Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic

Engelfriet, Joeri

doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040046088

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…' , def for all TELC models M : M j= ' , M j= : TD stands for`temporal diamond' formulae. The following was also proved by Engelfriet (1996a).…”

Section: Respecting Monotonicitymentioning

confidence: 59%

Monotonicity and Persistence in Preferential Logics

Engelfriet¹

1998

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important characteristic of many logics for Arti cial Intelligence is their nonmonotonicity. This means that adding a formula to the premises can invalidate some of the consequences. There may, however, exist formulae that can always be safely added to the premises without destroying any of the consequences: we say they respect monotonicity. Also, there may be formulae that, when they are a consequence, can not be invalidated when adding any formula to the premises: we call them conservative. We study these two classes of formulae for preferential logics, and show that they are closely linked to the formulae whose truth-value is preserved along the (preferential) ordering. We will consider some preferential logics for illustration, and prove syntactic characterization results for them. The results in this paper may improve the e ciency of theorem provers for preferential logics.De nition 2 (Persistence) Given a preferential logic (L; Mod; j=; ), a formula 2 L is called downward persistent in this logic, if 8m; n 2 Mod : (m j= and n m) ) n j= ; and it is called upward persistent if 8m; n 2 Mod : (n j= and n m) ) m j= :

show abstract

“…' , def for all TELC models M : M j= ' , M j= : TD stands for`temporal diamond' formulae. The following was also proved by Engelfriet (1996a).…”

Section: Respecting Monotonicitymentioning

confidence: 59%

Monotonicity and Persistence in Preferential Logics

Engelfriet¹

1998

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For more details of TEL, see [10], [11]. For temporal epistemic logic different entailment relations can be used, both classical and nonclassical; see e.g., [9], [12].…”

Section: Cis( )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the following sections, Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic (TMEL) is introduced and shown to be a suitable logic; this logic is a generalization of the Temporal Epistemic Logic TEL introduced in [10], [11]; see also [9], [12]. The generalization is made by adding multiple epistemic operators according to the hierarchical compositional structure of the system to be verified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Analysis of Pro-Activeness and Reactiveness

Jonker

Treur

2002

Int. J. Coop. Info. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compositional verification aims at managing the complexity of the verification process by exploiting compositionality of the system architecture. In this paper we explore the use of a temporal epistemic logic to formalize the process of verification of compositional multi-agent systems. The specification of a system, its properties and their proofs are of a compositional nature, and are formalized within a compositional temporal logic: Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic. It is shown that compositional proofs are valid under certain conditions. Finally, the possibility of incorporating default persistence of information in a system, is explored.

show abstract

“…Such a logic, initially proposed for modeling knowledge and ignorance of processes in a distributed computer system, constitutes the basis of several nonmonotonic modal formalisms proposed in the literature [15,17,6,23].…”

Section: Ground Logicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, from the first part of this proof -by contraposition -if ϕ ∈ L\T then ϕ ∈ T I (Φ, Ψ), and since T I (Φ, Ψ) is stable (Point 1. in the previous Proposition 4. 6…”

Section: Then the Partition (φ ψ) Is Introspection-consistent With Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground Nonmonotonic Modal Logics

Donini

Nardi

Rosati

1997

J Logic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we address ground logics, a family of nonmonotonic modal logics, and their usage in knowledge representation. In such a setting non-modal sentences are used to represent the knowledge of an agent about the world, while an epistemic operator provides the agent with autoepistemic or introspective knowledge. Ground logics are based on the idea of characterizing the knowledge of the agent by allowing it to make nonmonotonic assumptions only with respect to the knowledge about the world, i.e. expressed by nonmodal formulae. They are characterized by a fix-point equation which determines the set of formulae derivable from the agent's initial knowledge and which can be applied to different normal modal systems to obtain a variety of nonmonotonic modal logics. In the paper we address the semantical, computational and epistemological properties of ground logics. We provide a semantic characterization of ground logics by defining a preference relation on possible-world models based on the minimization of the knowledge expressed by nonmodal formulae. We analyze the computational complexity of reasoning in ground logics, providing both a lower bound through a reduction from quantified boolean formulae and an upper bound through an algorithm for computing logical entailment. We discuss the representational features of ground logics, in particular defaults, and provide a thorough comparison with McDermott and Doyle's logics.

show abstract

Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

Monotonicity and Persistence in Preferential Logics

Monotonicity and Persistence in Preferential Logics

Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Analysis of Pro-Activeness and Reactiveness

Ground Nonmonotonic Modal Logics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About