Seeing, Knowing, doing : case studies in modal logic

Dans le domaine des jeux vidéos par exemple, surtout des jeux de rôles, les personnages virtuels perçoivent un environnement, en tirent des connaissances puis effectuent des actions selon leur besoin. De même en robotique, un robot perçoit son environnement à l'aide de capteurs/caméras, établit une base de connaissances et effectuent des mouvements etc. La description des comportements de ces agents virtuels et leurs raisonnements peut s'effectuer à l'aide d'un langage logique. Dans cette thèse, on se propose de modéliser les trois aspects "voir", "savoir" et "faire" et leurs interactions à l'aide de la logique modale. Dans une première partie, on modélise des agents dans un espace géométrique puis on définit une relation épistémique qui tient compte des positions et du regard des agents. Dans une seconde partie, on revisite la logique des actions "STIT" (see-to-it-that ou "faire en sorte que") qui permet de faire la différence entre les principes "de re" et "de dicto", contrairement à d'autres logiques modales des actions. Dans une troisième partie, on s'intéresse à modéliser quelques aspects de la théorie des jeux dans une variante de la logique "STIT" ainsi que des émotions contre-factuelles comme le regret. Tout au long de cette thèse, on s'efforcera de s'intéresser aux aspects logiques comme les complétudes des axiomatisations et la complexité du problème de satisfiabilité d'une formule logique. L'intégration des trois concepts "voir", "savoir" et "faire" dans une et une seule logique est évoquée en conclusion et reste une question ouverte.Agents are entities who perceive their environment and who perform actions. For instance in role playing video games, ennemies are agents who perceive some part of the virtual world and who can attack or launch a sortilege. Another example may concern robot assistance for disabled people: the robot perceives obstacles of the world and can alert humans or help them. Here, we try to give formal tools to model knowledge reasoning about the perception of their environment and about actions based, on modal logic. First, we give combine the standard epistemic modal logic with perception constructions of the form (agent a sees agent b). We give a semantics in terms of position and orientation of the agents in the space that can be a line (Lineland) or a plane (Flatland). Concerning Lineland, we provide a complete axiomatization and an optimal procedure for model-checking and satisfiability problem. Concerning Flatland, we show that both model-checking and satisfiability problem are decidable but the exact complexities and the axiomatization remain open problems. Thus, the logics of Lineland and Flatland are completely a new approach: their syntax is epistemic but their semantics concern spatial reasoning. Secondly, we study on the logic of agency ``see-to-it-that'' STIT made up of construction of the form [J]A standing for ``the coalition of agents J sees to it that A''. Our interest is motivated: STIT is strictly more expressive that standard modal logic for agency like Coalition Logic CL or Alternating-time Temporal Logic ATL. In CL or ATL the ``de re'' and ``de dicto'' problem is quite difficult and technical whereas if we combine STIT-operators with epistemic operators, we can solve it in a natural way. However this strong expressivity has a prize: the general version of STIT is undecidable. That is why we focus on some syntactic fragments of STIT: either we restrict the allowed coalitions J in constructions [J]A or we restrict the nesting of modal STIT-operators. We provide axiomatizations and complexity results. Finally, we give flavour to epistemic modal logic by adding STIT-operators. The logic STIT is suitable to express counterfactual statements like ``agent a could have choosen an action such that A have been true''. Thus we show how to model counterfactual emotions like regret, rejoicing, disappointment and elation in this framework. We also model epistemic games by adapting the logic STIT by giving explicitely names of actions in the language. In this framework, we can model the notion of rational agents but other kind of behaviour like altruism etc., Nash equilibrium and iterated deletion of strictly dominated strategies

Voir, savoir, faire : une étude de cas en logique modale

Agents are entities who perceive their environment and who perform actions. For instance in role playing video games, ennemies are agents who perceive some part of the virtual world and who can attack or launch a sortilege. Another example may concern robot assistance for disabled people: the robot perceives obstacles of the world and can alert humans or help them. Here, we try to give formal tools to model knowledge reasoning about the perception of their environment and about actions based, on modal logic. First, we give combine the standard epistemic modal logic with perception constructions of the form (agent a sees agent b). We give a semantics in terms of position and orientation of the agents in the space that can be a line (Lineland) or a plane (Flatland). Concerning Lineland, we provide a complete axiomatization and an optimal procedure for model-checking and satisfiability problem. Concerning Flatland, we show that both model-checking and satisfiability problem are decidable but the exact complexities and the axiomatization remain open problems. Thus, the logics of Lineland and Flatland are completely a new approach: their syntax is epistemic but their semantics concern spatial reasoning. Secondly, we study on the logic of agency ''see-to-it-that'' STIT made up of construction of the form [J]A standing for ''the coalition of agents J sees to it that A''. Our interest is motivated: STIT is strictly more expressive that standard modal logic for agency like Coalition Logic CL or Alternating-time Temporal Logic ATL. In CL or ATL the ''de re'' and ''de dicto'' problem is quite difficult and technical whereas if we combine STIT-operators with epistemic operators, we can solve it in a natural way. However this strong expressivity has a prize: the general version of STIT is undecidable. That is why we focus on some syntactic fragments of STIT: either we restrict the allowed coalitions J in constructions [J]A or we restrict the nesting of modal STIT-operators. We provide axiomatizations and complexity results. Finally, we give flavour to epistemic modal logic by adding STIT-operators. The logic STIT is suitable to express counterfactual statements like ''agent a could have choosen an action such that A have been true''. Thus we show how to model counterfactual emotions like regret, rejoicing, disappointment and elation in this framework. We also model epistemic games by adapting the logic STIT by giving explicitely names of actions in the language. In this framework, we can model the notion of rational agents but other kind of behaviour like altruism etc., Nash equilibrium and iterated deletion of strictly dominated strategies.Dans le domaine des jeux vidéos par exemple, surtout des jeux de rôles, les personnages virtuels perçoivent un environnement, en tirent des connaissances puis effectuent des actions selon leur besoin. De même en robotique, un robot perçoit son environnement à l'aide de capteurs/caméras, établit une base de connaissances et effectuent des mouvements etc. La description des comportements de ces agents virtuels et leurs raisonnements peut s'effectuer à l'aide d'un langage logique. Dans cette thèse, on se propose de modéliser les trois aspects ''voir'', ''savoir'' et ''faire'' et leurs interactions à l'aide de la logique modale. Dans une première partie, on modélise des agents dans un espace géométrique puis on définit une relation épistémique qui tient compte des positions et du regard des agents. Dans une seconde partie, on revisite la logique des actions ''STIT'' (see-to-it-that ou ''faire en sorte que'') qui permet de faire la différence entre les principes ''de re'' et ''de dicto'', contrairement à d'autres logiques modales des actions. Dans une troisième partie, on s'intéresse à modéliser quelques aspects de la théorie des jeux dans une variante de la logique ''STIT'' ainsi que des émotions contre-factuelles comme le regret. Tout au long de cette thèse, on s'efforcera de s'intéresser aux aspects logiques comme les complétudes des axiomatisations et la complexité du problème de satisfiabilité d'une formule logique. L'intégration des trois concepts ''voir'', ''savoir'' et ''faire'' dans une et une seule logique est évoquée en conclusion et reste une question ouverte

Studies on modal logics of time and space

This dissertation presents original results in Temporal Logic and Spatial Logic. Part I concerns Branching-Time Logic. Since Prior 1967, two main semantics for Branching-Time Logic have been devised: Peircean and Ockhamist semantics. Zanardo 1998 proposed a general semantics, called Indistinguishability semantics, of which Peircean and Ockhamist semantics are limit cases. We provide a finite axiomatization of the Indistinguishability logic of upward endless bundled trees using a non-standard inference rule, and prove that this logic is strongly complete. In Part II, we study the temporal logic given by the tense operators F for future and P for past together with the derivative operator , interpreted on the real numbers. We prove that this logic is neither strongly nor Kripke complete, it is PSPACE-complete, and it is finitely axiomatizable. In Part III, we study the spatial logic given by the derivative operator and the graded modalities {n | n in N}. We prove that this language, call it L, is as expressive as the first-order language Lt of Flum and Ziegler 1980 when interpreted on T3 topological spaces. Then, we give a general definition of modal operator: essentially, a modal operator will be defined by a formula of Lt with at most one free variable. If a modal operator is defined by a formula predicating only over points, then it is called point-sort operator. We prove that L, even if enriched with all point-sort operators, however enriched with finitely many modal operators predicating also on open sets, cannot express Lt on T2 spaces. Finally, we axiomatize the logic of any class between all T1 and all T3 spaces and prove that it is PSPACE-complete.Open Acces

A Logic-Based Analysis of Responsibility

This paper presents a logic-based framework to analyze responsibility, which I refer to as intentional epistemic act-utilitarian stit theory (IEAUST). To be precise, IEAUST is used to model and syntactically characterize various modes of responsibility, where by 'modes of responsibility' I mean instances of Broersen's three categories of responsibility (causal, informational, and motivational responsibility), cast against the background of particular deontic contexts. IEAUST is obtained by integrating a modal language to express the following components of responsibility on stit models: agency, epistemic notions, intentionality, and different senses of obligation. With such a language, I characterize the components of responsibility using particular formulas. Then, adopting a compositional approach -- where complex modalities are built out of more basic ones -- these characterizations of the components are used to formalize the aforementioned modes of responsibility.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2023, arXiv:2307.0400

The Truth About the Future

There is a long-standing disagreement among Branching-Time theorists. Even though they all believe that the branching representation accurately grasps the idea that the future, contrary to the past, is open, they argue whether this representation is compatible with the claim that one among many possible futures is distinguished - the single future that will come to be. This disagreement is paralleled in an argument about the bivalence of future contingents. The single, privileged future is often called the Thin Red Line. I reconstruct the history of the arguments for and against this idea. Then, I propose my own version of the Thin Red Line theory which is immune to the major objections found in the literature. I argue that the semantic disagreement is grounded in distinct metaphysical presuppositions. My solution is expressed in a conceptual framework proposed by John MacFarlane, who distinguishes semantics from postsemantics. I extend his distinction and introduce a new notion of presemantics to elucidate my idea