Search

This paper demonstrates the undecidability of a number of logics with quantification over public announcements: arbitrary public announcement logic (APAL), group announcement logic (GAL), and coalition announcement logic (CAL). In APAL we consider the informative consequences of any announcement, in GAL we consider the informative consequences of a group of agents (this group may be a proper subset of the set of all agents) all of which are simultaneously (and publicly) making known announcements. So this is more restrictive than APAL. Finally, CAL is as GAL except that we now quantify over anything the agents not in that group may announce simultaneously as well. The logic CAL therefore has some features of game logic and of ATL. We show that when there are multiple agents in the language, the satisfiability problem is undecidable for APAL, GAL, and CAL. In the single agent case, the satisfiability problem is decidable for all three logics. This paper corrects an error to the submitted version of Undecidability of Quantified Announcements, identified by Yuta Asami . The nature of the error was in the definition of the formula $cga(X)$ (see Subsection 5.2) which is corrected in this version., Comment: This paper contains a correction to the 2016 article, The Undecidablity of Quantified Announcements, published in Studia Logica

Dynamic epistemic logics consider formal representations of agents' knowledge, and how the knowledge of agents changes in response to informative events, such as public announcements. Quantifying over informative events allows us to ask whether it is possible to achieve some state of knowledge, and has important applications in synthesising secure communication protocols. However, quantifying over quite simple informative events, public announcements, is not computable: such an arbitrary public announcement logic, APAL, has an undecidable satisfiability problem. Here we consider even simpler informative events called Boolean announcements, where announcements are restricted to be a Boolean combination of atomic propositions. The logic is called Boolean arbitrary public announcement logic, BAPAL. A companion paper provides a complete finitary axiomatization, and related expressivity results, for BAPAL. In this work the satisfiability problem for BAPAL is shown to decidable, and also that BAPAL does not have the finite model property.

Description logics are a powerful tool for describing ontological knowledge bases. That is, they give a factual account of the world in terms of individuals, concepts and relations. In the presence of uncertainty, such factual accounts are not feasible, and a subjective or epistemic approach is required. Aleatoric description logic models uncertainty in the world as aleatoric events, by the roll of the dice, where an agent has subjective beliefs about the bias of these dice. This provides a subjective Bayesian description logic, where propositions and relations are assigned probabilities according to what a rational agent would bet, given a configuration of possible individuals and dice. Aleatoric description logic is shown to generalise the description logic ALC, and can be seen to describe a probability space of interpretations of a restriction of ALC where all roles are functions. Several computational problems are considered and model-checking and consistency checking algorithms are presented. Finally, aleatoric description logic is shown to be able to model learning, where agents are able to condition their beliefs on the bias of dice according to observations., Comment: Short version submitted to DL2021

Quantification over public announcements shifts the perspective from reasoning strictly about the results of a particular announcement to reasoning about the existence of an announcement that achieves some certain epistemic goal. Depending on the type of the quantification, we get different formalisms, the most known of which are arbitrary public announcement logic (APAL), group announcement logic (GAL), and coalition announcement logic (CAL). It has been an open question whether the logics have the finite model property, and in the paper we answer the question negatively. We also discuss how this result is connected to other open questions in the field., Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2021, arXiv:2106.10886

We consider multi-agent systems where agents actions and beliefs are determined aleatorically, or "by the throw of dice". This system consists of possible worlds that assign distributions to independent random variables, and agents who assign probabilities to these possible worlds. We present a novel syntax and semantics for such system, and show that they generalise Modal Logic. We also give a sound and complete calculus for reasoning in the base semantics, and a sound calculus for the full modal semantics, that we conjecture to be complete. Finally we discuss some application to reasoning about game playing agents., Comment: Long version of paper accepted to appear at the 2019 Indian Conference on Logic and Applictaions

Arbitrary public announcement logic (APAL) reasons about how the knowledge of a set of agents changes after true public announcements and after arbitrary announcements of true epistemic formulas. We consider a variant of arbitrary public announcement logic called positive arbitrary public announcement logic (APAL+), which restricts arbitrary public announcements to announcement of positive formulas. Positive formulas prohibit statements about the ignorance of agents. The positive formulas correspond to the universal fragment in first-order logic. As two successive announcements of positive formulas need not correspond to the announcement of a positive formula, APAL+ is rather different from APAL. We show that APAL+ is more expressive than public announcement logic PAL, and that APAL+ is incomparable with APAL. We also provide a sound and complete infinitary axiomatisation.

Various extensions of public announcement logic have been proposed with quantification over announcements. The best-known extension is called arbitrary public announcement logic, APAL. It contains a primitive language construct Box phi intuitively expressing that "after every public announcement of a formula, formula phi is true". The logic APAL is undecidable and it has an infinitary axiomatization. Now consider restricting the APAL quantification to public announcements of Boolean formulas only, such that Box phi intuitively expresses that "after every public announcement of a Boolean formula, formula phi is true". This logic can therefore called Boolean arbitrary public announcement logic, BAPAL. The logic BAPAL is the subject of this work. Unlike APAL it has a finitary axiomatization. Also, BAPAL is not at least as expressive as APAL. A further claim that BAPAL is decidable is deferred to a companion paper.

Automata expressiveness is an essential feature in understanding which of the formalisms available should be chosen for modelling a particular problem. Probabilistic and stochastic automata are suitable for modelling systems exhibiting probabilistic behavior and their expressiveness has been studied relative to non-probabilistic transition systems and Markov chains. In this paper, we consider previous formalisms of Timed, Probabilistic and Stochastic Timed Automata, we present our new model of Timed Automata with Polynomial Delay, we introduce a measure of expressiveness for automata we call trace expressiveness and we characterize the expressiveness of these models relative to each other under this new measure., Comment: possibly incorrect, or unsubstantiated results and claims

We consider previous models of Timed, Probabilistic and Stochastic Timed Automata, we introduce our model of Timed Automata with Polynomial Delay and we characterize the expressiveness of these models relative to each other., Comment: possibly incorrect, or unsubstantiated results and claims

The paper presents a novel algorithm for computing best and worst case execution times (BCET/WCET) of timed automata models with cyclic behaviour. The algorithms can work on any arbitrary diagonal-free TA and can handle more cases than previously existing algorithms for BCET/WCET computations, as it can handle cycles in TA and decide whether they lead to an infinite WCET. We show soundness of the proposed algorithm and study its complexity. To our knowledge, this is the first model checking algorithm that addresses comprehensively the BCET/WCET problem of systems with cyclic behaviour. Behrmann et al. provide an algorithm for computing the minimum cost/time of reaching a goal state in priced timed automata (PTA). The algorithm has been implemented in the well-known model checking tool UPPAAL to compute the minimum time for termination of an automaton. However, we show that in certain circumstances, when infinite cycles exist, the algorithm implemented in UPPAAL may not terminate, and we provide examples which UPPAAL fails to verify.

Action models are semantic structures similar to Kripke models that represent a change in knowledge in an epistemic setting. Whereas the language of action model logic embeds the semantic structure of an action model directly within the language, this paper introduces a language that represents action models using syntactic operators inspired by relational actions. This language admits an intuitive description of the action models it represents, and we show in several settings that it is sufficient to represent any action model up to a given modal depth and to represent the results of action model synthesis, and give a sound and complete axiomatisation in some of these settings., Comment: Extended version of a paper to appear in the 10th International Conference on Advances in Modal Logic (AiML)

We compare different epistemic notions in the presence of awareness of propositional variables: the logics of implicit knowledge (in which explicit knowledge is definable), explicit knowledge, and speculative knowledge. Different notions of bisimulation are suitable for these logics. We provide correspondence between bisimulation and modal equivalence on image-finite models for these logics. The logic of speculative knowledge is equally expressive as the logic of explicit knowledge, and the logic of implicit knowledge is more expressive than both. We also provide axiomatizations for the three logics -- only the one for speculative knowledge is novel. Then we move to the study of dynamics by recalling action models incorporating awareness. We show that any conceivable change of knowledge or awareness can be modelled in this setting, we give a complete axiomatization for the dynamic logic of implicit knowledge. The dynamic versions of all three logics are, surprising, equally expressive., Comment: 10 pages, Contributed talk at TARK 2013 (arXiv:1310.6382) http://www.tark.org

This paper proposes a new logic RoCTL* to model robustness in concurrent systems. RoCTL* extends CTL* with the addition of Obligatory and Robustly operators, which quantify over failure-free paths and paths with one more failure respectively. We present a number of examples of problems to which RoCTL* can be applied. The core result of this paper is to show that RoCTL* is expressively equivalent to CTL* but is non-elementarily more succinct. We present a translation from RoCTL* into CTL* that preserves truth but may result in non-elementary growth in the length of the translated formula as each nested Robustly operator may result in an extra exponential blowup. However, we show that this translation is optimal in the sense that any equivalence preserving translation will require an extra exponential growth per nested Robustly. We also compare RoCTL* to Quantified CTL* (QCTL*) and hybrid logics.

In this paper we present {\em refinement modal logic}. A refinement is like a bisimulation, except that from the three relational requirements only `atoms' and `back' need to be satisfied. Our logic contains a new operator 'all' in addition to the standard modalities 'box' for each agent. The operator 'all' acts as a quantifier over the set of all refinements of a given model. As a variation on a bisimulation quantifier, this refinement operator or refinement quantifier 'all' can be seen as quantifying over a variable not occurring in the formula bound by it. The logic combines the simplicity of multi-agent modal logic with some powers of monadic second-order quantification. We present a sound and complete axiomatization of multi-agent refinement modal logic. We also present an extension of the logic to the modal mu-calculus, and an axiomatization for the single-agent version of this logic. Examples and applications are also discussed: to software verification and design (the set of agents can also be seen as a set of actions), and to dynamic epistemic logic. We further give detailed results on the complexity of satisfiability, and on succinctness.