research-article

BMS revisited

Author:

Guillaume AucherAuthors Info & Claims

TARK '09: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge

Pages 24 - 33

https://doi.org/10.1145/1562814.1562822

Published: 06 July 2009 Publication History

Abstract

The insight of the BMS logical framework (proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki) is to represent how an event is perceived by several agents very similarly to the way one represents how a static situation is perceived by them: by means of a Kripke model. There are however some differences between the definitions of an epistemic model (representing the static situation) and an event model. In this paper we restore the symmetry. The resulting logical framework allows, unlike any other one, to express statements about ongoing events and to model the fact that our perception of events (and not only of the static situation) can also be updated due to other events. We axiomatize it and prove its decidability. Finally, we show that it embeds the BMS one if we add common belief operators.

References

[1]

{Balbiani and Herzig, 2007} Balbiani, P. and Herzig, A. (2007). Talkin'bout Kripke models. In Braüner, T. and Villadsen, J., editors, International Workshop on Hybrid Logic 2007 (Hylo 2007), Dublin.

[2]

{Baltag and Moss, 2004} Baltag, A. and Moss, L. (2004). Logic for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139(2):165--224.

[3]

{Baltag et al., 1998} Baltag, A., Moss, L., and Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of common knowledge, public announcement, and private suspicions. In Gilboa, I., editor, Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK98), pages 43--56.

Digital Library

[4]

{Baltag et al., 1999} Baltag, A., Moss, L., and Solecki, S. (1999). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. Technical report, Indiana University.

Digital Library

[5]

{Fagin et al., 1995} Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[6]

{Harel et al., 1982} Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Parikh, R. (1982). Process logic: Expressiveness, decidability and completeness. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 25(2).

[7]

{Harel et al., 2000} Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic Logic. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[8]

{Harel and Peleg, 1985} Harel, D. and Peleg, D. (1985). Process logic with regular formulas. Theoretical Computer Science, 38:307--322.

[9]

{Harel and Singerman, 1999} Harel, D. and Singerman, E. (1999). Computation paths logic: An expressive, yet elementary, process logic. Annals of pure and applied logic, 96:167--186.

[10]

{Nishimura, 1980} Nishimura, H. (1980). Descriptively complete process logic. Acta Informatica, 14(4):359--369.

Digital Library

[11]

{Parikh, 1978} Parikh, R. (1978). A decidability result for second order process logic. In Proceedings of 19th FOCS, pages 177--183.

Digital Library

[12]

{Pnuelli, 1977} Pnuelli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of 18th FOCS, pages 46--57.

Digital Library

[13]

{Pratt, 1976} Pratt, V. (1976). Semantical considerations on floyd-hoare logic. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 109--121.

Digital Library

[14]

{Pratt, 1979} Pratt, V. R. (1979). Process logic. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Antonio.

Digital Library

[15]

{Rodenhäuser, 2001} Rodenhäuser, B. (2001). Updating epistemic uncertainty: an essay in the logic of information. Master's thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

[16]

{van Benthem et al., 2006} van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., and Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11):1620--1662.

Digital Library

[17]

{van Ditmarsch et al., 2005} van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., and Kooi, B. (2005). Dynamic epistemic logic with assignment. In Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Koenig, S., Kraus, S., Singh, M., and Wooldridge, M., editors, Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pages 141--148. ACM.

Digital Library

[18]

{van Ditmarsch et al., 2007} van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., and Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic Epistemic Logic, volume 337 of Synthese library. Springer.

Digital Library

Cited By

Aucher G(2020)Expedition in the Update UniverseDynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications10.1007/978-3-030-65840-3_1(1-16)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65840-3_1
Bolander TDitmarsch HHerzig ALorini EPardo PSchwarzentruber F(2018)Announcements to Attentive AgentsJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-015-9234-325:1(1-35)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-015-9234-3
Billot AVergnaud JWalliser B(2015)Multiagent belief revisionJournal of Mathematical Economics10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.05.00459(47-57)Online publication date: Aug-2015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.05.004
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

BMS revisited
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence
      1. Intelligent agents
    2. Knowledge representation and reasoning
  2. Modeling and simulation
    1. Model development and analysis
      1. Modeling methodologies
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
  2. Models of computation
    1. Computability

Recommendations

Computing Circumscription Revisited: A Reduction Algorithm

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been devoted to logics of common-sense reasoning. Among the candidates proposed, circumscription has been perceived as an elegant mathematical technique for modeling nonmonotonic reasoning, but difficult to ...
Multi-agent only-knowing revisited
KR'10: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Levesque introduced the notion of only-knowing to precisely capture the beliefs of a knowledge base. He also showed how only-knowing can be used to formalize non-monotonic behavior within a monotonic logic. Despite its appeal, all attempts to extend ...
Logic programming revisited: logic programs as inductive definitions
Special issue devoted to Robert A. Kowalski

Logic programming has been introduced as programming in the Horn clause subset of first-order logic. This view breaks down for the negation as failure inference rule. To overcome the problem, one line of research has been to view a logic program as a ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

TARK '09: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge

July 2009

272 pages

ISBN:9781605585604

DOI:10.1145/1562814

Program Chair:
Aviad Heifetz
The Open University of Israel

Copyright © 2009 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 July 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

TARK '09

TARK '09: The 11th conference on Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge

July 6 - 8, 2009

California

Acceptance Rates

TARK '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 77 submissions, 38%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 177 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
111
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)2
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 15 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Aucher G(2020)Expedition in the Update UniverseDynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications10.1007/978-3-030-65840-3_1(1-16)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65840-3_1
Bolander TDitmarsch HHerzig ALorini EPardo PSchwarzentruber F(2018)Announcements to Attentive AgentsJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-015-9234-325:1(1-35)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-015-9234-3
Billot AVergnaud JWalliser B(2015)Multiagent belief revisionJournal of Mathematical Economics10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.05.00459(47-57)Online publication date: Aug-2015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.05.004
Ditmarsch HHerzig ALorini ESchwarzentruber F(2013)Listen to Me! Public Announcements to Agents That Pay Attention -- or NotProceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - Volume 819610.1007/978-3-642-40948-6_8(96-109)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-40948-6_8
Aucher G(2012)DEL-sequents for progressionJournal of Applied Non-Classical Logics10.3166/jancl.21.289-32121:3-4(289-321)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2012
https://doi.org/10.3166/jancl.21.289-321
Wang Y(2011)Reasoning about protocol change and knowledgeProceedings of the 4th Indian conference on Logic and its applications10.5555/1940457.1940473(189-203)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1940457.1940473
Wang Y(2011)Reasoning about Protocol Change and KnowledgeLogic and Its Applications10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_16(189-203)Online publication date: 2011
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_16
Aucher G(2010)Characterizing updates in dynamic epistemic logicProceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.5555/3031748.3031769(135-142)Online publication date: 9-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3031748.3031769
Aucher GHerzig A(2010)Exploring the Power of Converse EventsDynamic Formal Epistemology10.1007/978-94-007-0074-1_4(51-74)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0074-1_4

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents