Constrained Epistemic Extension on Agent Knowledge Acquisition

Abstract:

In multi-agent systems, a number of autonomous pieces of software (the agents) interact in order to execute complex tasks. This paper proposes a logic framework portrays agent’s communication protocols in the multi-agent systems and a dynamic negotiation model based on epistemic default logic was introduced in this framework. In this paper, we use the constrained default rules to investigate the extension of dynamic epistemic logic, and constrained epistemic extension construct an efficient negotiation strategy via constrained epistemic default reasoning, which guarantees the important natures of extension existence and semi-monotonicity. We also specify characteristic of the dynamic updating when agent learn new knowledge in the logical framework. The method for the information sharing signify the usefulness of logical tools carried out in the dynamic process of information acquisition, and the distributed intelligent information processing show the effectiveness of reasoning default logic in the dynamic epistemic logic theory.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 651)
• Pages: 943-948
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.651.943
• Online since: January 2013
• Authors: Zhi Ling Hong, Mei Hong Wu
• Keywords: Agent, Constrained Epistemic Extension, Epistemic Default Logic, Knowledge Acquisition

References

[1] R. Reiter, A Logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 13, pp.81-132, (1980).

DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

[2] Pollock, J. L., Gillies, A. S. Belief revision and epistemology. Synthese 122, pp.69-92. (2000).

[3] H. van Ditmarsch, W. v. d.H. a.B.K., Dynamic Epistemic Logic(Synthese Library). 2006: Springer Press.

[4] Johan van Benthem, J. v.E. a.B.K., Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, vol. 204(11), pp.1620-1662, (2006).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ic.2006.04.006

[5] Antoniou, G., On the dynamics of default reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, pp.1143-1155, (2002).

[6] W. Groeneveld, J.D.G. a., Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, vol. 6, pp.147-169. (1997).

[7] Benthem, J.V., Epistemic logic and epistemology: the state of their affairs. Philosophical Stduies, 128(5): pp.49-76. (2006).

DOI: 10.1007/s11098-005-4052-0

[8] Benferhat. S, S.A., Smets. P, Belief functions and default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 122, pp.1-69, (2000).

DOI: 10.1016/s0004-3702(00)00041-2

[9] P James, T.S., H Tompits, S Woltran, On Computing Solutions to Belief Change Scenarios. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.510-540, (2001).

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44652-4_45

[10] Kaile S. Constraints on extensions on a default theory. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol. 16: pp.329-340, (2001).

[11] Wu,M., Zhou C.L., et al. Reasoning on Constrained Epistemic Default Logic, Journal of Information and Computational Science, vol. 6(1), pp.49-55, (2009).

[12] P. Liberatore. Representability in default logic. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic, 13(3): 335-35, (2005).

[13] Liberatore, Paolo, On the complexity of extension checking in default logic, Information Processing Letters , 98(2): pp.61-65, (2006).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ipl.2005.12.005

[14] Wu,M., Zhou C.L., et al. Information update in the multi-agent system based on epistemic default logic, Journal of Information and Computational Science, vol. 6(1), pp.227-233, (2009).