Epistemic and Doxastic Planning

This thesis is concerned with planning and logic, both of which are core areas of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A wide range of research disciplines deal with AI, including philosophy, economy, psychology, neuroscience, mathematics and computer science. The approach of this thesis is based on mathematics and computer science. Planning is the mental capacity that allows us to predict the outcome of our actions, thereby enabling us to exhibit goal-directed behaviour. We often make use of planning when facing new situations, where we cannot rely on entrenched habits, and the capacity to plan is therefore closely related to the reflective system of humans. Logic is the study of reasoning. From certain fixed principles logic enables us to make sound and rational inferences, and as such the discpline is virtually impossible to get around when working with AI. The basis of automated planning, the term for planning in computer science, is essentially that of propositional logic, one of the most basic logical systems used in formal logic. Our approach is to expand this basis so that it is based on richer and and more expressive logical systems. To this end we work with logics for describing knowledge, beliefs and dynamics, that is, systems that allow us to formally reason about these aspects. By letting these elements be used in a planning context, we obtain a system that extends the degree to which goaldirected behaviour can, at present, be captured by automated planning. In this thesis we concretely apply dynamic epistemic logic to capture knowledge, and dynamic doxastic logic for capturing belief. We highlight two results of this thesis. The first pertains to how dynamic epistemic logic can be used to describe the (lack of) knowledge of an agent in the midst of planning. This perspective is already incorporated in automated planning, and seen in isolation this result appears mainly as an alternative to existing theory. Our second result underscores the strength of the first. Here we show how the kinship between the aforementioned logics enable us to extend automated planning with doxastic elements. An upshot of expanding the basis of automated planning is therefore that it allows for a modularity, which facilitates the introduction of new aspects

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

[2]  Marco Pistore,et al.  Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Computational modal logic , 2007, Handbook of Modal Logic.

[5]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  An Action Language for Reasoning about Beliefs in Multi-Agent Domains , 2012 .

[6]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Patrick Blackburn,et al.  Modal logic: a semantic perspective , 2007, Handbook of Modal Logic.

[8]  Barteld Kooi,et al.  Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2013 .

[9]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[10]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Undecidability in Epistemic Planning , 2013, IJCAI.

[11]  Quan Yu,et al.  Multi-Agent Epistemic Explanatory Diagnosis via Reasoning about Actions , 2013, IJCAI.

[12]  Thomas Andreas Meyer,et al.  Refined Epistemic Entrenchment , 2000, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[13]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  Constructive knowledge: what agents can achieve under imperfect information , 2007, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[14]  Jelle Gerbrandy,et al.  Dynamic epistemic logic , 1998 .

[15]  Hans van Ditmarsch,et al.  My beliefs about your beliefs: a case study in theory of mind and epistemic logic , 2007, Synthese.

[16]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  A Dynamic Logic of Agency I: STIT, Capabilities and Powers , 2010, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[17]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Dynamic logic for belief revision , 2007, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[18]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Conservative Social Laws , 2012, ECAI.

[19]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  From Coalition Logic to STIT , 2006, LCMAS.

[20]  Alexandru Baltag,et al.  A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision , 2008 .

[21]  A. Cimatti,et al.  Conditional Planning under Partial Observability as Heuristic-Symbolic Search in Belief Space , 2014 .

[22]  P. Bloom,et al.  Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind , 2000, Cognition.

[23]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ? , 1985, Cognition.

[24]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  Logics for Epistemic Programs , 2004, Synthese.

[25]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction , 2014 .

[26]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  From knowledge-based programs to graded belief-based programs, part II: off-line reasoning , 2005, IJCAI 2005.

[27]  A. Baltag,et al.  Dynamic Belief Revision over Multi-Agent Plausibility Models , 2006 .

[28]  J. Benthem,et al.  Connecting Logics of Choice and Change , 2014 .

[29]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments , 2006, PCAR '06.

[30]  François Schwarzentruber,et al.  On the Complexity of Dynamic Epistemic Logic (Extended Version) , 2012 .

[31]  Hans van Ditmarsch,et al.  Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision , 2005, Synthese.

[32]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[33]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  PDDL-the planning domain definition language , 1998 .

[34]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Bisimulation for Single-Agent Plausibility Models , 2013, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[35]  N. Belnap,et al.  Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World , 2001 .

[36]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  From Knowledge-based Programs to Graded Belief-based Programs, Part I: On-line Reasoning* , 2004, Synthese.

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

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

[39]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  Comparing Semantics of Logics for Multi-Agent Systems , 2004, Synthese.

[40]  Ramaswamy Ramanujam,et al.  A Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[41]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Automated Planning: Theory and Practice , 2007, Künstliche Intell..

[42]  Hans van Ditmarsch,et al.  Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change , 2006, ArXiv.

[43]  T. Lima Optimal methods for reasoning about actions and plans in multi-agent systems , 2007 .

[44]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Handbook of Modal Logic, Volume 3 (Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning) , 2006 .

[45]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Embedding Alternating-time Temporal Logic in Strategic STIT Logic of Agency , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[46]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Extending the Knowledge-Based Approach to Planning with Incomplete Information and Sensing , 2004, ICAPS.

[47]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL , 2007, TARK '07.

[48]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Tractable multiagent planning for epistemic goals , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[49]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  A Knowledge-Based Approach to Planning with Incomplete Information and Sensing , 2002, AIPS.

[50]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Some Results on the Complexity of Planning with Incomplete Information , 1999, ECP.

[51]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Knowledge-Based Programs as Plans: Succinctness and the Complexity of Plan Existence , 2013, TARK.

[52]  Martin Holm Jensen Planning Using Dynamic Epistemic Logic: Correspondence and Complexity , 2013, LORI.

[53]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Properties of logics of individual and group agency , 2008, Advances in Modal Logic.

[54]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Conditional Epistemic Planning , 2012, JELIA.

[55]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  The Logic of Public Announcements and Common Knowledge and Private Suspicions , 1998, TARK.

[56]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Action representation and partially observable planning using epistemic logic , 2003, IJCAI.

[57]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[58]  Thomas Bolander,et al.  Don't Plan for the Unexpected: Planning Based on Plausibility Models , 2015 .