Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:22:23.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logic programming for finding models in the logics of knowledge and its applications: A case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2010

C. BARAL ,
G. GELFOND ,
E. PONTELLI  and
T. SON
C. BARAL
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Arizona State University, AZ, USA
G. GELFOND
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Arizona State University, AZ, USA
E. PONTELLI
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, NM, USA
T. SON
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, NM, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The logics of knowledge are modal logics that have been shown to be effective in representing and reasoning about knowledge in multi-agent domains. Relatively few computational frameworks for dealing with computation of models and useful transformations in logics of knowledge (e.g., to support multi-agent planning with knowledge actions and degrees of visibility) have been proposed. This paper explores the use of logic programming (LP) to encode interesting forms of logics of knowledge and compute Kripke models. The LP modeling is expanded with useful operators on Kripke structures, to support multi-agent planning in the presence of both world-altering and knowledge actions. This results in the first ever implementation of a planner for this type of complex multi-agent domains.

Keywords

planningmulti-agentsmodal logics
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 10 , Special Issue 4-6: 26th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2010 , pp. 675 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Baltag, A. and Moss, L. 2004. Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139, 2, 165–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., Gelfond, G., Pontelli, E. and Son, T. C. 2010a. Planning with knowledge and world-altering actions in multiple agent domains. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Baral, C., Gelfond, G., Son, T. C. and Pontelli, E. 2010b. Using answer set programming to model multi-agent scenarios involving agents' knowledge about other's knowledge. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y. and Vardi, M. 1995. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fariñas del Cerro, L., Fauthoux, D., Gasquet, O., Herzig, A., Longin, D. and Massacci, F. 2001. Lotrec: The generic tableau prover for modal and description logics. International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, Springer Verlag, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. 1995. Reasoning about knowledge: A survey. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 4. Oxford University Press, 1–34.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. 1997. A theory of knowledge and ignorance for many agents. Journal of Logic and Computation 7, 1, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heljanko, K. and Niemelä, I. 2003. Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 4–5, 519–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, I. 1998. The FaCT system. International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytical Tableaux and Related Methods, Springer, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-year Perspective, Springer, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, T. C., Baral, C., Tran, N. and McIlraith, S. 2006. Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 4, 613–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J. and Kooi, B. P. 2006. Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204, 11, 1620–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W. and Kooi, B. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Springer Synthese Library.Google Scholar