In this work, we present the first general logic of attention. Attention is a powerful cognitive ability that allows agents to focus on potentially complex information, such as logically structured propositions, higher-order beliefs, or what other agents pay attention to. This ability is a strength, as it helps to ignore what is irrelevant, but it can also introduce biases when some types of information or agents are systematically ignored. Existing dynamic epistemic logics for attention cannot model such complex attention scenarios, as they only model attention to atomic formulas. Additionally, such logics quickly become cumbersome, as their size grows exponentially in the number of agents and announced literals. Here, we introduce a logic that overcomes both limitations. First, we generalize edge-conditioned event models, which we show to be as expressive as standard event models yet exponentially more succinct (generalizing both standard event models and generalized arrow updates). Second, we extend attention to arbitrary formulas, allowing agents to also attend to other agents' beliefs or attention. Our work treats attention as a modality, like belief or awareness. We introduce attention principles that impose closure properties on that modality and that can be used in its axiomatization. Throughout, we illustrate our framework with examples of AI agents reasoning about human attentional biases, demonstrating how such agents can discover attentional biases.

In this paper, we propose a novel algorithm for epistemic planning based on dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). The novelty is that we limit the depth of reasoning of the planning agent to an upper bound b, meaning that the planning agent can only reason about higher-order knowledge to at most (modal) depth b. The algorithm makes use of a novel type of canonical b-bisimulation contraction guaranteeing unique minimal models with respect to b-bisimulation. We show our depth-bounded planning algorithm to be sound. Additionally, we show it to be complete with respect to planning tasks having a solution within bound b of reasoning depth (and hence the iterative bound-deepening variant is complete in the standard sense). For bound b of reasoning depth, the algorithm is shown to be (b + 1)-EXPTIME complete, and furthermore fixed-parameter tractable in the number of agents and atoms. We present both a tree search and a graph search variant of the algorithm, and we benchmark an implementation of the tree search version against a baseline epistemic planner.

Epistemic planning is a very expressive framework that extends automated planning by the incorporation of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). We provide complexity results on the plan existence problem for multi-agent planning tasks, focusing on purely epistemic actions with propositional preconditions. We show that moving from epistemic preconditions to propositional preconditions makes it decidable, more precisely in EXPSPACE. The plan existence problem is PSPACE-complete when the underlying graphs are trees and NP-complete when they are chains (including singletons). We also show PSPACE-hardness of the plan verification problem, which strengthens previous results on the complexity of DEL model checking.

In multi-agent path finding (MAPF), it is usually assumed that planning is performed centrally and that the destinations of the agents are common knowledge. We will drop both assumptions and analyze under which conditions it can be guaranteed that the agents reach their respective destinations using implicitly coordinated plans without communication. Furthermore, we will analyze what the computational costs associated with such a coordination regime are. As it turns out, guarantees can be given assuming that the agents are of a certain type. However, the implied computational costs are quite severe. In the distributed setting, we either have to solve a sequence of NP-complete problems or have to tolerate exponentially longer executions. In the setting with destination uncertainty, bounded plan existence becomes PSPACE-complete. This clearly demonstrates the value of communicating about plans before execution starts.