Internal models and private multi-agent belief revision

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Internal models and private multi-agent belief revision

Full text

Pdf (731 KB)

Source

International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 2 table of contents

Estoril, Portugal

SESSION: Agent theories, models and architectures table of contents

Pages 721-727

Year of Publication: 2008

ISBN:978-0-9817381-1-6

Author

Guillaume Aucher

University of Otago IRIT, Toulouse cedex 9 (France)

Sponsors

AAAI : Association for the Advancement of Artifical Intelligence
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Richland, SC

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 5, Downloads (12 Months): 28, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

ABSTRACT

We generalize AGM belief revision theory to the multi-agent case. To do so, we first generalize the semantics of the single-agent case, based on the notion of interpretation, to the multi-agent case. Then we show that, thanks to the shape of our new semantics, all the results of the AGM framework transfer. Afterwards we investigate some postulates that are specific to our multi-agent setting.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log., 50(2):510--530, 1985.
	2	G. Aucher. A combined system for update logic and belief revision. In M. Barley and N. K. Kasabov, editors, PRIMA 2004, volume 3371 of LNCS, pages 1--17. Springer, 2004. Revised Selected Papers.
	3	P. Balbiani and A. Herzig. Talkin'bout Kripke models. In Hylo'07, Dublin, 2007.
	4	Alexandru Baltag , Sonja Smets, Conditional Doxastic Models: A Qualitative Approach to Dynamic Belief Revision, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), 165, p.5-21, November, 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.entcs.2006.05.034]
	5	Samir Chopra , Rohit Parikh, An Inconsistency Tolerant Model for Belief Representation and Belief Revision, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p.192-199, July 31-August 06, 1999
	6	P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux (Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States). Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.
	7	H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In KR, pages 387--394, 1991.
	8	Hirofumi Katsuno , Alberto O. Mendelzon, Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, v.52 n.3, p.263-294, Dec. 1991 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(91)90069-V]
	9	W. Lenzen. Recent Work in Epistemic Logic. Acta Philosophica 30. North Holland Publishing Company, 1978.
	10	J. van Benthem. "One is a Lonely Number": logic and communication. In Logic Colloquium'02. ASL & A. K. Peters, 2006.
	11	H. van Ditmarsch. Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese, 147:229--275, 2005.
	12	F. Voorbraak. As Far as I know. Epistemic Logic and Uncertainty. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 1993.