Cryptographic protocols are structured sequences of messages that are used for exchanging information in a hostile environment. Many protocols have epistemic goals: a successful run of the protocol is intended to cause a participant to hold certain beliefs. As such, epistemic logics have been employed for the verification of cryptographic protocols. Although this approach to verification is explicitly concerned with changing beliefs, formal belief change operators have not been incorporated in previous work. In this preliminary paper, we introduce a new approach to protocol verification by combining a monotonic logic with a nonmonotonic belief change operator. In this context, a protocol participant is able to retract beliefs in response to new information and a protocol participant is able to postulate the most plausible event explaining new information. Hence, protocol participants may draw conclusions from received messages in the same manner conclusions are drawn in formalizations of commonsense reasoning. We illustrate that this kind of reasoning is particularly important when protocol participants have incorrect beliefs.
We introduce a new semantics for a logic of explicit and implicit beliefs based on the concept of multi-agent belief base. Differently from existing Kripke-style semantics for epistemic logic in which the notions of possible world and doxastic/epistemic alternative are primitive, in our semantics they are non-primitive but are defined from the concept of belief base. We provide a complete axiomatization and a decidability result for our logic.
Being able to compactly represent large state spaces is crucial in solving a vast majority of practical stochastic planning problems. This requirement is even more stringent in the context of multi-agent systems, in which the world to be modeled also includes the mental state of other agents. This leads to a hierarchy of beliefs that results in a continuous, unbounded set of possible interactive states, as in the case of Interactive POMDPs. In this paper, we describe a novel representation for interactive belief hierarchies that combines first-order logic and probability. The semantics of this new formalism is based on recursively partitioning the belief space at each level of the hierarchy; in particular, the partitions of the belief simplex at one level constitute the vertices of the simplex at the next higher level. Since in general a set of probabilistic statements only partially specifies a probability distribution over the space of interest, we adopt the maximum entropy principle in order to convert it to a full specification.