Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactions between Knowledge, Action and Commitment within Agent Dynamic Logic

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers a new class of agent dynamic logics which provide a formal means of specifying and reasoning about the agents’ activities and informational, motivational and practical aspects of the behaviour of the agents. We present a Hilbert-style deductive system for a basic agent dynamic logic and consider a number of extensions of this logic with axiom schemata formalising interactions between knowledge and commitment (expressing an agent’ s awareness of her commitments), and interactions between knowledge and actions (expressing no learning and persistence of knowledge after actions). The deductive systems are proved sound and complete with respect to a Kripke-style semantics. Each of the considered logics is shown to have the small model property and therefore decidable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blackburn, P., M. De Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic vol. 53 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science Cambridge University Press, 2001.

  2. Chagrov, A., and M. Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic vol. 35 of Oxford Logic Guides Clarendon Press, 1997.

  3. Fagin, R., J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi, Reasoning about knowledge, MIT Press, 1995.

  4. Fischer, M. J., and R. E. Ladner, ‘Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 18(2):194–211, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gabbay, D. M., A. Kurucz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev, Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications, vol. 148 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, 2003.

  6. Gabbay, D. M., and V. Shehtman, ‘Products of modal logics, part 1’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6(1):73–146, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Halpern, J. Y., and Y. Moses, ‘A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief’, Artificial Intelligence, 54(2):319–379, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Halpern, J. Y., and M. Y. Vardi, ‘The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time. I. Lower bounds’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 38(1):195–237, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harel, D., D. Kozen, J. Tiuryn, Dynamic Logic, Foundations of Computing MIT Press, 2000.

  10. Herzig, A., J. Lang, D. Longin, T. Polacsek ‘A logic for planning under partial observability’ in Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00), pp. 768–773, AAAI Press/MIT Press, 2000.

  11. Herzig, A. D. Longin, ‘Belief dynamics in cooperative dialogues’ Journal of Semantics 17(2):91–118, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hustadt U., C. Dixon, R. A. Schmidt, M. Fisher, J.-J.C. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, ‘Reasoning about agents in the KARO framework’, in C. Bettini and A. Montanari, (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME’01) pp. 206–213, IEEE Computer Society, 2001.

  13. Hustadt, U., C. Dixon, R. A. Schmidt, M. Fisher, J.-J.C. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, ‘Verification within the KARO agent theory’ J. L. Rash, C. A. Rouff, W. Truszkowski, D. F. Gordon, M. G. Hinchey, (eds), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems (FAABS’2000), vol. 1871 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 33–47, Springer-Verlag, 2001.

  14. Kracht, M., ‘Highway to the danger zone’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(1):93–109. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kracht, M. Tools and Techniques in Modal Logic vol. 142 of Studies in Logic, Elsevier Science Publ. B. V., 1999.

  16. Meyer, J.-J.C., W. van der Hoek, B. van Linder, ‘A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments’, Artificial Intelligence 113(1–2):1–40, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Parikh, R. ‘Propositional dynamic logics of programs: a survey’, in E. Engeler, (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic of Programs, vol. 125 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp. 102–144, Springer-Verlag, 1979.

  18. Rao, A. S., ‘Decisionprocedures for propositional linear-time Belief-Desire-Intention logics’, in M. Wooldridge, J.P.Müller, and M. Tambe, (eds), Intelligent Agents II — Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, IJCAI’95 Workshop (ATAL-II), Proceedings, vol. 1037 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 33–48, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  19. Rao, A. S., and M. P. Georgieff, ‘Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture’, in R. E. Fikes and E. Sandewall, (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pp. 473–484, Morgan Kaufmann Publ., 1991.

  20. Sahlqvist, H., ‘Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logic’, in S. Kanger, (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 110–143, North-Holland, 1975.

  21. Schmidt, R. A., and D. Tishkovsky, ‘Multi-Agent Logics of Dynamic Belief and Knowledge’, in S. Greco, S. Flesca, N. Leone, and G. Ianni, (eds), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’02), vol. 2424 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38–49, Springer-Verlag, 2002.

  22. Schmidt, R. A., and D. Tishkovsky, ‘On Axiomatic Products of PDL and S5: Substitution, Tests and Knowledge’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 31(1):27–36, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schmidt, R. A., D. Tishkovsky, and U. Hustadt, Interaction between knowledge, action and commitment within agent dynamic logic, Preprint CSPP-27, University of Manchester, 2003.

  24. van der Hoek, W., ‘Logical foundations of agent-based computing’, in M. Luck, V. Marík, O. Stepánková, and R. Trappl, (eds), Multi-Agent Systems and Applications, vol. 2086 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 50–73, Springer-Verlag, 2001.

  25. van der Hoek, W., B. van Linder, and J.-J. C. Meyer, ‘On agents that have the ability to choose’, Studia Logica, 66(1):79–119, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  26. van Linder, B., W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. C. Meyer, ‘Formalizing abilities and opportunities of agents’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 34(1–2):53–101, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vardi, M. Y., ‘The taming of converse: Reasoning about two-way computations’, in R. Parikh,(ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic of Programs, vol. 193 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 413–424, Springer-Verlag, 1985.

  28. Wolter, F., ‘The product of converse PDL and polymodal K’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 10(2):223–251, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zakharyaschev, M., F. Wolter, and A. Chagrov, ‘Advanced modal logic’, in D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, (eds), Handbook of Philosophical logic, vol. 3, pp. 83–266, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2nd ed., 2001.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom

    Renate A. Schmidt

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom

    Dmitry Tishkovsky

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, United Kingdom

    Ullrich Hustadt

Authors
  1. Renate A. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dmitry Tishkovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ullrich Hustadt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renate A. Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, R.A., Tishkovsky, D. & Hustadt, U. Interactions between Knowledge, Action and Commitment within Agent Dynamic Logic. Stud Logica 78, 381–415 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-004-6042-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-004-6042-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation