Skip to main content

Introspective Forgetting

  • Conference paper
AI 2008: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5360))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We model the forgetting of propositional variables in a modal logical context where agents become ignorant and are aware of each others’ or their own resulting ignorance. The resulting logic is sound and complete. It can be compared to variable-forgetting as abstraction from information, wherein agents become unaware of certain variables: by employing elementary results for bisimulation, it follows that beliefs not involving the forgotten atom(s) remain true.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lin, F., Reiter, R.: Forget it! In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, New Orleans (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 18, 391–443 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baral, C., Zhang, Y.: Knowledge updates: semantics and complexity issues. Artificial Intelligence 164(1-2), 209–243 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y.: Knowledge forgetting: Properties and applications. Work in progress under submission (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, K., Sattar, A., Su, K.: A theory of forgetting in logic programming. In: AAAI, pp. 682–688 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang, Y., Foo, N., Wang, K.: Solving logic program conflict through strong and weak forgettings. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 627–634 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eiter, T., Wang, K.: Forgetting and conflict resolving in disjunctive logic programming. In: Proceedings of AAAI (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao, Y., Wang, K., Topor, R., Pan, J., Giunchiglia, F.: Semantic cooperation and knowledge reuse by using autonomous ontologies. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 666–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Erdem, E., Ferraris, P.: Forgetting actions in domain descriptions. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 409–414. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Herzig, A., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Action representation and partially observable planning using epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Ditmarsch, H.: Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese (Knowledge, Rationality & Action) 147, 229–275 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In: Proceedings of LOFT 2006 (7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aucher, G.: Perspectives on belief and change. PhD thesis, University of Otago & Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, New Zealand & France (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yap, A.: Product update and looking backward. Technical report, University of Amsterdam (2006); ILLC Research Report PP-2006-39

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sack, Y.: Adding Temporal Logic to Dynamic Epistemic Logic. PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. van Ditmarsch, H., Kooi, B.: Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change. In: Bonanno, G., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Post-proceedings of LOFT 2006, Amsterdam University Press (2008) (to appear in the series Texts in Logic and Games)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. Foundations of Computing Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In: Gilboa, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 1998), pp. 43–56 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Visser, A.: Bisimulations, model descriptions and propositional quantifiers, Logic Group Preprint Series 161, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  22. French, T.: Bisimulation quantifiers for modal logic. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. van Ditmarsch, H., French, T.: Simulation and information. In: (Electronic) Proceedings of LOFT 2008, Amsterdam (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramanujam, R., Lodaya, K.: Proving Fairness of Schedulers. In: Parikh, R. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1985. LNCS, vol. 193, pp. 284–301. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Pacuit, E.: Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL. In: Samet, D. (ed.) Proceedings of TARK 2007, pp. 72–81 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pacuit, E.: Some comments on history-based structures. Journal of Applied Logic (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. van Ditmarsch, H., Ruan, J., van der Hoek, W.: Model checking dynamic epistemics in branching time. In: (Informal) Proceedings of FAMAS 2007, Durham, UK (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Lang, J., Marquis, P. (2008). Introspective Forgetting. In: Wobcke, W., Zhang, M. (eds) AI 2008: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5360. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89378-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89378-3_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-89377-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-89378-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics