Seeing Is Believing

In this paper a formal framework is proposed in which variousinformative actions are combined, corresponding to the different ways in whichrational agents can acquire information. In order to solve the variousconflicts that could possibly occur when acquiring information fromdifferent sources, we propose a classification of the informationthat an agent possesses according to credibility. Based on this classification, we formalize what itmeans for agents to have seen or heard something, or to believesomething by default. We present a formalization of observations,communication actions, and the attempted jumps to conclusions thatconstitutes default reasoning. To implement these informative actionswe use a general belief revision action which satisfies theAGM postulates; dependent on the credibility of the incominginformation this revision action acts on one or more parts ofthe classified belief sets of the agents. The abilities of agents formalizeboth the limited capacities of agents to acquire information, and the preference of one kind of information acquisition to another. A very important feature of our approach is that it shows how to integratevarious aspects of agency, in particular the (informational) attitudesof dealing with information from observation, communication and defaultreasoning into one coherent framework, both model-theoretically andsyntactically.

[1]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Guarantees for Autonomy in Cognitive Agent Architecture , 1995, ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages.

[2]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Actions That Make You Change Your Mind (Extended Abstract) , 1995, KI.

[3]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Epistemic logic for AI and computer science , 1995, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[4]  R. Goldblatt Logics of Time and Computation , 1987 .

[5]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  A First-Order Branching Time Logic of Multi-Agent System , 1992, ECAI.

[6]  Anna Maria Radzikowska,et al.  Epistemic Approach to Actions with Typical Effects , 1995, ECSQARU.

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

[8]  J. Hintikka Knowledge and belief , 1962 .

[9]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[10]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Foundations of a Logical Approach to Agent Programming , 1995, ATAL.

[11]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Tests as Epistemic Updates , 1994, ECAI.

[12]  Divesh Srivastava,et al.  Towards Efficient Information Gathering Agents , 1994 .

[13]  Zhisheng Huang Logic for agents with bounded rationality , 1994 .

[14]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Knowledge, Belief and Time , 1986, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Approach to the Verification of Situated Reasoning Systems , 1993, IJCAI.

[16]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  The Dynamics of Default Reasoning (Extended Abstract) , 1995, ECSQARU.

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

[18]  Zhisheng Huang,et al.  ALX, an Action Logic for Agents with Bounded Rationality , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[19]  K. Jon Barwise,et al.  The situation in logic , 1989, CSLI lecture notes series.

[20]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Logics of Mental Attitudes in AI , 1992, ECAI Workshop on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

[21]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  The logical modelling of computational multi-agent systems , 1992 .

[22]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[23]  A. Montefiore NORM AND ACTION , 1964 .

[24]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[25]  Robert C. Moore A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action , 1984 .

[26]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  Systems for Knowledge and Belief , 1993, J. Log. Comput..

[27]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  A Logic of Capabilities , 1994, LFCS.

[28]  Zhisheng Huang,et al.  Logics for Belief Dependence , 1990, CSL.

[29]  Sarah Rebecca Thomas,et al.  PLACA, an agent oriented programming language , 1993 .

[30]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Retrieving and Integrating Data from Multiple Information Sources , 1993, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[31]  Anthony Kenny,et al.  Will, freedom, and power , 1975 .

[32]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Asymmetry Thesis and Side-Effect Problems in Linear-Time and Branching-Time Intention Logics , 1991, IJCAI.

[33]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[34]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Knowledge, Action, and Ability in the Situation Calculus , 1994, TARK.

[35]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Formalising Motivational Attitudes of Agents , 1995, ATAL.

[36]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Communicating Rational Agents , 1994, KI.

[37]  W. Hoek,et al.  A Modal Logic for Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 1994 .

[38]  Brian F. Chellas Modal Logic: Normal systems of modal logic , 1980 .

[39]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Agent-Oriented Programming , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[40]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Unravelling nondeterminism: On having the ability to choose , 1993 .

[41]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  The Dynamics of Default Reasoning , 1997, Data Knowl. Eng..

[42]  Robert C. Moore Reasoning About Knowledge and Action , 1977, IJCAI.

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

[44]  Wiebe van der Hoek Systems for Knowledge and Beliefs , 1990, JELIA.

[45]  Jan Treur,et al.  Compositional Formal Specification of Multi-Agent Systems , 1994, ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages.