Studia Logica

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

An Internal Version of Epistemic Logic

Article

Abstract

Representing an epistemic situation involving several agents obviously depends on the modeling point of view one takes. We start by identifying the types of modeling points of view which are logically possible. We call the one traditionally followed by epistemic logic the perfect external approach, because there the modeler is assumed to be an omniscient and external observer of the epistemic situation. In the rest of the paper we focus on what we call the internal approach, where the modeler is one of the agents involved in the situation. For this approach we propose and axiomatize a logical formalism based on epistemic logic. This leads us to formalize some intuitions about the internal approach and about its connections with the external ones. Finally, we show that our internal logic is decidable and PSPACE-complete.

Keywords

Epistemic logic multi-agent systems internal approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón Carlos, Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson (1985) ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arló Costa Horacio, Isaac Levi (1996) ‘Two notions of epistemic validity (epistemic models for Ramsey’s conditionals)’. Synthese 109: 217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aucher, Guillaume. ‘Internal models and private multi-agent belief revision’, in Muller Padgham, Parkes, and Parsons, (eds.), Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, 12-16 May 2008, pp. 721–727.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aucher, Guillaume. ‘Generalizing AGM to a multi-agent setting’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, (2009). To appear.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag Alexandru, Larry Moss (2004) ‘Logic for epistemic programs’. Synthese 139(2): 165–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banerjee, Mohua, and Didier dubois. ‘A simple modal logic for reasoning about revealed beliefs’, in Claudio Sossai, and Gaetano Chemello, (eds.), ECSQARU, vol. 5590 of LNCS, Springer, 2009, pp. 805–816.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battigalli Pierpaolo, Giacomo Bonanno (1999) ‘Recent results on belief, knowledge and the epistemic foundations of game theory’. Research in Economics 53: 149–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackburn, Patrick, Maarten de Rijke, and Yde Venema, Modal Logic, vol. 53 of Cambridge Tracts in Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Booth, Richard, and Alexander Nittka. ‘Reconstructing an agent’s epistemic state from observations about its beliefs and non-beliefs’, Journal of Logic and Computation, (2007). Accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castañeda Hector-Neri (1964) ‘Review of ‘knowledge and belief”. Journal of Symbolic Logic 29: 132–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen Philip, Hector Levesque (1990) ‘Intention is choice with commitment’. Artificial intelligence 42: 213–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duc, Ho Ngoc, Resource-Bounded Reasoning about Knowledge, Ph.D. thesis, University of Leipzig, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagin Ronald, Joseph Halpern (1988) ‘Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 34: 39–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagin, Ronald, Joseph Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe Vardi, Reasoning about knowledge, MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gärdenfors Peter (1988) Knowledge in Flux (Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States). Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Georgeff, Michael, and Anand Rao. ‘Asymmetry thesis and side-effect problems in linear time and branching time intention logics’, in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), (Sydney, Australia), 1991, pp. 498–504.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herzig, Andreas, Jérôme Lang, and Pierre Marquis. ‘Revision and update in multiagent belief structures’, in 5th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT6), Leipzig, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hintikka Jaakko (1962) Knowledge and Belief, An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenzen, Wolfgang, Recent Work in Epistemic Logic, Acta Philosophica 30, North Holland Publishing Company, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levesque, Hector. ‘A logic of implicit and explicit knowledge’, in AAAI-84, Austin Texas, 1984, pp. 198–202.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levi, Isaac, The covenant of reason: rationality and the commitments of thought, Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, Fangzhen, and Ray Reiter. ‘Forget it!’, in Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, 1994, pp. 154–159.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, John-Jules Ch., Frank de Boer, Rogier van Eijk, Koen Hindriks, and Wiebe van der Hoek. ‘On programming KARO agents’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9 (2001), 2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nagel, Thomas, The view from nowhere, oxford university press, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nittka, Alexander, A Method for Reasoning about other Agents’ Beliefs from Observations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Leipzig, 2008.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rao, Anand, and Michael Georgeff. ‘Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture’, in R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, (eds.), Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR & R-91), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991, pp. 473–484.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Linder, Bernd, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. ‘Formalising abilities and opportunities of agents’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 34 (1998), 1-2, 53–101.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Voorbraak, Frans, As Far as I know. Epistemic Logic and Uncertainty, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, Michael, Reasoning About Rational Agents, MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paul Sabatier (F) – University of Otago (NZ), IRIT – Équipe LILaCToulouse cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations