic, Foundations of Computing MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Herzig, A., J. Lang, D. Longin, T. Polacsek ‘A logic for planning under partial observability’ in Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00), pp. 768–773, AAAI Press/MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Herzig, A. D. Longin, ‘Belief dynamics in cooperative dialogues’ Journal of Semantics 17(2):91–118, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hustadt U., C. Dixon, R. A. Schmidt, M. Fisher, J.-J.C. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, ‘Reasoning about agents in the KARO framework’, in C. Bettini and A. Montanari, (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME’01) pp. 206–213, IEEE Computer Society, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hustadt, U., C. Dixon, R. A. Schmidt, M. Fisher, J.-J.C. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, ‘Verification within the KARO agent theory’ J. L. Rash, C. A. Rouff, W. Truszkowski, D. F. Gordon, M. G. Hinchey, (eds), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems (FAABS’2000), vol. 1871 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 33–47, Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kracht, M., ‘Highway to the danger zone’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(1):93–109. 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kracht, M. Tools and Techniques in Modal Logic vol. 142 of Studies in Logic, Elsevier Science Publ. B. V., 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Meyer, J.-J.C., W. van der Hoek, B. van Linder, ‘A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments’, Artificial Intelligence 113(1–2):1–40, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Parikh, R. ‘Propositional dynamic logics of programs: a survey’, in E. Engeler, (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic of Programs, vol. 125 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp. 102–144, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rao, A. S., ‘Decisionprocedures for propositional linear-time Belief-Desire-Intention logics’, in M. Wooldridge, J.P.Müller, and M. Tambe, (eds), Intelligent Agents II — Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, IJCAI’95 Workshop (ATAL-II), Proceedings, vol. 1037 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 33–48, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Rao, A. S., and M. P. Georgieff, ‘Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture’, in R. E. Fikes and E. Sandewall, (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pp. 473–484, Morgan Kaufmann Publ., 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Sahlqvist, H., ‘Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logic’, in S. Kanger, (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 110–143, North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Schmidt, R. A., and D. Tishkovsky, ‘Multi-Agent Logics of Dynamic Belief and Knowledge’, in S. Greco, S. Flesca, N. Leone, and G. Ianni, (eds), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’02), vol. 2424 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38–49, Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Schmidt, R. A., and D. Tishkovsky, ‘On Axiomatic Products of PDL and S5: Substitution, Tests and Knowledge’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 31(1):27–36, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Schmidt, R. A., D. Tishkovsky, and U. Hustadt, Interaction between knowledge, action and commitment within agent dynamic logic, Preprint CSPP-27, University of Manchester, 2003.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    van der Hoek, W., ‘Logical foundations of agent-based computing’, in M. Luck, V. Marík, O. Stepánková, and R. Trappl, (eds), Multi-Agent Systems and Applications, vol. 2086 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 50–73, Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    van der Hoek, W., B. van Linder, and J.-J. C. Meyer, ‘On agents that have the ability to choose’, Studia Logica, 66(1):79–119, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    van Linder, B., W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. C. Meyer, ‘Formalizing abilities and opportunities of agents’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 34(1–2):53–101, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Vardi, M. Y., ‘The taming of converse: Reasoning about two-way computations’, in R. Parikh,(ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic of Programs, vol. 193 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 413–424, Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Wolter, F., ‘The product of converse PDL and polymodal K’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 10(2):223–251, 2000.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Zakharyaschev, M., F. Wolter, and A. Chagrov, ‘Advanced modal logic’, in D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, (eds), Handbook of Philosophical logic, vol. 3, pp. 83–266, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2nd ed., 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate A. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Dmitry Tishkovsky
    • 2
  • Ullrich Hustadt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations