Logic in the Community

Seligman, Jeremy; Liu, Fenrong; Girard, Patrick

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_15

Cited by 60 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roelofsen [11] proposes a more general logic by introducing the notion of communication channels among groups G 1 and G 2 , and message actions by which group G 1 sends a message φ to group G 2 . Seligman et al [13] propose a Facebook Logic that has an explicit social network as part of a possible world and where the social relations are assumed to be symmetric. All of these frameworks use a dynamic epistemic semantics based on [3] or [4].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a dynamic epistemic semantics, our work is in line with [12,11,13]. Different from [12,11], our communication channels are explicitly represented in social networks, and we link individual agents rather than groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different from [12,11], our communication channels are explicitly represented in social networks, and we link individual agents rather than groups. Different from [13], our social network does not need to be symmetric and is not part of a possible world; in addition, we have actions that changes network structures. Our work shares with [10] the assumption that the social network relations are commonly known by the agents.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This assumption might be too strong for reallife social networks in which the social relationships between agents are quite complex and highly context-dependent. However, we can generalise our approach in a similar style as [13] by making a social network as part of a possible world.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Logic for Knowledge Flow in Social Networks

Ruan

Thielscher

2011

AI 2011: Advances in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we develop a formal framework for analysing the flow of information and knowledge through social networks. Specifically, we propose a multi-agent epistemic logic in which we can represent and reason about communicative actions based on social networks and the resulting knowledge and ignorance of agents. We apply this logic to formally analyse the "Revolt or Stay-at-home" problem known from the literature, where social networks play an important role in agents' knowledge acquisition and decision-making. We evaluate our work by proving some mathematical properties of our new logic, including the fact that it generalises the existing Logic of Public Announcement.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Logic for Knowledge Flow in Social Networks

Ruan

Thielscher

2011

AI 2011: Advances in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(cf. also [71]). And it is common knowledge in the community of (dynamic) epistemic logicians that public announcements of (verifiable) elementary facts induce common knowledge within the addressed public (cf.…”

Section: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-aided decision-making with trust relations and trust domains (cryptographic applications)

Kramer

Goré

Okamoto

2012

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose generic declarative definitions of individual and collective trust relations between interacting agents and agent collections, and trust domains of trust-related agents in distributed systems. Our definitions yield (1) (in)compatibility, implicational, and transitivity results for trust relationships, including a Datalog-implementability result for their logical structure; (2) computational complexity results for deciding potential and actual trust relationships and membership in trust domains; (3) a positive (negative) compositionality result for strong (weak) trust domains; (4) a computational design pattern for building up strong trust domains; and (5) a negative scalability result for trust domains in general. We instantiate our generic trust concepts in five major cryptographic applications of trust, namely: Access Control, Trusted Third Parties, the Web of Trust, Public-Key Infrastructures, and Identity-Based Cryptography. We also show that accountability induces trust. Our defining principle for weak and strong trust (domains) is (common) belief in and (common) knowledge of agent correctness, respectively.

show abstract