Using the Perseus System for Modelling Epistemic Interactions

  • Magdalena Kacprzak
  • Piotr Kulicki
  • Robert Trypuz
  • Katarzyna Budzynska
  • Paweł Garbacz
  • Marek Lechniak
  • Paweł Rembelski

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to apply the software tool Perseus to modelling epistemic interactions. We focus on the issue of agents’ knowledge acquisition, using a logical puzzle in which agents increase their knowledge about the hats they wear. In the paper, first we present a model of epistemic interactions, which allows us to resolve the hats puzzle. Then, the model is used to build the problem’s specification for the Perseus system. Finally, we show how the hats puzzle can be solved and analysed in a detailed way with the use of a parametric verification method executed by Perseus.

Keywords

knowledge representation dynamic epistemic logic multi agent systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., van der Hoek, W.: Epistemic logic for AI and computer science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library Series, vol. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L.: Logics for epistemic programs. Knowledge, Rationality & Action (Synthese) 139, 165–224 (2004)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garbacz, P., Kulicki, P., Lechniak, M., Trypuz, R.: Beyond public announcement logic: An alternative approach to some AI puzzles. In: Mertsching, B., Hund, M., Aziz, Z. (eds.) KI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5803, pp. 379–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garbacz, P., Kulicki, P., Lechniak, M., Trypuz, R.: A formal model for epistemic interactions. In: Nguyen, N.T., Katarzyniak, R., Janiak, A. (eds.) New Challenges in Computational Collective Intelligence. SCI, pp. 205–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulicki, P., Garbacz, P., Trypuz, R., Lechniak, M.: Epistemic capacities, incompatible information and incomplete beliefs. In: Arrazola, X., Ponte, M. (eds.) LogKCA 2010. Proceedings of the Second ILCLI International Workshop on Logic and Philosophy of Knowledge, Communication and Action, pp. 255–273. University of the Basque Country Press (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budzyńska, K., Kacprzak, M.: A logic for reasoning about persuasion. Fundamenta Informaticae 85, 51–65 (2008)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budzyńska, K., Kacprzak, M., Rembelski, P.: Perseus. software for analyzing persuasion process. Fundamenta Informaticae 93, 65–79 (2009)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kacprzak, M., Kulicki, P., Trypuz, R., Budzynska, K., Garbacz, P., Lechniak, M., Rembelski, P.: Using perseus system for modelling epistemic interactions. In: Jędrzejowicz, P., Nguyen, N.T., Howlet, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6070, pp. 315–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Westview Press (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, B.: On Denoting. Mind 14, 479–493 (1905)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eijck, J.V., Orzan, S.: Modelling the epistemics of communication with functional programming. In: 6th Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming, TFP 2005, pp. 44–59 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richards, S., Sadrzadeh, M.: Aximo: Automated axiomatic reasoning for information update. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, ENTCS (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: A model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 682–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kacprzak, M., Nabiałek, W., Niewiadomski, A., Penczek, W., Półrola, A., Szreter, M., Woźna, B., Zbrzezny, A.: Verics 2008 - a model checker for time petri nets and high-level languages. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Petri Nets and Software Engineering (PNSE 2009), pp. 119–132. University of Hamburg, Department of Informatics, Paris, France (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Budzyńska, K., Kacprzak, M., Rembelski, P.: Update of probabilistic beliefs: Implementation and parametric verification. Fundamenta Informaticae 102(1), 35–48 (2010)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Kacprzak
    • 1
  • Piotr Kulicki
    • 2
  • Robert Trypuz
    • 2
  • Katarzyna Budzynska
    • 3
  • Paweł Garbacz
    • 2
  • Marek Lechniak
    • 2
  • Paweł Rembelski
    • 1
  1. 1.Polish-Japanese Institute of Information TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.John Paul II Catholic University of LublinPoland
  3. 3.Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations