Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-6lqsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-17T06:57:52.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasoning about knowledge and messages in asynchronous multi-agent systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

SOPHIA KNIGHT ,
BASTIEN MAUBERT  and
FRANÇOIS SCHWARZENTRUBER
SOPHIA KNIGHT
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, Sweden E-mail: sophia.knight@gmail.com
BASTIEN MAUBERT
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy E-mail: bastien.maubert@gmail.com
FRANÇOIS SCHWARZENTRUBER
Affiliation:
ENS Rennes/IRISA, France E-mail: francois.schwarzentruber@ens-rennes.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose a variant of public announcement logic for asynchronous systems. To capture asynchrony, we introduce two different modal operators for sending and receiving messages. The natural approach to defining the semantics leads to a circular definition, but we describe two restricted cases in which we solve this problem. The first case requires the Kripke model representing the initial epistemic situation to be a finite tree, and the second one only allows announcements from the existential fragment. After establishing some validities, we study the model checking problem and the satisfiability problem in cases where the semantics is well-defined, and we provide several complexity results.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 29 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue: Best Papers Presented at ICTAC 2015 , January 2019 , pp. 127 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aucher, G. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2013). On the complexity of dynamic epistemic logic. In: TARK '13.Google Scholar
Balbiani, P., Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H.P., Herzig, A., Hoshi, T. and Lima, T.D. (2007). What can we achieve by arbitrary announcements?: A dynamic take on Fitch's knowability. In: TARK '07.Google Scholar
Balbiani, P., Gasquet, O. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2013). Agents that look at one another. Logic Journal of the IGPL 21 (3) 438–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzs052Google Scholar
Balbiani, P., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A. and Lima, T.D. (2010). Tableaux for public announcement logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 20 (1).Google Scholar
Baltag, A., Ditmarsch, H.P.V. and Moss, L.S. (2008). Epistemic logic and information update. In: Adriaans, P. and van Benthem, J. (eds.) Philosophy of Information, Elsevier Science Publishers, 361–455.Google Scholar
Baltag, A. and Moss, L.S. (2004). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139 (2) 165–224.Google Scholar
Baltag, A., Moss, L.S. and Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements and common knowledge and private suspicions. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-98), Evanston, IL, USA, July 22–24, 1998, 43– 56.Google Scholar
Benthem, J.V. (2011). Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brand, D. and Zafiropulo, P. (1983). On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 30 (2) 323–342.Google Scholar
Braüner, T., Blackburn, P. and Polyanskaya, I. (2016). Second-order false-belief tasks: Analysis and formalization. In: Proceedings of the Logic, Language, Information, and Computation - 23rd International Workshop, WoLLIC 2016, Puebla, Mexico, August 16–19th, 2016, 125– 144.Google Scholar
Chambart, P. and Schnoebelen, P. (2008). Mixing lossy and perfect fifo channels. In: International Conference on Concurrency Theory, Springer, 340–355.Google Scholar
Charrier, T. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2015). Arbitrary public announcement logic with mental programs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2015, Istanbul, Turkey, May 4–8, 2015, 1471–1479. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2773340Google Scholar
Charrier, T. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2017). Arbitrary public announcement logic with mental programs. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2017 (to appear).Google Scholar
Corradini, F., Berardini, M.R.D. and Vogler, W. (2003). Relating fairness and timing in process algebras. In: Proceedings of the CONCUR '03.Google Scholar
Dégremont, C., Löwe, B. and Witzel, A. (2011). The synchronicity of dynamic epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the TARK '11.Google Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y. and Vardi, M. (2004). Reasoning About Knowledge, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y. and Vardi, M.Y. (1992). What can machines know?: On the properties of knowledge in distributed systems. Journal of ACM 39 (2) 328–376.Google Scholar
French, T. and van Ditmarsch, H. P. (2008). Undecidability for arbitrary public announcement logic. In: Proceedings of the AiML '08.Google Scholar
Gasquet, O., Goranko, V. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2015). Big brother logic: Visual-epistemic reasoning in stationary multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9306-4Google Scholar
Gerbrandy, J. and Groeneveld, W. (1997). Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (2) 147–169.Google Scholar
Griesmayer, A. and Lomuscio, A. (2013). Model checking distributed systems against temporal-epistemic specifications. In: Formal Techniques for Distributed Systems, Springer 130–145.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. and Moses, Y. (1990). Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. Journal of the ACM 37 (3) 549–587.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, Vol. 4, Cornell University Press Ithaca.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science 2 297–321.Google Scholar
Knight, S., Maubert, B. and Schwarzentruber, F. (2015). Asynchronous announcements in a public channel. In: Proceedings of the ICTAC '15.Google Scholar
Kutschera, F. (1976). Einführung in die Intensionale Semantik, Grundlagen der Kommunikation und Kognition.Google Scholar
Lamport, L. (1978). Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 21 55–565. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/359545.359563, doi:10.1145/359545.359563Google Scholar
Lenzen, W. (1978). Recent work in epistemic logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30 1–219.Google Scholar
Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS '06.Google Scholar
Moses, Y. and Tuttle, M.R. (1988). Programming simultaneous actions using common knowledge. Algorithmica 3 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01762112Google Scholar
Panangaden, P. and Taylor, K. (1992). Concurrent common knowledge: Defining agreement for asynchronous systems. Distributed Computing 6 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02252679Google Scholar
Plaza, J. (2007). Logics of public communications. Synthese 158 (2).Google Scholar
Raynal, M. (2013). Distributed Algorithms for Message-Passing Systems, Springer.Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, P. (2002). The complexity of temporal logic model checking. Advances in Modal Logic 4 (393–436), 35.Google Scholar
Sipser, M. (1997). Introduction to the Theory of Computation, PWS Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5 (2) 285–309.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Gattinger, M. and Su, K. (2015). Symbolic model checking for dynamic epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the Logic, Rationality, and Interaction – 5th International Workshop, LORI 2015 Taipei, Taiwan, October 28–31, 2015, 366–378.Google Scholar
van der Hoek, W. (1990). Systems for knowledge and beliefs. In: Proceedings of the Logics in AI, European Workshop, JELIA '90, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 10–14, 1990, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0018447Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H. (2017). Asynchronous announcements. CoRR abs/1705.03392. http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03392Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., French, T. and Hales, J. Positive announcements (submitted).Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W. and Kooi, B.P. (2007). Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Vol. 337.Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, P. (1997). The convenience of tilings. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics.Google Scholar
van Lambalgen, M. (2010). Logical form as a determinant of cognitive processes. In: Proceedings of the Logic, Language, Information and Computation, 17th International Workshop, WoLLIC 2010, Brasilia, Brazil, July 6–9, 2010, 59–83.Google Scholar
Winskel, G. (1993). The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages - An Introduction, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yu, Y.-T. and Gouda, M. (1982). Deadlock detection for a class of communicating finite state machines. IEEE Transactions on Communications 30 (12) 2514–2518.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Johansson, K.H., Lygeros, J. and Sastry, S. (2001). Zeno hybrid systems. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 11 (5), 435–451.Google Scholar