Knowledge Extension for Agent Learning in MAS

  • Zhiling Hong
  • Meihong Wu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 225)


Multi-agent system (MAS) requires coordination mechanisms to facilitate dynamic collaboration of the intelligent components, with the goal of meeting local and global objectives. This paper deals with the issue of using dynamic epistemic default logic to offer a natural way of communication policies for the management of inter-agent exchanges in MAS. We first explore the communication protocols in MAS that operate in dynamic and highly uncertain environments, and then we add the constrained default sets to realize the extension of dynamic epistemic logic theory and restrict the agent’s inference behavior via constrained epistemic default reasoning. We also specify and reason the characteristic of the dynamic updating when agent meets incompatible knowledge in the logical framework that show the usefulness of logical tools carried out in the dynamic process of information acquisition.


Dynamic epistemic logic Epistemic extension Agent learning MAS 



This work is supported by the National Science Foundation for Post-doctoral Scientists of China (No. 2012M510235) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No.2011121049.


  1. 1.
    Reiter R (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 13(16):81–92MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollock JL, Gillies AS (2000) Belief revision and epistemology. Syntheses 122(2):89–92MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Ditmarsch H, W.v.d.H.a.B.K (2006) Dynamic epistemic logic (syntheses library). Springer, New York 17(7):245–249Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Benthem J, J.v.E.a.B.K (2006) Logics of communication and change. Inf Comput 204(11):1620–1662Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou G (2002) On the dynamics of default reasoning. Int J Intell Syst 17(4):1143–1155MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groeneveld W, J. D. G.a (1997) Reasoning about information change. J Log Lang Inf 6(16):147–169Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benthem JV (2006) Epistemic logic and epistemology: the state of their affairs. Philos Stud 128(5):49–76MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benferhat S, Saffiotti A, Smets P (2000) Belief functions and default reasoning. Artif Intell 122(6):51–69Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    James P, Schaub T, Tompits H, Woltran S (2001) On computing solutions to belief change scenarios. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 530–540Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu M, Zhou CL et al (2009) Reasoning on constrained epistemic default logic. J Inf Comput Sci 6(1):227–233Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceXiamen UniversityFujianPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPeking UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations