Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Raising awareness without disclosing truth

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agents use their own vocabularies to reason and talk about the world. Public signature awareness is satisfied if agents are aware of the vocabularies, or signatures, used by all agents they may, eventually, interact with. Multi-agent modal logics and in particular Dynamic Epistemic Logic rely on public signature awareness for modeling information flow in multi-agent systems. However, this assumption is not desirable for dynamic and open multi-agent systems because (1) it prevents agents to use unique signatures other agents are unaware of, (2) it prevents agents to openly extend their signatures when encountering new information, and (3) it requires that all future knowledge and beliefs of agents are bounded by the current state. We propose a new semantics for awareness that enables us to drop public signature awareness. This semantics is based on partial valuation functions and weakly reflexive relations. Dynamics for raising public and private awareness are then defined in such a way as to differentiate between becoming aware of a proposition and learning its truth value. With this, we show that knowledge and beliefs are not affected through the raising operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50 (2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Atencia, M., Schorlemmer, W.M.: An interaction-based approach to semantic alignment. J. Web Semant. 12, 131–147 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2011.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baltag, A., Moss, L. S., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements and common knowledge and private suspicions. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Evanston, USA, 1998, pp 43–56 (1998)

  4. Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, vol. 6, pp 11–24. University of Liverpool (2006)

  5. Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Group belief dynamics under iterated revision: fixed points and cycles of joint upgrades. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pp 41–50. ACM (2009)

  6. van Benthem, J.: Dynamic logic for belief revision. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 17(2), 129–155 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3166/jancl.17.129-155

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. van Benthem, J.: Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge University Press (2011)

  8. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Inf. Comput. 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. van Benthem, J., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: The dynamics of awareness. Synthese 177(1), 5–27 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Berg, L.: Cultural Knowledge Evolution in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Grenoble (2021)

  11. van den Berg, L., Atencia, M., Euzenat, J.: A logical model for the ontology alignment repair game. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 35(2), 1–34 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blackburn, P., De Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal logic. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050884 (2001)

  13. Brouwer, L. E. J.: Over de grondslagen der wiskunde. Maas & van Suchtelen (1907)

  14. van Ditmarsch, H., French, T.: Awareness and Forgetting of Facts and Agents. In: 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 3, pp 478–483. IEEE (2009)

  15. van Ditmarsch, H., French, T.: Becoming Aware of Propositional Variables. In: Indian Conference on Logic and Its Applications, pp 204–218. Springer (2011)

  16. van Ditmarsch, H., French, T., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: Action models for knowledge and awareness. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp 1091–1098 (2012)

  17. van Ditmarsch, H., French, T., Velázquez-Quesada, F. R., Wáng, Y. N.: Knowledge, awareness, and bisimulation. arXiv:1310.6410 (2013)

  18. van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Introspective forgetting. Synthese 169(2), 405–423 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic .vol. 337 Springer Science & Business Media (2007)

  20. Euzenat, J.: First experiments in cultural alignment repair (extended version). In: The Semantic Web: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events - ESWC 2014 Satellite Events, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 25-29, 2014, Revised Selected Papers, pp 115–130 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11955-7_10

  21. Euzenat, J.: Interaction-based ontology alignment repair with expansion and relaxation. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017, pp 185–191 (2017). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/27

  22. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artif. Intell. 34(1), 39–76 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Fagin, R., Moses, Y., Halpern, J.Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about knowledge. MIT press (2003)

  24. Gärdenfors, P., Rott, H., Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J.: Belief revision. Comput. Complex. 63(6), 35–132 (1995)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Halpern, J. Y.: Alternative semantics for unawareness. Games Econ. Behav. 37(2), 321–339 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Halpern, J.Y., Rêgo, L.C.: Reasoning about knowledge of unawareness. Games Econ. Behav. 67(2), 503–525 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansen, J.U.: Modeling truly dynamic epistemic scenarios in a partial version of del. The Logica Yearbook 2013, 63–75 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Heifetz, A., Meier, M., Schipper, B.C.: Interactive unawareness. J. Econ. Theory 130(1), 78–94 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Hill, B.: Awareness dynamics. J. Philos. Log. 39(2), 113–137 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and belief: an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Stud. Logica. 16 (1962)

  31. van der Hoek, W., Jaspars, J., Thijsse, E.: Honesty in partial logic. Stud. Logica. 56(3), 323–360 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Jaspars, J., Thijsse, E.: Fundamentals of partial modal logic. Studies in Logic Language and Information (1996)

  33. Kleene, S.C.: Introduction to metamathematics (1952)

  34. Modica, S., Rustichini, A.: Awareness and Partitional Informational Structures. In: Epistemic Logic and the Theory of Games and Decisions, pp 151–168. Springer (1997)

  35. Plaza, J.: Logic of public communications. In: Ras, Z.W. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 201–216. North-Holland (1989)

  36. Prior, A.: Time and modality. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l 148 (1957)

  37. Prior, A.: Past, present and future. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l 157 (1967)

  38. Rott, H.: Conditionals and theory change: revisions, expansions, and additions. Synthese 81(1), 91–113 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25(1), 158–176 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tamma, V., Cranefield, S., Finin, T. W., Willmott, S.: Ontologies for agents: Theory and experiences. Springer Science & Business Media (2005)

  41. Thijsse, E.: Partial logic and knowledge representation (1994)

  42. Veltman, F.: Defaults in update semantics. J. Philos. Log. 25(3), 221–261 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by MIAI @ Grenoble Alpes (ANR-19-P3IA-0003).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inria, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, Universite Grenoble Alpes, F-38000, Grenoble, France

    Line van den Berg, Manuel Atencia & Jérôme Euzenat

Authors
  1. Line van den Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel Atencia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jérôme Euzenat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Line van den Berg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van den Berg, L., Atencia, M. & Euzenat, J. Raising awareness without disclosing truth. Ann Math Artif Intell 91, 431–464 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-022-09809-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-022-09809-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation