Game description language and dynamic epistemic logic compared

Abstract Several different frameworks have been proposed to model and reason about knowledge in dynamic multi-agent settings, among them the logic-programming-based game description language GDL-III and dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). GDL-III and DEL have complementary strengths and weaknesses in terms of ease of modeling and simplicity of semantics. In this paper, we formally study the expressiveness of GDL-III vs. DEL. We clarify the commonalities and differences between those languages, demonstrate how to bridge the differences where possible, and identify large fragments of GDL-III and DEL that are equivalent in the sense that they can be used to encode games or planning tasks that admit the same legal action sequences. We prove the latter by providing translations between those fragments of GDL-III and DEL.

[1]  Adrian Walker,et al.  Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge , 1988, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming..

[2]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Epistemic planning for single- and multi-agent systems , 2011, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[3]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  The Epistemic Logic Behind the Game Description Language , 2011, AAAI.

[4]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Beliefs In Multiagent Planning: From One Agent to Many , 2015, ICAPS.

[5]  Sebastian Haufe,et al.  Automated Theorem Proving for General Game Playing , 2011 .

[6]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  General Game Playing , 2015 .

[7]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Cooperative Epistemic Multi-Agent Planning for Implicit Coordination , 2017, M4M@ICLA.

[8]  François Schwarzentruber,et al.  On the Impact of Modal Depth in Epistemic Planning , 2016, IJCAI.

[9]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Seeing is Believing: Formalising False-Belief Tasks in Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2014, ECSI.

[10]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  What Is Negation as Failure? , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[11]  Sheila A. McIlraith,et al.  Epistemic Planning (Dagstuhl Seminar 17231) , 2017, Dagstuhl Reports.

[12]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Answer Sets , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[13]  François Schwarzentruber,et al.  Complexity Results in Epistemic Planning , 2015, IJCAI.

[14]  Hai Wan,et al.  A General Multi-agent Epistemic Planner Based on Higher-order Belief Change , 2018, IJCAI.

[15]  Martin C. Cooper,et al.  A Simple Account of Multi-Agent Epistemic Planning , 2016, ECAI.

[16]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  General Game Playing: Overview of the AAAI Competition , 2005, AI Mag..

[17]  Barteld P. Kooi,et al.  Generalized arrow update logic , 2011, TARK XIII.

[18]  John Wylie Lloyd,et al.  Foundations of Logic Programming , 1987, Symbolic Computation.

[19]  Christian J. Muise,et al.  Planning Over Multi-Agent Epistemic States: A Classical Planning Approach , 2015, AAAI.

[20]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  GDL-III: A Description Language for Epistemic General Game Playing , 2017, IJCAI.

[21]  Andreas Witzel,et al.  DEL Planning and Some Tractable Cases , 2011, LORI.

[22]  Enrico Pontelli,et al.  EFP and PG-EFP: Epistemic Forward Search Planners in Multi-Agent Domains , 2018, ICAPS.

[23]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Logics of communication and change , 2006, Inf. Comput..

[24]  Yoram Moses,et al.  Relating Knowledge and Coordinated Action: The Knowledge of Preconditions Principle , 2016, TARK.

[25]  Qiang Liu,et al.  Multi-agent Epistemic Planning with Common Knowledge , 2018, IJCAI.

[26]  Stephan Schiffel,et al.  Representing and Reasoning About the Rules of General Games With Imperfect Information , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..