Cited By
View all- Naumov PTao J(2023)Counterfactual and seeing-to-it responsibilities in strategic gamesAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic10.1016/j.apal.2023.103353174:10(103353)Online publication date: Dec-2023
Strategic Knowledge Acquisition
Authors: 
Kaya Deuser, Pavel NaumovAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 17, Pages 1 - 18
Abstract
The article proposes a trimodal logical system that can express the strategic ability of coalitions to learn from their experience. The main technical result is the completeness of the proposed system.
References
[1]
Thomas Ågotnes and Natasha Alechina. 2012. Epistemic coalition logic: Completeness and complexity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2 (AAMAS’12). 1099–1106.
[2]
Thomas Ågotnes and Natasha Alechina. 2015. Embedding coalition logic in the minimal normal multimodal logic with intersection. In Modality, Semantics and Interpretations. Springer, 1–22.
[3]
Thomas Ågotnes and Natasha Alechina. 2019. Coalition logic with individual, distributed and common knowledge. J. Logic Comput. 29, 7 (No. 2019), 1041–1069.
[4]
Natasha Alechina, Brian Logan, Hoang Nga Nguyen, and Abdur Rakib. 2011. Logic for coalitions with bounded resources. J. Logic Comput. 21, 6 (Dec. 2011), 907–937.
[5]
Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Orna Kupferman. 2002. Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49, 5 (2002), 672–713.
[6]
Benjamin Aminof, Bastien Maubert, Aniello Murano, Marta Kwiatkowska, and Sasha Rubin. 2019. Probabilistic strategy logic. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[7]
Benjamin Aminof, Aniello Murano, Sasha Rubin, and Florian Zuleger. 2016. Prompt alternating-time epistemic logics. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 258–267.
[8]
Francesco Belardinelli. 2014. Reasoning about knowledge and strategies: Epistemic strategy logic. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Strategic Reasoning (SR’14), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 146. 27–33.
[9]
Francesco Belardinelli, Catalin Dima, and Aniello Murano. 2018. Bisimulations for logics of strategies: A study in expressiveness and verification. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 425–434.
[10]
Francesco Belardinelli, Wojciech Jamroga, Damian Kurpiewski, Vadim Malvone, and Aniello Murano. 2019. Strategy logic with simple goals: Tractable reasoning about strategies. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[11]
Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff. 1990. Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. In Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Springer, 167–190.
[12]
Raphaël Berthon, Bastien Maubert, and Aniello Murano. 2017. Decidability results for ATL* with imperfect information and perfect recall. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1250–1258.
[13]
Raphael Berthon, Bastien Maubert, Aniello Murano, Sasha Rubin, and Moshe Y Vardi. 2017. Strategy logic with imperfect information. In Proceedings of the 2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’17). IEEE, 1–12.
[14]
Jan Broersen, Andreas Herzig, and Nicolas Troquard. 2007. A normal simulation of coalition logic and an epistemic extension. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. ACM, 92–101.
[15]
Alice Calaprice. 2011. The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press.
[16]
Petr Čermák, Alessio Lomuscio, and Aniello Murano. 2015. Verifying and synthesising multi-agent systems against one-goal strategy logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[17]
Krishnendu Chatterjee, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Nir Piterman. 2010. Strategy logic. Inf. Comput. 208, 6 (2010), 677–693.
[18]
Giuseppe De Giacomo and Maurizio Lenzerini. 1994. Boosting the correspondence between description logics and propositional dynamic logics. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’94), Vol. 94. 205–212.
[19]
Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y. Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1995. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[20]
Raul Fervari, Andreas Herzig, Yanjun Li, and Yanjing Wang. 2017. Strategically knowing how. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). 1031–1038.
[21]
Rustam Galimullin and Natasha Alechina. 2017. Coalition and group announcement logic. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK’17). 207–220.
[22]
Valentin Goranko and Sebastian Enqvist. 2018. Socially friendly and group protecting coalition logics. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 372–380.
[23]
Valentin Goranko and Govert van Drimmelen. 2006. Complete axiomatization and decidability of Alternating-time temporal logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 353, 1 (2006), 93–117.
[24]
David Harel, Jerzy Tiuryn, and Dexter Kozen. 2000. Dynamic Logic. MIT Press.
[25]
C.A.R. Hoare. 1969. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12 (1969), 576–580.
[26]
John Horty and Eric Pacuit. 2017. Action types in STIT semantics. Rev. Symbol. Logic 10, 4 (2017), 1–21.
[27]
John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press.
[28]
John F. Horty and Nuel Belnap. 1995. The deliberative STIT: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. J. Philos. Logic 24, 6 (1995), 583–644.
[29]
Fabio Mogavero, Aniello Murano, Giuseppe Perelli, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2012. What makes ATL* decidable? a decidable fragment of strategy logic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Springer, 193–208.
[30]
Fabio Mogavero, Aniello Murano, Giuseppe Perelli, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2014. Reasoning about strategies: On the model-checking problem. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 15, 4 (2014), 34.
[31]
Pavel Naumov and Jia Tao. 2017. Coalition power in epistemic transition systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’17). 723–731.
[32]
Pavel Naumov and Jia Tao. 2018. Strategic coalitions with perfect recall. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[33]
Pavel Naumov and Jia Tao. 2018. Together we know how to achieve: An epistemic logic of know-how. Artif. Intell. 262 (2018), 279–300.
[34]
Grigory K. Olkhovikov and Heinrich Wansing. 2018. Inference as doxastic agency. Part I: The basics of justification STIT logic. Stud. Logic. 107 (2019), 167--194.
[35]
Rohit Parikh. 1978. The completeness of propositional dynamic logic. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. Springer, 403–415.
[36]
Marc Pauly. 2002. A modal logic for coalitional power in games. J. Logic Comput. 12, 1 (2002), 149–166.
[37]
Vaughan R. Pratt. 1976. Semantical consideration on Floyd-Hoare logic. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 109–121.
[38]
Wiebe van der Hoek and Michael Wooldridge. 2003. Cooperation, knowledge, and time: Alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications. Stud. Logic. 75, 1 (2003), 125–157.
[39]
Moshe Y. Vardi, Giuseppe Perelli, Aniello Murano, and Fabio Mogavero. 2017. Reasoning about strategies: On the satisfiability problem. Logic. Methods Comput. Sci. 13 (2017).
[40]
Dirk Walther, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Michael Wooldridge. 2007. Alternating-time temporal logic with explicit strategies. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. ACM, 269–278.
[41]
Yanjing Wang. 2018. A logic of goal-directed knowing how. Synthese 195, 10 (2018), 4419–4439.
[42]
Ming Xu. 1995. On the basic logic of STIT with a single agent. J. Symbol. Logic 60, 2 (1995), 459–483.
Index Terms
- Strategic Knowledge Acquisition
Recommendations
Constructive and Mechanised Meta-Theory of Intuitionistic Epistemic Logic
Logical Foundations of Computer ScienceAbstractArtemov and Protopopescu proposed intuitionistic epistemic logic (IEL) to capture an intuitionistic conception of knowledge. By establishing completeness, they provided the base for a meta-theoretic investigation of IEL, which was continued by ...
A complete proof system for propositional projection temporal logic
The paper presents a proof system for Propositional Projection Temporal Logic (PPTL) with projection-plus. The syntax, semantics, and logical laws of PPTL are introduced together with an axiom system consisting of axioms and inference rules. To ...
First-Order Linear-time Epistemic Logic with Group Knowledge: An Axiomatisation of the Monodic Fragment
Logic, Language, Information and ComputationWe investigate quantified interpreted systems, a computationally grounded semantics for a first-order temporal epistemic logic on linear time. We report a completeness result for the monodic fragment of a language that includes LTL modalities as well as ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2021
186 pages
Copyright © 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 01 April 2021
Revised: 01 January 2021
Received: 01 April 2020
Published in TOCL Volume 22, Issue 3
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Refereed
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 77Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)12
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Naumov PTao J(2023)Counterfactual and seeing-to-it responsibilities in strategic gamesAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic10.1016/j.apal.2023.103353174:10(103353)Online publication date: Dec-2023
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.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format