MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404787561 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-498

Efficient Reasoning in Multiagent Epistemic Logics

2012· book-chapter· en· W2404787561 on OpenAlex
Gerhard Lakemeyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMulti-agent systemCognitive sciencePhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many applications, agents must reason about what other agents know, whether to coordinate with them or to come out on top in a competitive situation. However in general, reasoning in a multiagent epistemic logic such as Kn has high complexity. In this paper, we look at a restricted class of knowledge bases that are sets of modal literals. We call these proper epistemic knowledge bases (PEKBs). We show that after a PEKB has been put in prime implicate normal form (PINF), an efficient database-like query evaluation procedure can be used to check whether an arbitrary query is entailed by the PEKB. The evaluation procedure is always sound and sometimes complete. We also develop a procedure to convert a PEKB into PINF. As well, we extend our approach to deal with introspection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it