A lightweight epistemic logic and its application to planning

Abstract We study multiagent epistemic planning with a simple epistemic logic whose language is a restriction of that of standard epistemic logic. Its formulas are boolean combinations of observability atoms: sequences of ‘knowing whether’ operators followed by propositional variables. This compares favourably with other restricted languages where formulas are boolean combinations of epistemic literals: sequences of ‘knowing that’ epistemic operators and negations followed by propositional variables; or in other terms: epistemic formulas without conjunctions or disjunctions. The reason is that our language enables a richer theory of mind: we can express statements such as “I don't know whether p, but I know that you know whether p” which are important in communication and more generally in interaction and which cannot be expressed with epistemic literals. Going beyond previous work, we also introduce a ‘common knowledge whether’ operator. We show that satisfiability is nevertheless NP -complete. We then define simple epistemic planning tasks as generalisations of classical planning tasks: action descriptions have sets of observability atoms as add- and delete-lists, initial states are sets of observability atoms, and goals are boolean combinations of observability atoms. We show that simple epistemic planning tasks can be polynomially translated into classical planning tasks. It follows that checking solvability of simple epistemic planning tasks is PSpace -complete. We present some application examples such as the gossip problem and some experimental results and clarify the relationship with Dynamic Epistemic Logic-based planning.

[1]  Brenda S. Baker,et al.  Gossips and telephones , 1972, Discret. Math..

[2]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Epistemic protocols for dynamic gossip , 2017, J. Appl. Log..

[3]  David Liben-Nowell Gossip is synteny: Incomplete gossip and the syntenic distance between genomes , 2002, J. Algorithms.

[4]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  Announcements to Attentive Agents , 2016, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[5]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  A Guide to Completeness and Complexity for Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Esra Erdem,et al.  Solving Gossip Problems using Answer Set Programming: An Epistemic Planning Approach , 2020, ICLP Technical Communications.

[7]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Formalizing sensing actions A transition function based approach , 2001, Artif. Intell..

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

[9]  Arthur L. Liestman,et al.  A survey of gossiping and broadcasting in communication networks , 1988, Networks.

[10]  Sophie Pinchinat,et al.  DEL-based epistemic planning: Decidability and complexity , 2020, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  Model Checking Temporal Logics of Knowledge Via OBDDs , 2007, Comput. J..

[12]  Laura Giordano,et al.  A Modal Extension of Logic Programming: Modularity, Beliefs and Hypothetical Reasoning , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[13]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Byzantine Generals Problem , 1982, TOPL.

[14]  Tom Bylander,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Propositional STRIPS Planning , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Logics of knowledge and action: critical analysis and challenges , 2014, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[16]  Martin C. Cooper,et al.  The epistemic gossip problem , 2019, Discret. Math..

[17]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Symbolic model checking for Dynamic Epistemic Logic - S5 and beyond , 2018, J. Log. Comput..

[18]  E. C. Milner,et al.  A Cure for the Telephone Disease , 1972, Canadian Mathematical Bulletin.

[19]  Hans van Ditmarsch,et al.  CONTINGENCY AND KNOWING WHETHER , 2015, The Review of Symbolic Logic.