Introspective Forgetting

  • Hans van Ditmarsch
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Jérôme Lang
  • Pierre Marquis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5360)


We model the forgetting of propositional variables in a modal logical context where agents become ignorant and are aware of each others’ or their own resulting ignorance. The resulting logic is sound and complete. It can be compared to variable-forgetting as abstraction from information, wherein agents become unaware of certain variables: by employing elementary results for bisimulation, it follows that beliefs not involving the forgotten atom(s) remain true.


modal logic forgetting abstraction action logic belief change 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lin, F., Reiter, R.: Forget it! In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, New Orleans (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 18, 391–443 (2003)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Zhang, Y.: Knowledge updates: semantics and complexity issues. Artificial Intelligence 164(1-2), 209–243 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y.: Knowledge forgetting: Properties and applications. Work in progress under submission (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, K., Sattar, A., Su, K.: A theory of forgetting in logic programming. In: AAAI, pp. 682–688 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang, Y., Foo, N., Wang, K.: Solving logic program conflict through strong and weak forgettings. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 627–634 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Wang, K.: Forgetting and conflict resolving in disjunctive logic programming. In: Proceedings of AAAI (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao, Y., Wang, K., Topor, R., Pan, J., Giunchiglia, F.: Semantic cooperation and knowledge reuse by using autonomous ontologies. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 666–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erdem, E., Ferraris, P.: Forgetting actions in domain descriptions. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 409–414. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herzig, A., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Action representation and partially observable planning using epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ditmarsch, H.: Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese (Knowledge, Rationality & Action) 147, 229–275 (2005)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In: Proceedings of LOFT 2006 (7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory) (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aucher, G.: Perspectives on belief and change. PhD thesis, University of Otago & Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, New Zealand & France (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yap, A.: Product update and looking backward. Technical report, University of Amsterdam (2006); ILLC Research Report PP-2006-39Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sack, Y.: Adding Temporal Logic to Dynamic Epistemic Logic. PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Ditmarsch, H., Kooi, B.: Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change. In: Bonanno, G., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Post-proceedings of LOFT 2006, Amsterdam University Press (2008) (to appear in the series Texts in Logic and Games)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. Foundations of Computing Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In: Gilboa, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 1998), pp. 43–56 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Visser, A.: Bisimulations, model descriptions and propositional quantifiers, Logic Group Preprint Series 161, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    French, T.: Bisimulation quantifiers for modal logic. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Ditmarsch, H., French, T.: Simulation and information. In: (Electronic) Proceedings of LOFT 2008, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramanujam, R., Lodaya, K.: Proving Fairness of Schedulers. In: Parikh, R. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1985. LNCS, vol. 193, pp. 284–301. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Pacuit, E.: Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL. In: Samet, D. (ed.) Proceedings of TARK 2007, pp. 72–81 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pacuit, E.: Some comments on history-based structures. Journal of Applied Logic (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Ditmarsch, H., Ruan, J., van der Hoek, W.: Model checking dynamic epistemics in branching time. In: (Informal) Proceedings of FAMAS 2007, Durham, UK (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans van Ditmarsch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 2
  • Jérôme Lang
    • 2
  • Pierre Marquis
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer ScienceUniversity of OtagoNew Zealand
  2. 2.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierFrance
  3. 3.CRILUniversité d’ArtoisFrance

Personalised recommendations