Taming Complex Beliefs

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
  • Andrzej Szałas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8065)

Abstract

A novel formalization of beliefs in multiagent systems has recently been proposed by Dunin-Kęplicz and Szałas. The aim has been to bridge the gap between idealized logical approaches to modeling beliefs and their actual implementations. Therefore the stages of belief acquisition, intermediate reasoning and final belief formation have been isolated and analyzed. In conclusion, a novel semantics reflecting those stages has been provided. This semantics is based on the new concept of epistemic profile, reflecting agent’s reasoning capabilities in a dynamic and unpredictable environment. The presented approach appears suitable for building complex belief structures in the context of incomplete and/or inconsistent information. One of original ideas is that of epistemic profiles serving as a tool for transforming preliminary beliefs into final ones. As epistemic profile can be devised both on an  individual and a  group level in analogical manner, a uniform treatment of single agent and group beliefs has been achieved.

In the current paper these concepts are further elaborated. Importantly, we indicate an implementation framework ensuring tractability of reasoning about beliefs, propose the underlying methodology and illustrate it on an example.

Keywords

Hull Lution Tame 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ågotnes, T., Alechina, N.: Full and relative awareness: A decidable logic for reasoning about knowledge of unawareness. In: Proc. of TARK, pp. 6–14. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alferes, J.J., Pereira, L.M.: Reasoning with Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 1111. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, J.M. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 8–37. Reidel (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Béziau, J.-Y., Carnielli, W., Gabbay, D.M. (eds.): Handbook of Paraconsistency. College Publications (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Non-Monotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Amo, S., Pais, M.S.: A paraconsistent logic approach for querying inconsistent databases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46, 366–386 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, D.: On ignorance and contradiction considered as truth-values. Logic Journal of the IGPL 16(2), 195–216 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Nguyen, L.A., Szałas, A.: Tractable approximate knowledge fusion using the Horn fragment of serial propositional dynamic logic. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 51(3), 346–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A.: Epistemic Profiles and Belief Structures. In: Jezic, G., Kusek, M., Nguyen, N.-T., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7327, pp. 360–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A.: Paraconsistent Distributed Belief Fusion. In: Proc. IDC 2012, 6th International Symposium on Intelligent Distributed Computing. SCI, vol. 446, pp. 59–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems. A Formal Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Awareness as a vital ingredient of teamwork. In: Stone, P., Weiss, G. (eds.) Proc. of AAMAS 2006, pp. 1017–1024 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fages, F.: Consistency of Clark’s completion and existence of stable models. Methods of Logic in Computer Science 1, 51–60 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.: Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 34(1), 39–76 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning About Knowledge. The MIT Press (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gottlob, G.: Complexity results for nonmonotonic logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3), 397–425 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press (1962)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D.: Knowledge, belief and time. Theoretical Computer Science 58, 155–174 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laux, A., Wansing, H. (eds.): Knowledge and Belief in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Łukaszewicz, W.: Non-Monotonic Reasoning - Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning. Ellis Horwood (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Living with inconsistency and taming nonmonotonicity. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 384–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Logical foundations and complexity of 4QL, a query language with unrestricted negation. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 21(2), 211–232 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Partiality and Inconsistency in Agents Belief Bases. In: Agents and Multi-agent Systems – Technologies and Applications. IOS Press (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Nonmonotonic Logic. Springer (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mares, E.D.: A paraconsistent theory of belief revision. Erkenntnis 56, 229–246 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mascardi, V., Demergasso, D., Ancona, D.: Languages for programming BDI-style agents: an overview. In: Corradini, F., De Paoli, F., Merelli, E., Omicini, A. (eds.) WOA 2005 - Workshop From Objects to Agents, pp. 9–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen, L.A.: Foundations of modal deductive databases. Fundamenta Informaticae 79(1-2), 85–135 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nguyen, L.A.: Constructing finite least Kripke models for positive logic programs in serial regular grammar logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL 16(2), 175–193 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Priest, G.: Paraconsistent belief revision. Theoria 67(3), 214–228 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rantala, V.: Impossible worlds semantics and logical omniscience. Acta Philosophica Fennica 35, 106–115 (1982)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sobczyk, Ł.: 4QL Runner developer description (2012), http://4ql.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4qlRunner.pdf
  33. 33.
    Spanily, P.: The Inter4QL interpreter (2012), http://4ql.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/inter4ql.pdf
  34. 34.
    Stalnaker, R.: On logics of knowledge and belief. Philosophical Studies 128, 169–199 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Szałas, A.: How an agent might think. Logic Journal of the IGPL 21(3), 515–535 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Ditmarsch, H.P., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.P.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vitória, A., Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Modeling and reasoning with paraconsistent rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae 97(4), 405–438 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wansing, H.: A general possible worlds framework for reasoning about knowledge and belief. Studia Logica 49, 523–539 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrzej Szałas
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations