Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rule-Based Reasoners in Epistemic Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover At the Intersection of Language, Logic, and Information (ESSLLI 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11667))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we offer a balanced response to the problem of logical omniscience, whereby agents are modeled as non-omniscient yet still logically competent reasoners. To achieve this, we account for the deductive steps that form the epistemic state of an agent. In particular, we introduce operators for applications of inference rules and design a possible-worlds model which is (a) equipped with a syntactic valuation, determining the agent’s (explicit) knowledge, and (b) suitably structured by rule-induced transitions between worlds. As a result, we obtain a detailed analysis of the agent’s reasoning processes. We then offer validities that exemplify how the problem of logical omniscience is avoided and compare our response to others in the literature. A sound and complete axiomatization is also provided. We finally show how simple extensions of this setting make it compatible with tools from Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) and open to the incorporation of empirical findings on human reasoning.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In [18] an impossible-worlds semantics is presented, but again reasoning is captured via modalities standing for a number of steps; this raises concerns analogous to the ones discussed before.

  2. 2.

    A notable exception where awareness is affected by reasoning is given in [23]; in what follows, we design a rule-based approach but without appealing to a notion of awareness.

  3. 3.

    We emphasize that \(R_i\) denotes a single rule instance. The rule, which is in fact a pair, composed of the set of premises and the conclusion, is given in terms of the notation \(\leadsto \) for readability and convenience.

  4. 4.

    Recall that \(V_2: W \rightarrow \mathcal {P}(\mathcal {L})\) and that \(\mathcal {L} := \mathcal {L}_P \cup \mathcal {L}_\mathcal {R}\). Moreover, it should be clear that the world u whose existence is guaranteed by condition 1, is such that it contains the conclusion of \(R_i\), by condition 2, and the rule \(R_i\) is necessarily sound due to condition 3.

  5. 5.

    We use DNE, MP, and CI to label particular instances of Double Negation Elimination, Modus Ponens, and Conjunction Introduction – the ones indicated in parentheses. This labeling only serves the readability of the formulas.

  6. 6.

    We note that the frameworks described in [1,2,3] that extend the idea of state-transitions to multi-agent settings are particularly interesting for the development of multi-agent variants of our framework too.

  7. 7.

    More on why this is a worthwhile task can be found in [6].

  8. 8.

    As usual in DEL [5, 10], we can add action operators to our language and capture their effect via model transformations triggered by the action. A formula with dynamic operators, of the form \([\alpha ] \phi \), is evaluated by examining what the truth value of \(\phi \) is at a transformed model, obtained via action \(\alpha \).

  9. 9.

    In fact, this idea can be also pursued along the lines of DEL. The reasoning capacity c of the agent, as an additional component of our models, can be updated (i.e. reduced) following each rule application.

References

  1. Ågotnes, T., Alechina, N.: The dynamics of syntactic knowledge. J. Logic Comput. 17(1), 83–116 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Ågotnes, T., Walicki, M.: A logic of reasoning, communication and cooperation with syntactic knowledge. In: AAMAS (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alechina, N., Jago, M., Logan, B.: Modal logics for communicating rule-based agents. In: ECAI (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alechina, N., Logan, B.: A logic of situated resource-bounded agents. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 18, 79–95 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Baltag, A., Renne, B.: Dynamic epistemic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. van Benthem, J.: Logic and reasoning: do the facts matter? Stud. Logica: Int. J. Symbolic Logic 88(1), 67–84 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. van Benthem, J.: Tell it like it is: information flow in logic. J. Peking Univ. (Humanit. Soc. Sci. Edn.) 1, 80–90 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, New York (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Cherniak, C.: Minimal Rationality. Bradford book, MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. van Ditmarsch, H.P., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.P.: Dynamic epistemic logic and knowledge puzzles. In: Priss, U., Polovina, S., Hill, R. (eds.) ICCS-ConceptStruct 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4604, pp. 45–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73681-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Duc, H.N.: Reasoning about rational, but not logically omniscient, agents. J. Logic Comput. 7(5), 633 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artif. Intell. 34(1), 39–76 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y.Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Jago, M.: Epistemic logic for rule-based agents. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 18(1), 131–158 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M., Schaeken, W.: Propositional reasoning by model. Psychol. Rev. 99(3), 418–439 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Konolige, K.: A Deduction Model of Belief. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Rasmussen, M.S.: Dynamic epistemic logic and logical omniscience. Logic Logical Philos. 24, 377–399 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rasmussen, M.S., Bjerring, J.C.: A dynamic solution to the problem of logical omniscience. J. Philos. Logic 48(3), 501–521 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Rijmen, F., De Boeck, P.: Propositional reasoning: the differential contribution of “rules” to the difficulty of complex reasoning problems. Mem. Cogn. 29(1), 165–175 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rips, L.J.: The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F.: Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav. Brain Sci. 23(5), 645–665 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stenning, K., van Lambalgen, M.: Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. MIT Press, Boston (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: Small steps in dynamics of information. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhai, F., Szymanik, J., Titov, I.: Toward probabilistic natural logic for syllogistic reasoning (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research, under the “PhDs in the Humanities” scheme (project number 322-20-018). The author also thanks the audience of the student session of ESSLLI 2018 and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Anthia Solaki

Authors
  1. Anthia Solaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthia Solaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Jennifer Sikos

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Eric Pacuit

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Solaki, A. (2019). Rule-Based Reasoners in Epistemic Logic. In: Sikos, J., Pacuit, E. (eds) At the Intersection of Language, Logic, and Information. ESSLLI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11667. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59620-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59620-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-59619-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-59620-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation