Comparing the Update Expressivity of Communication Patterns and Action Models

Any kind of dynamics in dynamic epistemic logic can be represented as an action model. Right? Wrong! In this contribution we prove that the update expressivity of communication patterns is incomparable to that of action models. Action models, as update mechanisms, were proposed by Baltag, Moss, and Solecki in 1998 and have remained the nearly universally accepted update mechanism in dynamic epistemic logics since then. Alternatives, such as arrow updates that were proposed by Kooi and Renne in 2011, have update equivalent action models. More recently, the picture is shifting. Communication patterns are update mechanisms originally proposed in some form or other by Agotnes and Wang in 2017 (as resolving distributed knowledge), by Baltag and Smets in 2020 (as reading events), and by Velazquez, Castaneda, and Rosenblueth in 2021 (as communication patterns). All these logics have the same expressivity as the base logic of distributed knowledge. However, their update expressivity, the relation between pointed epistemic models induced by such an update, was conjectured to be different from that of action model logic. Indeed, we show that action model logic and communication pattern logic are incomparable in update expressivity. We also show that, given a history-based semantics and when restricted to (static) interpreted systems, action model logic is (strictly) more update expressive than communication pattern logic. Our results are relevant for distributed computing wherein oblivious models involve arbitrary iteration of communication patterns.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2023, arXiv:2307.0400

Logics with Group Announcements and Distributed Knowledge: Completeness and Expressive Power

Public announcement logic (PAL) is an extension of epistemic logic with dynamic operators that model the effects of all agents simultaneously and publicly acquiring the same piece of information. One of the extensions of PAL, group announcement logic (GAL), allows quantification over (possibly joint) announcements made by agents. In GAL, it is possible to reason about what groups can achieve by making such announcements. It seems intuitive that this notion of coalitional ability should be closely related to the notion of distributed knowledge, the implicit knowledge of a group. Thus, we study the extension of GAL with distributed knowledge, and in particular possible interaction properties between GAL operators and distributed knowledge. The perhaps surprising result is that, in fact, there are no interaction properties, contrary to intuition. We make this claim precise by providing a sound and complete axiomatisation of GAL with distributed knowledge. We also consider several natural variants of GAL with distributed knowledge, as well as some other related logic, and compare their expressive power.publishedVersio

Logics with Group Announcements and Distributed Knowledge: Completeness and Expressive Power.

Public announcement logic (PAL) is an extension of epistemic logic with dynamic operators that model the effects of all agents simultaneously and publicly acquiring the same piece of information. One of the extensions of PAL, group announcement logic (GAL), allows quantification over (possibly joint) announcements made by agents. In GAL, it is possible to reason about what groups can achieve by making such announcements. It seems intuitive that this notion of coalitional ability should be closely related to the notion of distributed knowledge, the implicit knowledge of a group. Thus, we study the extension of GAL with distributed knowledge, and in particular possible interaction properties between GAL operators and distributed knowledge. The perhaps surprising result is that, in fact, there are no interaction properties, contrary to intuition. We make this claim precise by providing a sound and complete axiomatisation of GAL with distributed knowledge. We also consider several natural variants of GAL with distributed knowledge, as well as some other related logic, and compare their expressive power