Situation awareness and ability in coalitions

This paper proposes a discussion on the formal links between the situation calculus and the semantics of interpreted systems as far as they relate to higher-level information fusion tasks. Among these tasks situation analysis require to be able to reason about the decision processes of coalitions. Indeed in higher levels of information fusion, one not only need to know that a certain proposition is true (or that it has a certain numerical measure attached), but rather needs to model the circumstances under which this validity holds as well as agents' properties and constraints. In a previous paper the authors have proposed to use the interpreted system semantics as a potential candidate for the unification of all levels of information fusion. In the present work we show how the proposed framework allow to bind reasoning about courses of action and situation awareness. We propose in this paper a (1) model of coalition, (2) a model of ability in the situation calculus language and (3) a model of situation awareness in the interpreted systems semantics. Combining the advantages of both situation calculus and the interpreted systems semantics, we show how the situation calculus can be framed into the interpreted systems semantics. We illustrate on the example of RAP compilation in a coalition context, how ability and situation awareness interact and what benefit is gained. Finally, we conclude this study with a discussion on possible future works.

[1]  Laurence Cholvy,et al.  Ability in a Multi-agent Context: A Model in the Situation Calculus , 2005, CLIMA.

[2]  Dag Elgesem,et al.  The modal logic of agency , 1997 .

[3]  W. Hoek,et al.  Tests as epistemic updates - pursuit of knowledge , 1994 .

[4]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[5]  A. Steinberg,et al.  An approach to threat assessment , 2005, 2005 7th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[6]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Modelling knowledge and action in distributed systems , 2005, Distributed Computing.

[7]  Richard B. Scherl,et al.  Reasoning about the Interaction of Knowledge, Time and Concurrent Actions in the Situation Calculus , 2003, IJCAI.

[8]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression , 1991, Artificial and Mathematical Theory of Computation.

[9]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  L'interaction comme champ de recherche , 2002 .

[10]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Formalising Abilities and Opportunities of Agents , 1998, Fundam. Informaticae.

[11]  John F. Horty,et al.  Agency and obligation , 1996, Synthese.

[12]  Mieczyslaw M. Kokar,et al.  Formalizing classes of information fusion systems , 2004, Inf. Fusion.

[13]  Dale Lambert Grand challenges of information fusion , 2003, Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[14]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

[15]  A.-L. Jousselme,et al.  A general algebraic structure for situation analysis , 2005, 2005 7th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[16]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Knowledge, probability, and adversaries , 1989, PODC '89.

[17]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Ability and Knowing How in the Situation Calculus , 2000, Stud Logica.

[18]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[19]  Leandro Chaves Rêgo,et al.  Extensive games with possibly unaware players , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[20]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  “Sometimes” and “not never” revisited: on branching versus linear time temporal logic , 1986, JACM.

[21]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Ability , Action , and Context , 2005 .

[22]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

[23]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Algorithmic Knowledge , 1994, TARK.

[24]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[25]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Plausibility Measures: A User's Guide , 1995, UAI.

[26]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Cooperation, Knowledge, and Time: Alternating-time Temporal Epistemic Logic and its Applications , 2003, Stud Logica.

[27]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1999 .

[28]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[29]  W. Hoek,et al.  Formalising abilities and opportunities of agents , 1998 .