On the Definability of Simulability and Bisimilarity by Finite Epistemic Models
We explore when finite epistemic models are definable up to simulability or bisimulation, either over the basic multi-agent epistemic language \(\mathsf L\) or over its extension \(\mathsf L^C\) with common knowledge operators. Our negative results are that: simulability is not definable in general in \(\mathsf L^C\), and finite epistemic states (i.e., pointed models) are not definable up to bisimulation in \(\mathsf L\). Our positive results are that: finite epistemic states are definable up to bisimulation by model validity of \(\mathsf L\)-formulas, and there is a class of epistemic models we call well-multifounded for which simulability is definable over \(\mathsf L\). From our method it also follows that finite epistemic models (i.e., not-pointed models) are definable up to bisimulation using model validity in \(\mathsf L\). Our results may prove useful for the logical specification of multi-agent systems, as it provides justification for the ubiquitous but often unjustified claims of the form ‘suppose action a can only be performed in state s’: we show when such preconditions exist. An application are characteristic formulae for interpreted systems. They have a special form wherein factual knowledge, positive knowledge, and ignorance can be separated.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Browne, M., Clarke, E., Grümberg, O.: Characterizing Kripke structures in temporal logic. In: Ehrig, H., Levi, G., Montanari, U., Kowalski, R. (eds.) CAAP 1987 and TAPSOFT 1987. LNCS, vol. 249, pp. 256–270. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
- 6.Fernández-Duque, D.: On the modal definability of simulability by finite transitive models. In: Studia Logica (forthcoming, 2011)Google Scholar
- 7.Lomuscio, A.R., Ryan, M.D.: On the relation between interpreted systems and kripke models. In: Wobcke, W.R., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, C. (eds.) Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Formalisms, Methodologies, and Applications. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1441, pp. 46–59. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.van Benthem, J.: Dynamic odds and ends. ILLC Technical Report ML (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.van Benthem, J.: ‘One is a lonely number’: on the logic of communication. In: Chatzidakis, Z., Koepke, P., Pohlers, W. (eds.) Logic Colloquium 2002. Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 27. Association for Symbolic Logic (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.P.: Descriptions of game states. In: Mints, G., Muskens, R. (eds.) Logic, Games, and Constructive Sets. CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 161, pp. 43–58. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar