Epistemic Logic for Rule-Based Agents

The logical omniscience problem, whereby standard models of epistemic logic treat an agent as believing all consequences of its beliefs and knowing whatever follows from what else it knows, has received plenty of attention in the literature. But many attempted solutions focus on a fairly narrow specification of the problem: avoiding the closure of belief or knowledge, rather than showing how the proposed logic is of philosophical interest or of use in computer science or artificial intelligence. Sentential epistemic logics, as opposed to traditional possible worlds approaches, do not suffer from the problems of logical omniscience but are often thought to lack interesting epistemic properties. In this paper, I focus on the case of rule-based agents, which play a key role in contemporary AI research but have been neglected in the logical literature. I develop a framework for modelling monotonic, nonmonotonic and introspective rule-based reasoners which have limited cognitive resources and prove that the resulting models have a number of interesting properties. An axiomatization of the resulting logic is given, together with completeness, decidability and complexity results.

[1]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  A Nonstandard Approach to the Logical Omniscience Problem , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Behavior of database production rules: termination, confluence, and observable determinism , 1992, SIGMOD '92.

[3]  J. van Benthem "Tell it like it is": Information flow in logic , 2008 .

[4]  Victor Vianu,et al.  Rule-based languages , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning. , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[6]  D. Davidson On Saying That , 1968 .

[7]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time , 1982, STOC '82.

[8]  Eros Corazza Reflecting the Mind: Indexicality and Quasi-Indexicality , 2004 .

[9]  W. Hoek,et al.  Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2007 .

[10]  Natasha Alechina,et al.  The Dynamics of Syntactic Knowledge , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Aaron Sloman,et al.  Building cognitively rich agents using the SIM_Agent toolkit , 1999, CACM.

[12]  Brian Logan,et al.  Modelling Communicating Agents in Timed Reasoning Logics , 2004, JELIA.

[13]  Brian Logan,et al.  A complete and decidable logic for resource-bounded agents , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[14]  David Kaplan,et al.  A paradox regained , 1960, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[15]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  You Can Say That Again , 1989 .

[16]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief , 1984, AAAI.

[17]  John Perry Belief and Acceptance , 1980 .

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

[19]  K. Konolige A deduction model of belief , 1986 .

[20]  Matthew L. Ginsberg AI and nonmonotonic reasoning , 1994 .

[21]  Donald Perlis,et al.  Active Logics: A Unified Formal Approach to Episodic Reasoning , 1999 .

[22]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  A Logic for Characterizing Multiple Bounded Agents , 2000, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[23]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Modal Logic , 2001, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science.

[24]  Diplomarbeit Leipzig Reasoning about Rational, but Not Logically Omniscient Agents , 1996 .

[25]  Michael Miller,et al.  Memory, Reason, and Time: the Step-logic Approach , 1991 .

[26]  Graham Priest,et al.  Towards Non-Being , 2005 .

[27]  D. Davidson On saying that , 1968, Synthese.

[28]  Michal Walicki,et al.  A logic of reasoning, communication and cooperation with syntactic knowledge , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[29]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. , 1965 .

[30]  Agostino Poggi,et al.  Developing multi‐agent systems with a FIPA‐compliant agent framework , 2001 .

[31]  Michal Walicki,et al.  Syntactic Knowledge: A Logic of Reasoning, Communication and Cooperation , 2004 .

[32]  Rafael H. Bordini,et al.  Automating Belief Revision for AgentSpeak , 2006, DALT.

[33]  John McCarthy First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions. , 1979 .

[34]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  The problem of logical omniscience, I , 1991, Synthese.

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

[36]  Kim Sterelny From folk psychology to cognitive science , 1985 .

[37]  Ho Ngoc Duc Logical Omniscience vs. Logical Ignorance on a Dilemma of Epistemic Logic , 1995, EPIA.

[38]  Mark Jago,et al.  Logics for resource-bounded agents , 2006 .

[39]  Thomas Ågotnes,et al.  A Logic of Finite Syntactic Epistemic States , 2004 .

[40]  Brian Logan,et al.  Modal Logics for Communicating Rule-Based Agents , 2006, ECAI.

[41]  Stefan Poslad,et al.  The FIPA-OS agent platform: Open Source for Open Standards , 2006 .

[42]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  Dynamic Epistemic Logic and Knowledge Puzzles , 2007, ICCS.

[43]  David Makinson,et al.  Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic , 2005, Texts in computing.

[44]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  A note on syntactical treatments of modality , 1980, Synthese.

[45]  J. Fodor,et al.  A Theory of Content and Other Essays. , 1992 .

[46]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[47]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[48]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Thinking takes time: a modal active-logic for reasoning IN time , 1994 .