Generalizing AGM to a multi-agent setting

International audienceWe generalize AGM belief revision theory to the multi-agent case. To do so, we first generalize the semantics of the single-agent case, based on the notion of interpretation, to the multi-agent case. Then we show that, thanks to the shape of our new semantics, all the results of the AGM framework transfer. Afterwards we investigate some postulates that are specific to our multi-agent setting. Finally, we give an example of revision operator that fulfills one of these new postulates and give an example of revision on a concrete example

A logical formalism for the subjective approach in a multi-agent setting

Representing an epistemic situation involving several agents depends very much on the modeling point of view one takes. In fact, the interpretation of a formalism relies quite a lot on the nature of this modeling point of view. Classically, in epistemic logic, the models built are supposed to represent the situation from an external and objective point of view. We call this modeling approach the objective approach. In this paper, we study the modeling point of view of a particular agent involved in the situation with other agents. We propose a logical formalism based on epistemic logic that this agent can use to represent `for herself\u27 the surrounding world. We call this modeling approach the subjective approach. We then set some formal connections between the subjective approach and the objective approach. Finally we axiomatize our logical formalism and show that the resulting logic is decidable

Internal models and private multi-agent belief revision

International audienceWe generalize AGM belief revision theory to the multi-agent case. To do so, we first generalize the semantics of the single- agent case, based on the notion of interpretation, to the multi-agent case. Then we show that, thanks to the shape of our new semantics, all the results of the AGM framework transfer. Afterwards we investigate some postulates that are specific to our multi-agent setting

Consistency preservation and crazy formulas in BMS

International audienceWe provide conditions under which seriality is preserved during an update in the BMS framework. We consider not only whether the entire updated model is serial but also whether its generated submodels are serial. We also introduce the notion of crazy formulas which are formulas such that after being publicly announced at least one of the agents' beliefs become inconsistent

De DEL à EDL ou comment illustrer la puissance des événements inverses

La logique épistémique dynamique (DEL) introduite par Baltag et col. et la logique propositionnelle dynamique (PDL) proposent différentes sémantiques aux événements. La seconde se prête facilement à l'introduction d'événements inverses et de relations d'accessibilité épistémiques. Nous appelons EDL le formalisme résultant. Nous montrons alors que DEL peut être traduit dans EDL grâce à cet emploi d'événements inverses. Il s'ensuit que EDL est plus expressive et générale que DEL . Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) as viewed by Baltag et col. and propositional dynamic logic (PDL) offer different semantics of events. It turns out that converse events and epistemic accessibility relations can be easily introduced in PDL . We call EDL the resulting formalism. We then show that DEL can be translated into EDL thanks to this use of converse events. It follows that EDL is more expressive and general than DEL

Exploring the power of converse events

Dynamic epistemic logic as viewed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki (DEL) and propositional dynamic logic (PDL) offer different semantics of events. On the one hand, DEL adds dynamics to epistemic logic by introducing so-called event models as syntactic objects into the language. On the other hand, PDL has instead transition relations between possible worlds. This last approach allows to easily introduce converse events. In this paper we add epistemics to this, and call the resulting logic epistemic dynamic logic (EDL). We show that DEL can be translated into EDL thanks to this use of the converse operator: it enables us to translate the structure of the event model directly within a particular axiomatization of EDL, without having to refer to a particular epistemic event model in the language (as done in DEL). It follows that EDL is more expressive and general than DEL and we characterize semantically and syntactically in EDL this embedding of DEL

Undecidability in Epistemic Planning

Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) provides a very expressive framework for multi-agent planning that can deal with nondeterminism, partial observability, sensing actions, and arbitrary nesting of beliefs about other agents’ beliefs. However, as we show in this paper, this expressiveness comes at a price. The planning framework is undecidable, even if we allow only purely epistemic actions (actions that change only beliefs, not ontic facts). Undecidability holds already in the S5 setting with at least 2 agents, and even with 1 agent in S4. It shows that multi-agent planning is robustly undecidable if we assume that agents can reason with an arbitrary nesting of beliefs about beliefs. We also prove a corollary showing undecidability of the DEL model checking problem with the star operator on actions (iteration)

Automata Techniques for Epistemic Protocol Synthesis

International audienceIn this work we aim at applying automata techniques to problems studied in Dynamic Epistemic Logic, such as epistemic planning. To do so, we first remark that repeatedly executing ad infinitum a propositional event model from an initial epistemic model yields a relational structure that can be finitely represented with automata. This correspondence, together with recent results on uniform strategies, allows us to give an alternative decidability proof of the epistemic planning problem for propositional events, with as by-products accurate upper-bounds on its time complexity, and the possibility to synthesize a finite word automaton that describes the set of all solution plans. In fact, using automata techniques enables us to solve a much more general problem, that we introduce and call epistemic protocol synthesis

Some Remarks on the Model Theory of Epistemic Plausibility Models

Classical logics of knowledge and belief are usually interpreted on Kripke models, for which a mathematically well-developed model theory is available. However, such models are inadequate to capture dynamic phenomena. Therefore, epistemic plausibility models have been introduced. Because these are much richer structures than Kripke models, they do not straightforwardly inherit the model-theoretical results of modal logic. Therefore, while epistemic plausibility structures are well-suited for modeling purposes, an extensive investigation of their model theory has been lacking so far. The aim of the present paper is to fill exactly this gap, by initiating a systematic exploration of the model theory of epistemic plausibility models. Like in 'ordinary' modal logic, the focus will be on the notion of bisimulation. We define various notions of bisimulations (parametrized by a language L) and show that L-bisimilarity implies L-equivalence. We prove a Hennesy-Milner type result, and also two undefinability results. However, our main point is a negative one, viz. that bisimulations cannot straightforwardly be generalized to epistemic plausibility models if conditional belief is taken into account. We present two ways of coping with this issue: (i) adding a modality to the language, and (ii) putting extra constraints on the models. Finally, we make some remarks about the interaction between bisimulation and dynamic model changes.Comment: 19 pages, 3 figure

Sabotage Modal Logic: Some Model and Proof Theoretic Aspects

International audienceWe investigate some model and proof theoretic aspects of sabotage modal logic. The first contribution is to prove a characterization theorem for sabotage modal logic as the fragment of first-order logic which is invariant with respect to a suitably defined notion of bisimulation (called sabotage bisimulation). The second contribution is to provide a sound and complete tableau method for sabotage modal logic. We also chart a number of open research questions concerning sabotage modal logic, aiming at integrating it within the current landscape of logics of model update