Dynamic epistemic logic deals with the representation of situations in a multi-agent and dynamic setting. It allows to express in a uniform way statements about: 1. what is true about an initial situation 2. what is true about an event occurring in this situation 3. what is true about the resulting situation after the event has occurred. We axiomatize in this framework what we can infer about (3) given (1) and (2), introducing thereby new techniques to prove completeness. We also show that this axiomatization is decidable. Besides being useful for reasoning about actions, it provides a natural characterization of the product update of dynamic epistemic logic.

Since argumentation is an inherently dynamic process, it is of great importance to understand the effect of incorporating new information into given argumentation frameworks. In this work, we address this issue by analyzing equivalence between argumentation frameworks under the assumption that the frameworks in question are incomplete, i.e. further information might be added later to both frameworks simultaneously. In other words, instead of the standard notion of equivalence (which holds between two frameworks, if they possess the same extensions), we require here that frameworks F and G are also equivalent when conjoined with any further framework H. Due to the nonmonotonicity of argumentation semantics, this concept is different to (but obviously implies) the standard notion of equivalence. We thus call our new notion strong equivalence and study how strong equivalence can be decided with respect to the most important semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We also consider variants of strong equivalence in which we define equivalence with respect to the sets of arguments credulously (or skeptically) accepted, and restrict strong equivalence to augmentations H where no new arguments are raised.

Abstract argumentation frameworks have received a lot of interest in recent years. Most computational problems in this area are intractable but several tractable fragments have been identified. In particular, Dunne showed that many problems can be solved in linear time for argumentation frameworks of bounded tree-width. However, these tractability results, which were obtained via Courcelle’s Theorem, do not directly lead to efficient algorithms. The goal of this paper is to turn the theoretical tractability results into efficient algorithms and to explore the potential of directed notions of tree-width for defining larger tractable fragments.

In this paper we introduce dialectical frameworks, a powerful generalization of Dung-style argumentation frameworks where each node comes with an associated acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies, e.g. support and attack, as well as different types of nodes within a single framework. We show that Dung's standard semantics can be generalized to dialectical frameworks, in case of stable and preferred semantics to a slightly restricted class which we call bipolar frameworks. We show how acceptance conditions can be conveniently represented using weights respectively priorities on the links and demonstrate how some of the legal proof standards can be modeled based on this idea.

This is a case-study in knowledge representation. We analyze the 'one hundred prisoners and a lightbulb' puzzle. In this puzzle it is relevant what the agents (prisoners) know, how their knowledge changes due to observations, and how they affect the state of the world by changing facts, i.e., by their actions. These actions depend on the history of previous actions and observations. Part of its interest is that all actions are local, i.e. not publicly observable, and part of the problem is therefore how to disseminate local results to other agents, and make them global. The various solutions to the puzzle are presented as protocols (iterated functions from agent's local states, and histories of actions, to actions). The computational aspect is about average runtime termination under conditions of random ('fair') scheduling. The paper consists of three parts. First, we present different versions of the puzzle, and their solution. This includes a probabilistic version, and a version assuming synchronicity (the interval between prisoners' interrogations is known). The latter is very informative for the prisoners, and allows different protocols (with faster expected termination). Then, we model the puzzle in an epistemic logic incorporating dynamic operators for the effects of information changing events. Such events include both informative actions, where agents become more informed about the non-changing state of the world, and factual changes, wherein the world and the facts describing it change themselves as well. Finally, we give the expected termination results of several protocols when assuming random scheduling. This paper integrates the literature and presents novel contributions. Novel are: Firstly, Protocol 2 and Protocol 4. Secondly, the modelling in dynamic epistemic logic in its entirety - we do not know of a case study that combines factual and informational dynamics in a setting of non-public events, or of a similar proposal to handle asynchronous behaviour in a dynamic epistemic logic. Thirdly, our computational results on Protocol 2 and results from the manuscript from author Wu.

Existing action calculi provide rich, declarative formalisms for reasoning about actions. BDI-based programming languages like AgentSpeak, on the other hand, are procedural and geared towards practical applications of cognitive agents. In this paper, we close the gap between these two lines of research by integrating action calculi and AgentSpeak programs. Specifically, we develop a new and purely declarative semantics for AgentSpeak, which paves the way for combining this language with any suitable action calculus in a strictly modular fashion. As the main technical result, we prove that the new declarative semantics is correct wrt. the standard operational semantics for AgentSpeak. This provides the basis for a modular integration of a BDI-based agent programming language with sophisticated methods for reasoning about actions.

We show that linear logic can serve as an expressive framework in which to model a rich variety of combinatorial auction mechanisms. Due to its resource-sensitive nature, linear logic can easily represent bids in combinatorial auctions in which goods may be sold in multiple units, and we show how it naturally generalises several bidding languages familiar from the literature. Moreover, the winner determination problem, i.e., the problem of computing an allocation of goods to bidders producing a certain amount of revenue for the auctioneer, can be modelled as the problem of finding a proof for a particular linear logic sequent.

We present a distributed algorithm for computing equilibria of heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems (MCS). The algorithm can be parametrized to compute only partial equilibria, which can be used for reasoning tasks like query answering or satisfiability checking that need only partial information and not whole belief states. Furthermore, caching is employed to cut redundant solver calls. As a showcase, we instantiate the MCS framework with answer set program contexts. To characterize equilibria of such MCS, we develop notions of loop formulas that enable reductions to the classical satisfiability problem (SAT). Notably, loop formulas for bridge rules between contexts and for the local contexts can be combined to a uniform encoding of an MCS into a (distributed) SAT instance. As a consequence, we can use SAT solvers for belief set building. We demonstrate this approach by an experimental prototype implementation, which uses an off-the-shelf SAT solver.

Abduction is a fundamental and important form of non-monotonic reasoning. Given a knowledge base explaining how the world behaves it aims at finding an explanation for some observed manifestation. In this paper we focus on propositional abduction, where the knowledge base and the manifestation are represented by propositional formulae. The problem of deciding whether there exists an explanation has been shown to be Σ p 2 -complete in general. We consider variants obtained by restricting the allowed connectives in the formulae to certain sets of Boolean functions. We give a complete classification of the complexity for all considerable sets of Boolean functions. In this way, we identify easier cases, namely NP-complete and polynomial cases; and we highlight sources of intractability. Further, we address the problem of counting the explanations and draw a complete picture for the counting complexity.

In particular, I will explain how the complexity scheduling, planning, graph problems, among others. The landscape differs for traditional reasoning and for query most well-known constraint satisfaction problem is propositional answering, and take a brief look at computational complexity satisfiability SAT. Of particular recent interest is satisfiability issues raised by implementations of DL query answering modulo theories (SMT), where the interpretation based on standard relational database systems. Throughout of some symbols is constrained by a background theory. For the tutorial, connections to the W3C-standard OWL are example, the theory of arithmetic restricts the interpretation drawn whenever possible. of symbols such as:,, 0, and 1. SMT draws on the most prolific problems in the past century What If You Wanted Someone (Else) to Use This?