A general multi-agent epistemic planner based on higher-order belief change

Wan, Hai; Fang, Biqing; Liu, Yongmei

doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103562

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the original version of mA * , it does not support false beliefs about observations and thus can only model first-order false-belief tasks. Wan, Fang, and Liu (2021) propose another epistemic planning formalism based on KD45 update and revision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Epistemic-Doxastic Planning with Observation and Revision

Engesser,

Herzig,

Perrotin

2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epistemic planning is useful in situations where multiple agents have different knowledge and beliefs about the world, such as in robot-human interaction. One aspect that has been largely neglected in the literature is planning with observations in the presence of false beliefs. This is a particularly challenging problem because it requires belief revision. We introduce a simple specification language for reasoning about actions with knowledge and belief. We demonstrate our approach on well-known false-belief tasks such as the Sally-Anne Task and compare it to other action languages. Our logic leads to an epistemic planning formalism that is expressive enough to model second-order false-belief tasks, yet has the same computational complexity as classical planning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Epistemic-Doxastic Planning with Observation and Revision

Engesser,

Herzig,

Perrotin

2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wan et al [24] proposed a fragment of ACDFs called proper ACDFs. Intuitively, proper ACDFs only allow negation and disjunction for propositional formulas, i.e., they disallow negative or disjunctive beliefs.…”

Section: Definition 11 (Acdf) We Call An Alternating Cdf An Alternati...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, they were not able to give semantic characterizations for their syntactic operators. Recently, Wan et al [24] gave semantic characterizations for Huang et al 's syntactic operators for proper ACDFs, a fragment of ACDFs disallowing negative or disjunctive beliefs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Revision in Multi-Agent Belief Logic and Its Syntactic Characterizations

Liang,

Liu

2023

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Belief change studies how an agent modifies her beliefs on receiving new information. However, so far most research on belief change works on beliefs represented in propositional logic. There have been many works on integrating belief revision with reasoning about actions, and some works extending belief change from propositional logic to epistemic logics. In this paper, we study revision on beliefs of a third person represented with the multi-agent KD45 logic. Our formal technique is analogous to that of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic: to revise a KB by a formula, select from models of the formula those that are closest to models of the KB. To this end, a challenge is that in modal logics, a formula may have infinitely many Kripke models. To tackle this, we propose a variant of Moss’ canonical formulas called alternating canonical formulas, treat them as models for formulas, and define a notion of distance between them, based on the Hausdorff distance between two sets. We show that our revision satisfies all of the AGM postulates. To give syntactic characterizations of our revision, we make use of a normal form for KD45n called alternating cover disjunctive formulas (ACDFs). We give syntactic characterizations firstly on fragments of ACDFs called proper ACDFs and alternating cover conjunctive formulas (ACCFs), and finally on the whole ACDFs.

show abstract

“…The first is to use DEL. This line of research investigates the decidability and complexity of epistemic planning and studies what type of problems it can solve (Bolander, 2014;Bolander, Jensen, & Schwarzentruber, 2015;Bolander, 2017) The second is to extend existing planning languages and solvers to epistemic tasks (Muise, Belle, Felli, McIlraith, Miller, Pearce, & Sonenberg, 2015a;Muise, Miller, Felli, Pearce, & Sonenberg, 2015b;Kominis & Geffner, 2015, 2017Wan, Yang, Fang, Liu, & Xu, 2015;Huang, Fang, Wan, & Liu, 2017;Le, Fabiano, Son, & Pontelli, 2018;Wan, Fang, & Liu, 2021). In this paper, we take the latter direction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dominant approach in this area relies on compilations. These solutions pre-compile epistemic planning problems into classical planning problems, using off-the-shelf classical planners to find solutions (Muise et al, 2015a(Muise et al, , 2015bKominis & Geffner, 2015, 2017; or pre-compile the epistemic formulae into specific normal forms for better performance during search (Huang et al, 2017;Wan et al, 2021). Such approaches have been shown to be fast at planning, but the compilation is computationally expensive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning with Perspectives -- Decomposing Epistemic Planning using Functional STRIPS

Miller

Lipovetzky

2022

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present a novel approach to epistemic planning called planning with perspectives (PWP) that is both more expressive and computationally more efficient than existing state-of-the-art epistemic planning tools. Epistemic planning — planning with knowledge and belief — is essential in many multi-agent and human-agent interaction domains. Most state-of-the-art epistemic planners solve epistemic planning problems by either compiling to propositional classical planning (for example, generating all possible knowledge atoms or compiling epistemic formulae to normal forms); or explicitly encoding Kripke-based semantics. However, these methods become computationally infeasible as problem sizes grow. In this paper, we decompose epistemic planning by delegating reasoning about epistemic formulae to an external solver. We do this by modelling the problem using Functional STRIPS, which is more expressive than standard STRIPS and supports the use of external, black-box functions within action models. Building on recent work that demonstrates the relationship between what an agent ‘sees’ and what it knows, we define the perspective of each agent using an external function, and build a solver for epistemic logic around this. Modellers can customise the perspective function of agents, allowing new epistemic logics to be defined without changing the planner. We ran evaluations on well-known epistemic planning benchmarks to compare an existing state-of-the-art planner, and on new scenarios that demonstrate the expressiveness of the PWP approach. The results show that our PWP planner scales significantly better than the state-of-the-art planner that we compared against, and can express problems more succinctly.

show abstract

A general multi-agent epistemic planner based on higher-order belief change

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Towards Epistemic-Doxastic Planning with Observation and Revision

Towards Epistemic-Doxastic Planning with Observation and Revision

A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Revision in Multi-Agent Belief Logic and Its Syntactic Characterizations

Planning with Perspectives -- Decomposing Epistemic Planning using Functional STRIPS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About