Dynamic belief analysis

  • Antonio Moreno
  • Ton Sales
Part IV: Theories
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1193)

Abstract

The standard possible worlds model and its associated Kripke semantics provide an intuitive way of modelling the reasoning processes that an ideal agent may perform on its beliefs. In this paper a way of modelling non-ideal agents (within the possible worlds framework) is considered. A class of non-ideal agents is described, and it is shown how the process of rational inquiry in which these agents are permanently engaged may be modelled in the proposed setting.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Bell and M. Machover. A Course in Mathematical Logic. North Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Beth. Semantic entailment and formal derivability. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, 13:309–342, 1955.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bretier and M.D. Sadek. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interaction. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1996. In this volume.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Cresswell. Intensional logics and logical truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1:2–15, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Delgrande. A framework for logics of explicit belief. Computational Intelligence, 11:47–86, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Fagin and J. Halpern. Belief, awareness and limited reasoning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 491–501, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Fagin, J. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54:319–379, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Hintikka. Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1962.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Hintikka. Impossible possible worlds vindicated. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4:475–484, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Hintikka. On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry. Synthese, 47:69–83, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Hintikka. Reasoning about knowledge in philosophy: the paradigm of epistemic logic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 63–80, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Hintikka. The interrogative model of inquiry as a general theory of argumentation. Communication and Cognition, 25:221–242, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Hughes and M. Cresswell. An Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen and Co., 1968.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Jaspars. Calculi for Constructive Communication. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, 1994. ILLC Dissertation Series 1994-4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Konolige. A Deduction Model of Belief. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Kripke. A semantical analysis of modal logic i: normal modal propositional calculi. Zeitschrift fur Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen Mathematik, 9:67–96, 1963.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Levesque. A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In Proceedings of the Conference of the American Association for Aartificial Intelligence, pages 198–202, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Lomuscio and M. Colombetti. QLB: a quantified logic for belief. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1996. In this volume.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. McArthur. Reasoning about knowledge and belief: a survey. Computational Intelligence, 4:223–243, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Moreno. Dynamic belief analysis. Technical report, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Moreno and T. Sales. Dynamic belief modelling. In ICCS, Donostia, May 1995. Extended version available as Research Report 95-28-R, Department of Software, Technical University of Catalonia.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Moreno and T. Sales. Limited logical belief analysis. In Workshop on Theoretical and Practical Foundations of Intelligent Agents, in Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cairns, Australia, 1996. Extended version to appear in a special volume in Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson and Co., Ltd., 1934.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Reichgelt. Logics for reasoning about knowledge and belief. Knowledge Engineering Review, 4:119–139, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    N. Rescher and R. Brandom. The Logic of Inconsistency. Rowman and Littlefield Eds., 1979.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y. Shoham. Varieties of context. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, pages 393–408. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Smullyan. First-order logic. Springer Verlag, 1968.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent metatem. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III — tProceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1996. In this volume.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michael Wooldridge and Nicholas R. Jennings, editors. Intelligent Agents (LNAI Volume 890). Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michael Wooldridge, Jorg P. Muller, and Milind Tambe, editors. Intelligent Agents II (LNAI Volume 1037). Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Moreno
    • 1
  • Ton Sales
    • 2
  1. 1.Escola Tecnica Superior d'Enginyeria, Dept. d'Enginyeria InformaticaUniversitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain
  2. 2.Facultat d'Informatica, Dept. de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformaticsUniversitat Politecnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations