Agreement Theorems from the Perspective of Dynamic-Epistemic Logic
|
|
- Julia Wells
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Agreement Theorems from the Perspective of Dynamic-Epistemic Logic Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont November 10, 2008 Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 1
2 Introduction and preliminaries Overview 1. Introduction to Agreements Theorems (AT) 2. Models of knowledge and beliefs, common priors and common knowledge 3. Three variations on the result: static, kinematic and dynamic Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 2
3 Introduction and preliminaries Overview 1. Introduction to Agreements Theorems (AT) 2. Models of knowledge and beliefs, common priors and common knowledge 3. Three variations on the result: static, kinematic and dynamic Highlights: The received view: ATs undermine the role of private information. The DEL point of view: ATs show the importance of higher-order information. ATs show how static conditioning is different from real belief dynamics. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 2
4 Introduction and preliminaries Agreement Theorems in a nutshell Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 3
5 Introduction and preliminaries Agreement Theorems in a nutshell Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 3
6 Introduction and preliminaries Agreement Theorems in a nutshell Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 3
7 Introduction and preliminaries A short result goes a long way Original result: [Aumann, 1976]. No trade theorems: [Milgrom and Stokey, 1982]. Dynamic versions: [Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis, 1982] Qualitative generalizations: [Cave, 1983], [Bacharach, 1985]. Network structure: [Parikh and Krasucki, 1990] Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 4
8 Introduction and preliminaries A short result goes a long way Original result: [Aumann, 1976]. No trade theorems: [Milgrom and Stokey, 1982]. Dynamic versions: [Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis, 1982] Qualitative generalizations: [Cave, 1983], [Bacharach, 1985]. Network structure: [Parikh and Krasucki, 1990] Good survey: [Bonanno and Nehring, 1997]. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 4
9 Introduction and preliminaries Conclusions, the received view. Theorem If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for an event A are common knowledge, then these posterior are the same. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 5
10 Introduction and preliminaries Conclusions, the received view. Theorem If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for an event A are common knowledge, then these posterior are the same. How important is private information? Not quite... How strong is the common knowledge condition? Very... How plausible is the common prior assumption? Debated... Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 5
11 Conclusions, the point of view of DEL. Theorem If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for an event A are common knowledge, then these posterior are the same. The key is higher-order information. One should distinguish information kinematics vs information dynamics, belief conditioning vs belief update. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 6
12 Definition (Epistemic-Doxastic Model) An epistemic-doxastic model M is a tuple W, I, { i, i } i I such that: Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 7
13 Definition (Epistemic-Doxastic Model) An epistemic-doxastic model M is a tuple W, I, { i, i } i I such that: W is a finite set of states. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 7
14 Definition (Epistemic-Doxastic Model) An epistemic-doxastic model M is a tuple W, I, { i, i } i I such that: W is a finite set of states. I is a finite set of agents. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 7
15 Definition (Epistemic-Doxastic Model) An epistemic-doxastic model M is a tuple W, I, { i, i } i I such that: W is a finite set of states. I is a finite set of agents. i is a reflexive, transitive and connected plausibility ordering on W. There is common priors iff i = j for all i and j in I. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 7
16 Definition (Epistemic-Doxastic Model) An epistemic-doxastic model M is a tuple W, I, { i, i } i I such that: W is a finite set of states. I is a finite set of agents. i is a reflexive, transitive and connected plausibility ordering on W. There is common priors iff i = j for all i and j in I. i is an epistemic accessibility equivalence relation. We write [w] i for {w : w i w }. See: [Board, 2004, Baltag and Smets, 2008, van Benthem, ] Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 7
17 Key notions: Knowledge: w = K i ϕ iff w = ϕ for all w i w. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 8
18 Key notions: Knowledge: w = K i ϕ iff w = ϕ for all w i w. Everybody knows: w = E I ϕ iff w = K 1 ϕ... K n ϕ for 1,...n I. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 8
19 Key notions: Knowledge: w = K i ϕ iff w = ϕ for all w i w. Everybody knows: w = E I ϕ iff w = K 1 ϕ... K n ϕ for 1,...n I. Common knowledge: w = CK I ϕ iff w = E I ϕ and w = E I E I ϕ and... Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 8
20 Key notions: Knowledge: w = K i ϕ iff w = ϕ for all w i w. Everybody knows: w = E I ϕ iff w = K 1 ϕ... K n ϕ for 1,...n I. Common knowledge: w = CK I ϕ iff w = E I ϕ and w = E I E I ϕ and... Beliefs: w = B ψ i ϕ iff w = ϕ for all w in max i ([w] i ψ ). We write B i ϕ for B i ϕ. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 8
21 Theorem (Static agreement) For any epistemic-doxastic model M with common priors, for all w we have that w = CK I (B i (E) B j (E)) where E W. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 9
22 The key property: Sure-thing principle If, first, you would believe, conditional on the fact that it is cloudy, that it will rain and, Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 10
23 The key property: Sure-thing principle If, first, you would believe, conditional on the fact that it is cloudy, that it will rain and, second, you would believe, conditional on the fact that it is not cloudy, that it will rain, then Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 10
24 The key property: Sure-thing principle If, first, you would believe, conditional on the fact that it is cloudy, that it will rain and, second, you would believe, conditional on the fact that it is not cloudy, that it will rain, then you unconditionally believe that it will rain. [Savage, 1954, Bacharach, 1985] Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 10
25 The key property: Sure-thing principle Agent 1 s IP W P 1 P 2 Agent 2 s IP W Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 11
26 The key property: Sure-thing principle Agent 1 s IP W not B 1 (E/P 1 ) not B 1 (E/P 2 ) Agent 2 s IP W B 2 (E/Q 1 ) B 2 (E/Q 2 ) B 3 (E/Q 3 ) Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 11
27 The key property: Sure-thing principle By the Sure-Thing Principle The CK cell W not B 1 (E) The CK cell W B 2 (E) Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 11
28 The key property: Sure-thing principle The CK cell W Hence no common priors not B 1 (E) The CK cell W = B 2 (E) Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 11
29 Lesson: They might not have the same (first-order) information, but... Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 12
30 Lesson: They might not have the same (first-order) information, but... what is common knowledge is precisely where their (higher-order) information coincide. The cornerstone is higher-order information. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 12
31 Lesson: They might not have the same (first-order) information, but... what is common knowledge is precisely where their (higher-order) information coincide. Question: The cornerstone is higher-order information. How can CK obtain with respect to each others beliefs? Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 12
32 Lesson: They might not have the same (first-order) information, but... what is common knowledge is precisely where their (higher-order) information coincide. Question: The cornerstone is higher-order information. How can CK obtain with respect to each others beliefs? Dialogues or repeated announcements. [Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis, 1982, Bacharach, 1985] Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 12
33 Towards kinematic agreement Definition A kinematic dialogue about A is an epistemic-doxastic model M = W, I, { i, { n,i } n N } i I with Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 13
34 Towards kinematic agreement Definition A kinematic dialogue about A is an epistemic-doxastic model M = W, I, { i, { n,i } n N } i I with, for all i I, the sequence of epistemic accessibility relation { n,i } n N is inductively defined as follows (for 2 agents). Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 13
35 Towards kinematic agreement Definition A kinematic dialogue about A is an epistemic-doxastic model M = W, I, { i, { n,i } n N } i I with, for all i I, the sequence of epistemic accessibility relation { n,i } n N is inductively defined as follows (for 2 agents). 0,i is a given epistemic accessibility relation. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 13
36 Towards kinematic agreement Definition A kinematic dialogue about A is an epistemic-doxastic model M = W, I, { i, { n,i } n N } i I with, for all i I, the sequence of epistemic accessibility relation { n,i } n N is inductively defined as follows (for 2 agents). 0,i is a given epistemic accessibility relation. for all w W : [w] n+1,i = [w] n,i { B n (A) if w = B n,j (A) B n,j (A) otherwise. with B n,j (A) = {w : max j [w ] n,j A}. Intuition: B n+1,i ϕ B B n,j ϕ n,i ϕ. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 13
37 Lemma (Fixed-point) Every kinematic dialogue about A has a fixed-point, i.e. there is a n such that [w] n,i = [w] n +1,i for all w and i. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 14
38 Lemma (Fixed-point) Every kinematic dialogue about A has a fixed-point, i.e. there is a n such that [w] n,i = [w] n +1,i for all w and i. Lemma (Common knowledge) The posteriors beliefs at the fixed-point of a kinematic dialogue are common knowledge. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 14
39 Lemma (Fixed-point) Every kinematic dialogue about A has a fixed-point, i.e. there is a n such that [w] n,i = [w] n +1,i for all w and i. Lemma (Common knowledge) The posteriors beliefs at the fixed-point of a kinematic dialogue are common knowledge. Theorem (Kinematic agreement) For any kinematic dialogue about A, if there is common priors then at the fixed-point either all agents believe that A or they all don t believe that A. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 14
40 Lesson: Common knowledge arise from dialogues... Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 15
41 Lesson: Common knowledge arise from dialogues... Warnings from DEL: This is only a kinematic (i.e. conditioning) dialogue: the truth of A is fixed during the process. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 15
42 Lesson: Common knowledge arise from dialogues... Warnings from DEL: This is only a kinematic (i.e. conditioning) dialogue: the truth of A is fixed during the process. In general, this is not the case. A might be about the agents information. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 15
43 Lesson: Common knowledge arise from dialogues... Warnings from DEL: This is only a kinematic (i.e. conditioning) dialogue: the truth of A is fixed during the process. In general, this is not the case. A might be about the agents information. Another way to look at it: kinematic agreement = virtual agreement Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 15
44 Towards dynamic agreement Definition A dynamic dialogue about A is sequence of epistemic-doxastic pointed models {(M n, w)} n N such that: M 0 is a given epistemic-doxastic model. M n+1 = W n+1, I, n+1,i, n+1,i with W n+1 = {w W n : w = B n (A n )} with: A n = {w W n : w = A} B n(a n) is B n,i (A n) B n,j (A n) if w = B n,i (A n) B n,j (A n), etc... n+1,i n+1,i are the restrictions of n,i and n,i to W n+1. Intuition: B n+1,i ϕ [B n ϕ!]b n,i ϕ Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 16
45 Lemma (Fixed-point) Every dynamic dialogue about A has a fixed-point, i.e. there is a n such that: M n = M n +1 Lemma (Common knowledge) The posteriors beliefs at the fixed-point of a dynamic dialogue are common knowledge. Theorem (Dynamic agreement) For any dynamic dialogue about A, if there is common priors then at the fixed-point n either all agents believe that A n or they all don t believe that A n. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 17
46 Lemma (Fixed-point) Every dynamic dialogue about A has a fixed-point, i.e. there is a n such that: M n = M n +1 Lemma (Common knowledge) The posteriors beliefs at the fixed-point of a dynamic dialogue are common knowledge. Theorem (Dynamic agreement) For any dynamic dialogue about A, if there is common priors then at the fixed-point n either all agents believe that A n or they all don t believe that A n. But... Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 17
47 Kinematic agreements can be different from dynamic agreements. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 18
48 Kinematic agreements can be different from dynamic agreements. W w 1 w 2 p not p Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 18
49 Kinematic agreements can be different from dynamic agreements. W w 1 w 2 p not p 1 1 Let A = p B 2 p 2 Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 18
50 Kinematic agreements can be different from dynamic agreements. W w 1 w 2 p not p Let A = p B 2 p 1 1 At the fixed points for the kinematic and the dynamic dialogue about A, we have that [w 1 ] n,1 = [w 1 ] n,2 = {w 1 } 2 Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 18
51 Kinematic agreements can be different from dynamic agreements. W w 1 w 2 p not p Let A = p B 2 p 1 1 At the fixed points for the kinematic and the dynamic dialogue about A, we have that [w 1 ] n,1 = [w 1 ] n,2 = {w 1 } Kinematic beliefs: w = B n,i(p B 0,2 p), for i = 1, 2. Dynamic beliefs: w = B n,i(p B n,2p), for i = 1, 2. 2 Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 18
52 Conclusion Agreements theorems: Undermine the role of private information? Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 19
53 Conclusion Agreements theorems: Undermine the role of private information? A better way to look at it ( DEL methodology ): Rest on higher-order information and its role in interactive reasoning. Highlight the difference between belief kinematics and belief dynamics. (Hopefully not so distant) future work : General (countable) case? Announcements of reasons and not only of opinions? Relaxing the common prior assumption? Agreements on everything? Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 19
54 References Aumann, R. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6): Bacharach, M. (1985). Some extensions of a claim of aumann in an axiomatic model of knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory, 37(1): Baltag, A. and Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In Bonanno, G., van der Hoek, W., and Wooldridge, M., editors, Logic and the Foundation of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT7), volume 3 of Texts in Logic and Games, pages Amsterdam University Press. Board, O. (2004). Dynamic Interactive Epistemology. Games and Economic Behavior, 49: Bonanno, G. and Nehring, K. (1997). Agreeing to disagree: a survey. Some of the material in this paper was published in [Bonanno and Nehring, 1999]. Bonanno, G. and Nehring, K. (1999). How to make sense of the common prior assumption under incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 28(03): Cave, J. A. K. (1983). Learning to agree. Economics Letters, 12(2): Geanakoplos, J. and Polemarchakis, H. M. (1982). We can t disagree forever. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 19
55 References Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 639, Cowles Foundation, Yale University. Milgrom, P. and Stokey, N. (1982). Information, Trade, and Common Knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory, 26: Parikh, R. and Krasucki, P. (1990). Communication, consensus, and knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory, 52(1): Savage, L. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. van Benthem, J. Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Manuscript. Olivier Roy & Cedric Dégremont: Agreement Theorems & Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, 19
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 7
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 7 Eric Pacuit Currently Visiting the Center for Formal Epistemology, CMU Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit
More informationLogics of Rational Agency Lecture 2
Logics of Rational Agency Lecture 2 Tilburg Institute for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg Univeristy ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit June 23, 2010 Part 2: Ingredients of a Logical Analysis of Rational
More informationAgreeing to disagree: The non-probabilistic case
Games and Economic Behavior 69 (2010) 169 174 www.elsevier.com/locate/geb Agreeing to disagree: The non-probabilistic case Dov Samet Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv, Israel Received
More informationMulti-agent belief dynamics: bridges between dynamic doxastic and doxastic temporal logics
Multi-agent belief dynamics: bridges between dynamic doxastic and doxastic temporal logics Johan van Benthem ILLC Amsterdam Stanford University johan@science.uva.nl Cédric Dégremont ILLC Amsterdam cdegremo@science.uva.nl
More informationLevels of Knowledge and Belief Computational Social Choice Seminar
Levels of Knowledge and Belief Computational Social Choice Seminar Eric Pacuit Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit November 13, 2009 Eric Pacuit 1 Introduction and Motivation Informal Definition:
More informationLogic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 6
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 6 Eric Pacuit Currently Visiting the Center for Formal Epistemology, CMU Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit
More informationToward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction
Toward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction Johan van Benthem ILLC & Stanford Eric Pacuit TiLPS, Tilburg University Olivier Roy Faculty of Philosophy University of Groningen
More informationChanging Types. Dominik Klein Eric Pacuit. April 24, 2011
Changing Types Dominik Klein Eric Pacuit April 24, 2011 The central thesis of the epistemic program in game theory (Brandenburger, 2007) is that the basic mathematical models of a game situation should
More informationA Qualitative Theory of Dynamic Interactive Belief Revision
A Qualitative Theory of Dynamic Interactive Belief Revision Alexandru Baltag 1 Sonja Smets 2,3 1 Computing Laboratory Oxford University Oxford OX1 3QD, United Kingdom 2 Center for Logic and Philosophy
More informationLogic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 13
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 13 Eric Pacuit Currently Visiting the Center for Formal Epistemology, CMU Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit
More informationLogic and Social Choice Theory. A Survey. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. November 16, staff.science.uva.
Logic and Social Choice Theory A Survey Eric Pacuit ILLC, University of Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit epacuit@science.uva.nl November 16, 2007 Setting the Stage: Logic and Games Game Logics Logics
More informationWhen all is done but not (yet) said: Dynamic rationality in extensive games
When all is done but not (yet) said: Dynamic rationality in extensive games Alexandru Baltag Oxford baltag@comlab.ox.ac.uk Sonja Smets Brussels & Oxford sonsmets@vub.ac.be Jonathan A. Zvesper Amsterdam
More informationWhat is DEL good for? Alexandru Baltag. Oxford University
Copenhagen 2010 ESSLLI 1 What is DEL good for? Alexandru Baltag Oxford University Copenhagen 2010 ESSLLI 2 DEL is a Method, Not a Logic! I take Dynamic Epistemic Logic () to refer to a general type of
More informationProduct Update and Looking Backward
Product Update and Looking Backward Audrey Yap May 21, 2006 Abstract The motivation behind this paper is to look at temporal information in models of BMS product update. That is, it may be useful to look
More informationPAIRWISE EPISTEMIC CONDITIONS FOR NASH EQUILIBRIUM 1
PAIRWISE EPISTEMIC CONDITIONS FOR NASH EQUILIBRIUM 1 Christian W. Bach and Elias Tsakas We introduce a framework for modeling pairwise interactive beliefs and provide an epistemic foundation for Nash equilibrium
More informationUndecidability in Epistemic Planning
Undecidability in Epistemic Planning Thomas Bolander, DTU Compute, Tech Univ of Denmark Joint work with: Guillaume Aucher, Univ Rennes 1 Bolander: Undecidability in Epistemic Planning p. 1/17 Introduction
More informationHOW TO MAKE SENSE OF THE COMMON PRIOR ASSUMPTION UNDER INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. Giacomo Bonanno. Klaus Nehring *
HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF THE COMMON PRIOR ASSUMPTION UNDER INCOMPLETE INFORMATION Giacomo Bonanno and Klaus Nehring * Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8578. E-mail: gfbonanno@ucdavis.edu,
More informationOn the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets
On the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets Satoshi Fukuda September 23, 2018 Abstract This paper studies implications of the consistency conditions among prior, posteriors, and information
More informationGeneral Dynamic Dynamic Logic
General Dynamic Dynamic Logic Patrick Girard Department of Philosophy University of Auckland Jeremy Seligman Department of Philosophy University of Auckland Fenrong Liu Department of Philosophy Tsinghua
More informationBelief Revision in Social Networks
Tsinghua University and University of Amsterdam 8-10 July 2015, IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse Outline 1 2 Doxastic influence Finite state automaton Stability and flux Dynamics in the community
More informationA Modal Logic of Epistemic Games
Submitted to Games. Pages 1-49. OPEN ACCESS games ISSN 2073-4336 www.mdpi.com/journal/games Article A Modal Logic of Epistemic Games Emiliano Lorini 1, François Schwarzentruber 1 1 Institut de Recherche
More informationProbability Models of Information Exchange on Networks Lecture 3
Probability Models of Information Exchange on Networks Lecture 3 Elchanan Mossel UC Berkeley All Right Reserved The Bayesian View of the Jury Theorem Recall: we assume 0/1 with prior probability (0.5,0.5).
More information. Modal AGM model of preference changes. Zhang Li. Peking University
Modal AGM model of preference changes Zhang Li Peking University 20121218 1 Introduction 2 AGM framework for preference change 3 Modal AGM framework for preference change 4 Some results 5 Discussion and
More informationDEL-sequents for Regression and Epistemic Planning
DEL-sequents for Regression and Epistemic Planning Guillaume Aucher To cite this version: Guillaume Aucher. DEL-sequents for Regression and Epistemic Planning. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics,
More informationArbitrary Announcements in Propositional Belief Revision
Arbitrary Announcements in Propositional Belief Revision Aaron Hunter British Columbia Institute of Technology Burnaby, Canada aaron hunter@bcitca Francois Schwarzentruber ENS Rennes Bruz, France francoisschwarzentruber@ens-rennesfr
More informationAmbiguous Language and Common Priors
Ambiguous Language and Common Priors Joseph Y. Halpern Willemien Kets December 10, 2014 Abstract Standard economic models cannot capture the fact that information is often ambiguous, and is interpreted
More informationA Minimal Dynamic Logic for Threshold Influence
A for Threshold Influence Zoé Christoff Joint work with Alexandru Baltag, Rasmus K. Rendsvig and Sonja Smets M&M 2014 Lund - May 22 2014 1/29 Social Network agents k j b c a i h d g f e 2/29 Social Network
More informationRational expectations can preclude trades
Adv. Math. Econ. 11, 105 116 (2008) Rational expectations can preclude trades Takashi Matsuhisa 1 and Ryuichiro Ishikawa 2 1 Department of Natural Sciences, Ibaraki National College of Technology, 866
More informationContradicting Beliefs and Communication
Contradicting Beliefs and Communication Jean-Marc Tallon, Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, Shmuel Zamir January 2003 Abstract We address the issue of the representation as well as the evolution of (possibly)
More informationAxiomatic characterization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic
Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007) 144 160 www.elsevier.com/locate/artint Axiomatic characterization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic Giacomo Bonanno 1 Department of Economics,
More informationINTERSUBJECTIVE CONSISTENCY OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Giacomo Bonanno. Klaus Nehring
INTERSUBJECTIVE CONSISTENCY OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF Giacomo Bonanno and Klaus Nehring Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8578 e-mail: gfbonanno@ucdavis.edu kdnehring@ucdavis.edu
More informationAgency and Interaction in Formal Epistemology
Agency and Interaction in Formal Epistemology Vincent F. Hendricks Department of Philosophy / MEF University of Copenhagen Denmark Department of Philosophy Columbia University New York / USA CPH / August
More informationAn Inquisitive Formalization of Interrogative Inquiry
An Inquisitive Formalization of Interrogative Inquiry Yacin Hamami 1 Introduction and motivation The notion of interrogative inquiry refers to the process of knowledge-seeking by questioning [5, 6]. As
More informationTowards A Multi-Agent Subset Space Logic
Towards A Multi-Agent Subset Space Logic A Constructive Approach with Applications Department of Computer Science The Graduate Center of the City University of New York cbaskent@gc.cuny.edu www.canbaskent.net
More informationJustified Belief and the Topology of Evidence
Justified Belief and the Topology of Evidence Alexandru Baltag 1, Nick Bezhanishvili 1, Aybüke Özgün 1,2, Sonja Smets 1 1 University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 LORIA, CNRS - Université de Lorraine,
More informationSocial Learning Equilibria
Social Learning Equilibria Elchanan Mossel, Manuel Mueller-Frank, Allan Sly and Omer Tamuz March 21, 2018 Abstract We consider social learning settings in which a group of agents face uncertainty regarding
More informationAmbiguous Language and Differences in Beliefs
Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Ambiguous Language and Differences in Beliefs Joseph Y. Halpern Computer Science Dept. Cornell
More informationSome Remarks on Alternating Temporal Epistemic Logic
Some Remarks on Alternating Temporal Epistemic Logic Corrected version: July 2003 Wojciech Jamroga Parlevink Group, University of Twente, Netherlands Institute of Mathematics, University of Gdansk, Poland
More informationEpistemic Game Theory
Epistemic Game Theory Lecture 3 ESSLLI 12, Opole Eric Pacuit Olivier Roy TiLPS, Tilburg University MCMP, LMU Munich ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit http://olivier.amonbofis.net August 8, 2012 Eric Pacuit and
More informationEvidence-Based Belief Revision for Non-Omniscient Agents
Evidence-Based Belief Revision for Non-Omniscient Agents MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Kristina Gogoladze (born May 11th, 1986 in Tbilisi, Georgia) under the supervision of Dr Alexandru Baltag,
More informationIntentions and transformations of strategic games
Intentions and transformations of strategic games Olivier Roy University of Groningen O.Roy@rug.nl Abstract In this paper we take a game-theoretic perspective to study the effects of previously adopted
More information1. Belief Convergence (or endless cycles?) by Iterated Learning 2. Belief Merge (or endless disagreements?) by Iterated Sharing (and Persuasion)
LMCS (ESSLLI) 2009 Bordeaux 1 Group Belief Dynamics under Iterated Upgrades 1. Belief Convergence (or endless cycles?) by Iterated Learning 2. Belief Merge (or endless disagreements?) by Iterated Sharing
More informationProbabilistic Opinion Pooling
Probabilistic Opinion Pooling Franz Dietrich Paris School of Economics / CNRS www.franzdietrich.net March 2015 University of Cergy-Pontoise drawing on work with Christian List (LSE) and work in progress
More informationDoxastic Logic. Michael Caie
Doxastic Logic Michael Caie There are at least three natural ways of interpreting the object of study of doxastic logic. On one construal, doxastic logic studies certain general features of the doxastic
More informationPreference and its Dynamics
Department of Philosophy,Tsinghua University 28 August, 2012, EASLLC Table of contents 1 Introduction 2 Betterness model and dynamics 3 Priorities and dynamics 4 Relating betterness and priority dynamics
More informationHow Restrictive Are Information Partitions?
How Restrictive Are Information Partitions? Peter J. Hammond Department of Economics, Stanford University, CA 94305 6072, U.S.A. e-mail: peter.hammond@stanford.edu Preliminary Version: July 1996; revisions:
More informationLearning by Questions and Answers:
Learning by Questions and Answers: From Belief-Revision Cycles to Doxastic Fixed Points Alexandru Baltag 1 and Sonja Smets 2,3 1 Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, Alexandru.Baltag@comlab.ox.ac.uk
More informationDon t Plan for the Unexpected: Planning Based on Plausibility Models
Don t Plan for the Unexpected: Planning Based on Plausibility Models Thomas Bolander, DTU Informatics, Technical University of Denmark Joint work with Mikkel Birkegaard Andersen and Martin Holm Jensen
More informationTR : Public and Private Communication Are Different: Results on Relative Expressivity
City University of New York CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports The Graduate Center 2008 TR-2008001: Public and Private Communication Are Different: Results on Relative Expressivity
More informationValentin Goranko Stockholm University. ESSLLI 2018 August 6-10, of 29
ESSLLI 2018 course Logics for Epistemic and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems Lecture 5: Logics for temporal strategic reasoning with incomplete and imperfect information Valentin Goranko Stockholm
More informationAmbiguous Language and Consensus
Ambiguous Language and Consensus Joseph Y. Halpern Willemien Kets October 28, 2013 Abstract Standard economic models cannot capture the fact that information is often ambiguous, and is interpreted in multiple
More informationSchematic Validity in Dynamic Epistemic Logic: Decidability
This paper has been superseded by W. H. Holliday, T. Hoshi, and T. F. Icard, III, Information dynamics and uniform substitution, Synthese, Vol. 190, 2013, 31-55. Schematic Validity in Dynamic Epistemic
More informationCL16, 12th September 2016
CL16, 12th September 2016 for - Soft Outline for - Soft for - Soft The Problem of Anyone who utters: (S) Sherlock Holmes lives in Baker Street would not be objected against by non-philosophers. However:
More informationModal Dependence Logic
Modal Dependence Logic Jouko Väänänen Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands J.A.Vaananen@uva.nl Abstract We
More informationFrom conditional probability to the logic of doxastic actions
From conditional probability to the logic of doxastic actions Alexandru Baltag and Sonja Smets Abstract We investigate the discrete (finite) case of the Popper-Renyi theory of conditional probability,
More informationInformation Aggregation in Dynamic Markets Under Ambiguity
Information Aggregation in Dynamic Markets Under Ambiguity Spyros Galanis University of Southampton Stelios Kotronis University of Southampton May 30, 2018 Abstract This paper studies information aggregation
More informationLogics of Informational Interactions
J Philos Logic (2015) 44:595 607 DOI 10.1007/s10992-015-9345-y Logics of Informational Interactions Alexandru Baltag Sonja Smets Received: 26 June 2014 / Accepted: 1 July 2014 / Published online: 26 April
More informationCommon Knowledge in Update Logics
Common Knowledge in Update Logics Johan van Benthem, Jan van Eijck and Barteld Kooi Abstract Current dynamic epistemic logics often become cumbersome and opaque when common knowledge is added for groups
More informationRedoing the Foundations of Decision Theory
Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory Joe Halpern Cornell University Joint work with Larry Blume and David Easley Economics Cornell Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 1/21 Decision Making:
More informationReversed Squares of Opposition in PAL and DEL
Center for Logic and Analytical Philosophy, University of Leuven lorenz.demey@hiw.kuleuven.be SQUARE 2010, Corsica Goal of the talk public announcement logic (PAL), and dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) in
More informationGame Theory Lecture 10+11: Knowledge
Game Theory Lecture 10+11: Knowledge Christoph Schottmüller University of Copenhagen November 13 and 20, 2014 1 / 36 Outline 1 (Common) Knowledge The hat game A model of knowledge Common knowledge Agree
More informationA Dynamic-Logical Perspective on Quantum Behavior
A Dynamic-Logical Perspective on Quantum Behavior A. Baltag and S. Smets Abstract In this paper we show how recent concepts from Dynamic Logic, and in particular from Dynamic Epistemic logic, can be used
More informationLogic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 12
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 12 Eric Pacuit Currently Visiting the Center for Formal Epistemology, CMU Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit
More informationModels of Strategic Reasoning Lecture 4
Models of Strategic Reasoning Lecture 4 Eric Pacuit University of Maryland, College Park ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit August 9, 2012 Eric Pacuit: Models of Strategic Reasoning 1/55 Game Plan Lecture 4: Lecture
More informationToward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction
Games 2011, 2, 52-86; doi:10.3390/g2010052 OPEN ACCESS games ISSN 2073-4336 www.mdpi.com/journal/games Article Toward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction Johan van Benthem
More informationMultiagent planning and epistemic logic
Multiagent planning and epistemic logic Andreas Herzig IRIT, CNRS, Univ. Toulouse, France Journée plénière, prégdr sur les Aspects Formels et Algorithmiques de l IA July 5, 2017 1 / 25 Outline 1 Planning:
More informationPLAYING WITH KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF
PLAYING WITH KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF Virginie Fiutek PLAYING WITH KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2013-02 For further information about ILLC-publications, please contact Institute for Logic,
More informationIntroduction to Epistemic Reasoning in Interaction
Introduction to Epistemic Reasoning in Interaction Eric Pacuit Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit December 9, 2009 Eric Pacuit 1 We are interested in
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 17, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 5 1 Plan for the
More informationUpdate As Evidence: Belief Expansion
Update As Evidence: Belief Expansion Roman Kuznets and Thomas Studer Institut für Informatik und angewandte Mathematik Universität Bern {kuznets, tstuder}@iam.unibe.ch http://www.iam.unibe.ch/ltg Abstract.
More informationUnderstanding the Brandenburger-Keisler Belief Paradox
Understanding the Brandenburger-Keisler Belief Paradox Eric Pacuit Institute of Logic, Language and Information University of Amsterdam epacuit@staff.science.uva.nl staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit March
More informationON THE SOLVABILITY OF INDUCTIVE PROBLEMS: A STUDY IN EPISTEMIC TOPOLOGY
ON THE SOLVABILITY OF INDUCTIVE PROBLEMS: A STUDY IN EPISTEMIC TOPOLOGY ALEXANDRU BALTAG, NINA GIERASIMCZUK, AND SONJA SMETS Abstract. We investigate the issues of inductive problem-solving and learning
More informationConditional Logic and Belief Revision
Conditional Logic and Belief Revision Ginger Schultheis (vks@mit.edu) and David Boylan (dboylan@mit.edu) January 2017 History The formal study of belief revision grew out out of two research traditions:
More informationRobust Knowledge and Rationality
Robust Knowledge and Rationality Sergei Artemov The CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue, 4319 New York City, NY 10016, USA sartemov@gc.cuny.edu November 22, 2010 Abstract In 1995, Aumann proved that
More informationEpistemic Logic: VI Dynamic Epistemic Logic (cont.)
Epistemic Logic: VI Dynamic Epistemic Logic (cont.) Yanjing Wang Department of Philosophy, Peking University Oct. 26th, 2015 Two basic questions Axiomatizations via reduction A new axiomatization Recap:
More informationQualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games
Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games Giacomo Bonanno University of California, Davis Elias Tsakas Maastricht University October 2, 2017 Abstract In this paper we
More informationEpistemic Informativeness
Epistemic Informativeness Yanjing Wang, Jie Fan Department of Philosophy, Peking University 2nd AWPL, Apr. 12th, 2014 Motivation Epistemic Informativeness Conclusions and future work Frege s puzzle on
More informationTen Puzzles and Paradoxes about Knowledge and Belief
Ten Puzzles and Paradoxes about Knowledge and Belief ESSLLI 2013, Düsseldorf Wes Holliday Eric Pacuit August 16, 2013 Puzzles of Knowledge and Belief 1/34 Taking Stock w P P v Epistemic Model: M = W, {R
More informationLearning and Disagreement in an Uncertain World
Learning and Disagreement in an Uncertain World Daron Acemoglu, Victor Chernozhukov, and Muhamet Yildiz October, 2006. Abstract Most economic analyses presume that there are limited differences in the
More informationDynamic Logics of Knowledge and Access
Dynamic Logics of Knowledge and Access Tomohiro Hoshi (thoshi@stanford.edu) Department of Philosophy Stanford University Eric Pacuit (e.j.pacuit@uvt.nl) Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science
More informationLogics of Informational Attitudes and Informative Actions
Logics of Informational ttitudes and Informative ctions Eric Pacuit September 28, 2010 1 Introduction There is an extensive literature focused on using logical methods to reason about communities of agents
More informationSubstantive Assumptions in Interaction: A Logical Perspective
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Substantive Assumptions in Interaction: A Logical Perspective Olivier Roy Eric Pacuit Abstract In this paper we study substantive assumptions in social
More informationIntroduction to Epistemic Game Theory
Introduction to Epistemic Game Theory Eric Pacuit University of Maryland, College Park pacuit.org epacuit@umd.edu May 25, 2016 Eric Pacuit 1 Plan Introductory remarks Games and Game Models Backward and
More informationABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE OLIVIER GOSSNER Abstract. In games with incomplete information, more information to a player implies a broader strategy set for this player in the normal form game, hence that more
More informationAsymptotic Learning on Bayesian Social Networks
Asymptotic Learning on Bayesian Social Networks Elchanan Mossel Allan Sly Omer Tamuz January 29, 2014 Abstract Understanding information exchange and aggregation on networks is a central problem in theoretical
More informationMulti-Agent Action Modeling through Action Sequences and Perspective Fluents
Multi-Agent Action Modeling through Action Sequences and Perspective Fluents Chitta Baral, Gregory Gelfond, Enrico Pontelli and Tran Cao Son Abstract Actions in a multi-agent setting have complex characteristics.
More informationModel Transformers for Dynamical Systems of Dynamic Epistemic Logic Rendsvig, Rasmus Kræmmer
university of copenhagen Model Transformers for Dynamical Systems of Dynamic Epistemic Logic Rendsvig, Rasmus Kræmmer Published in: Logic, Rationality, and Interaction DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-48561-3_26
More informationOn definitive solutions of strategic games
On definitive solutions of strategic games Sergei Artemov The CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue, rm. 4319 New York City, NY 10016, USA sartemov@gc.cuny.edu June 23, 2013 Abstract In his dissertation
More informationOn the nonexistence of universal information structures
Journal of Economic Theory 122 (2005) 132 139 On the nonexistence of universal information structures Martin Meier CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain, 34, Voie du Roman Pays, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,
More informationWorking Paper Series. Giacomo Bonanno University of California, Davis Cédric Dégremont University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse
Working Paper Series Logic and Game Theory Giacomo Bonanno University of California, Davis Cédric Dégremont University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse May 07, 2013 Paper # 13-4 Johan van Benthem has highlighted
More informationKnowable as known after an announcement
RESEARCH REPORT IRIT/RR 2008-2 FR Knowable as known after an announcement Philippe Balbiani 1 Alexandru Baltag 2 Hans van Ditmarsch 1,3 Andreas Herzig 1 Tomohiro Hoshi 4 Tiago de Lima 5 1 Équipe LILAC
More informationTrade and the Value of Information under Unawareness. Spyros Galanis PRELIMINARY. March 20, 2008
Trade and the Value of Information under Unawareness Spyros Galanis PRELIMINARY March 20, 2008 Abstract The value of information and the possibility of speculation are examined in an environment with unawareness.
More informationConstructive Decision Theory
Constructive Decision Theory Joe Halpern Cornell University Joint work with Larry Blume and David Easley Economics Cornell Constructive Decision Theory p. 1/2 Savage s Approach Savage s approach to decision
More informationLogics of Rational Agency Lecture 3
Logics of Rational Agency Lecture 3 Eric Pacuit Tilburg Institute for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg Univeristy ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit July 29, 2009 Eric Pacuit: LORI, Lecture 3 1 Plan for the
More informationDescription Logics. Foundations of Propositional Logic. franconi. Enrico Franconi
(1/27) Description Logics Foundations of Propositional Logic Enrico Franconi franconi@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ franconi Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2/27) Knowledge
More informationEvidence Logic: A New Look at Neighborhood Structures
Evidence Logic: A New Look at Neighborhood Structures Johan van Benthem 1 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Department of Philosophy Stanford University David Fernández-Duque
More informationEpistemic Foundations for Set-algebraic Representations of Knowledge
Epistemic Foundations for Set-algebraic Representations of Knowledge Satoshi Fukuda September 10, 2018 Abstract This paper formalizes an informal idea that an agent s knowledge is characterized by a collection
More informationConditional Probability and Update Logic
Conditional Probability and Update Logic 1 Second version, January 2003 Johan van Benthem, Amsterdam & Stanford Abstract ynamic update of information states is the dernier cri in logical semantics. And
More informationAhmad KARIMI A NON-SELF-REFERENTIAL PARADOX IN EPISTEMIC GAME THEORY
REPORTS ON MATHEMATICAL LOGIC 52 (2017), 45 56 doi:10.4467/20842589rm.17.002.7140 Ahmad KARIMI A NON-SELF-REFERENTIAL PARADOX IN EPISTEMIC GAME THEORY A b s t r a c t. The beliefs of other people about
More information