A Logic for Ignorance

  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • Alessio Lomuscio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2990)

Abstract

We introduce and motivate a non-standard multi-modal logic to represent and reason about ignorance in Multi-Agent Systems. We argue that in Multi-agent systems being able to reason about what agents ignore is just as important as being able to reason about what agents know. We show a sound and complete axiomatisation for the logic. We investigate its applicability by restating the feasibility condition for the FIPA communication primitive of inform.

Keywords

Model Check Modal Logic Canonical Model Epistemic Logic Kripke Frame 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dennet, D.: The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: The Intentional Stance. Reasoning About Knowledge (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision procedures for BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 293–343 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bratman, M.E.: What is intention? In: Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J.L., Pollack, M.E. (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp. 15–32. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Model checking knowledge and time. In: Bošnački, D., Leue, S. (eds.) SPIN 2002. LNCS, vol. 2318, p. 95. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Penczek, W., Lomuscio, A.: Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via model checking. Fundamenta Informaticae 55 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FIPA: Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, http://www.fipa.org
  11. 11.
    van der Hoek, W.: On the semantics of graded modalities. Journal of Applied Non Classical Logics 2, 81–123 (1992)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpern, J.: Theory of knowledge and ignorance for many agents. Journal of Logic and Computation 7, 79–108 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8, 18–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wooldridge, M.: Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3, 9–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 1
  • Alessio Lomuscio
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations