Search

We present an epistemic language for representing an artificial player's beliefs and actions in the context of the Yōkai board game. Yōkai is a cooperative game which requires a combination of Theory of Mind (ToM), temporal and spatial reasoning to be played effectively by an artificial agent. We show that the language properly accounts for these three dimensions and that its satisfiability problem is NP-complete. This opens up the possibility of exploiting SAT techniques for automating reasoning of an artificial player in the context of the Yōkai board-game. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considerable improvements in the technology and performance of SAT solvers has made their use possible for the resolution of various problems in artificial intelligence, and among them that of generating plans. Recently, promising Quantified Boolean Formula (QBF) solvers have been developed and we may expect that in a near future they become as efficient as SAT solvers. So, it is interesting to use QBF language that allows us to produce more compact encodings. We present in this article a translation from STRIPS planning problems into quantified propositional formulas. We introduce two new Compact Tree Encodings: CTE-EFA based on Explanatory frame axioms, and CTE-OPEN based on causal links. Then we compare both of them to CTE-NOOP based on Noop Actions proposed in [3]. In terms of execution time over benchmark problems, CTE-EFA and CTE-OPEN always performed better than CTE-NOOP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to provide a logical analysis of the concept of responsibility attribution; that is, how agents ascribe responsibility about the consequences of actions, either to themselves or to other agents. The article is divided in two parts. The first part investigates the importance of the concept of responsibility attribution for emotion theory in general and, in particular, for the theory of attribution emotions such as guilt, pride, moral approval and moral disapproval. The second part explores the collective dimension of responsibility attribution and attribution emotions, namely the concepts of collective responsibility and collective guilt. The proposed analysis is based on an extension of the logic STIT (the logic of ‘Seeing To It That’) with three different types of knowledge and common knowledge modal operators depending on the time of choice: before one’s choice, after one’s choice but before knowing the choices of other agents, and after the choices of all agents have become public. Decidability of the satisfiability problem of the logic is studied in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the recent years, several formal approaches to the specification of normative multi-agent systems (MASs) and artificial institutions have been proposed. The aim of this article is to advance the state of the art in this area by proposing an approach in which a normative MAS is conceived to be autonomous, in the sense that it is able to create, maintain and eventually change its own institutions by itself, without the intervention of an external designer in this process. In our approach the existence and the dynamics of an institution (norms, rules, institutional facts, etc.) are determined by the (individual and collective) acceptances of its members, and its dynamics depends on the dynamics of these acceptances. In order to meet this objective, we propose the logic ℒ (Acceptance Logic) in which the acceptance of a proposition by the agents qua members of an institution is introduced. Such propositions are true w.r.t. an institutional context and correspond to facts that are instituted in an attitude-dependent way. The second part of the article is devoted to the logical characterization of some important notions in the theory of institutions. We provide a formalization of the concept of constitutive rule, expressed by a statement of the form ‘X counts as Y in the context of institution x’. Then, we formalize the concepts of obligation and permission (so called regulative rules). In our approach, constitutive rules and regulative rules of a certain institution are attitude-dependent facts which are grounded on the acceptances of the members of the institution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article proposes a qualitative analysis of a dialogue between two children solving the Tower of Hanoi problem. We know that in some circumstances, two heads are better than one. The question is how interactional constraints are likely to provide cognitive benefits? To carry out such an analysis, we use Interlocutory Logic, which is a formal system constructed to express the logical and phenomenological properties of natural conversation. More particularly, we showed how this logical analysis of the interlocution can formalise the socio-cognitive conflict that appears to be an essential ''ingredient'' of cognitive development from the socio-constructivist perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate how belief change in cooperative dialogues can be handled within a modal logic of action, belief, and intention. We first review the main approaches of the literature, and point out some of their shortcomings. We then propose a new framework for belief change. Our basic notion is that of a contextual topic: we suppose that we can associate a set of topics with every agent, speech act, and formula. This allows us to talk about an agent's competence, belief adoption, and belief preservation. Based on these principles we analyse the agents' belief states after a speech act. We illustrate our theory by a running example. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]