Advertisement

Modeling the Beliefs of other Agents

Achieving Mutuality
  • Richmond H. Thomason
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)

Abstract

This paper develops a formalism combining elements of epistemic and nonmonotonic logic, which is applied to the general topic of modeling the attitudes of other agents, and in particular to the problem of achieving mutuality.

Keywords

Epistemic logic modal logic reasoning about knowledge reasoning about belief nonmonotonic logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics, 4(6):1236–1239.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, K. J. (1988). Three views of common knowledge. In Vardi, M. Y., editor, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 365–379, Los Altos, California. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Buvač, S. and Mason, I. (1993). Propositional logic of context. In Fikes, R. and Lehnert, W., editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 412–419, Menlo Park, California. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B., and Sag, I., editors, Linguistics Structure and Discourse Setting, pages 10–63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H. and Schober, M. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 24:259–294. Republished in Clark, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (1970). Propositional quantifiers in modal logic. Theoria, 36:336–346.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guha, R. V. (1991). Contexts: a formalization and some applications. Technical Report STAN-CS-91-1399, Stanford Computer Science Department, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  10. Halpern, J. Y. and Lakemeyer, G. (1996). Multi-agent only knowing. In Shoham, Y., editor, Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference (TARK 1996), pages 251–265. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  11. Kremer, P. (1997). On the complexity of propositional quantification in intuitionistic logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62(2):529–544.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kripke, S. (1965). A semantical analysis of modal logic II: Non-normal propositional calculi. In Henkin, L. and Tarski, A., editors, The Theory of Models, pages 206–220. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Lemmon, E. (1957). New foundations for Lewis modal systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22(2):176–186.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  15. Lifschitz, V. (1986). Pointwise circumscription. In Kehler, T. and Rosenschein, S., editors, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 406–410, Los Altos, California. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription: A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Monteiro, A. M. and Wainer, J. (1996). Preferential multi-agent nonmonotonic logics. In Aiello, L. C., Doyle, J., and Shapiro, S., editors, KR′96: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 446–452. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  18. Morgenstern, L. (1990). A theory of multiple agent nonmonotonic reasoning. In Dietterich, T. and Swartout, W., editors, Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 538–544, Menlo Park, CA. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mortensen, C. D. (1996). Miscommunication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
  20. Parikh, R. (1991). Monotonie and nonmonotonic logics of knowledge. Fundamenta Informaticae, 15(3–4):255–274.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Schiffer, S. (1972). Meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Stalnaker, R. C. (1975). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. K. and Unger, P., editors, Semantics and Philosophy. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Thomason, R. H. (1990). Propagating epistemic coordination through mutual defaults I. In Parikh, R., editor, Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the Third Conference (TARK 1990), pages 29–39, Los Altos, California. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  24. Thomason, R. H. (1998). Intra-agent modality and nonmonotonic epistemic logic. In Gilboa, I., editor, Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference (TARK 1998), pages 57–69, San Francisco, California. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. Wainer, J. (1993). Epistemic extension of propositional preference logics. In Bajcsy, R., editor, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 382–387, San Mateo, California. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richmond H. Thomason
    • 1
  1. 1.AI LaboratoryUniversity of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations