MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W340913344 · doi:10.1613/jair.4192

Multiagent Only Knowing in Dynamic Systems

2014· article· en· W340913344 on OpenAlexaff
Vaishak Belle, Gerhard Lakemeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRWTH Aachen UniversityDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsComputer scienceExtension (predicate logic)Epistemic modal logicOrder (exchange)Artificial intelligenceMonotonic functionModal logicModalTheoretical computer scienceEpistemologyDescription logicMultimodal logicMathematicsProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea of "only knowing" a collection of sentences, as proposed by Levesque, has been previously shown to be very useful in characterizing knowledge-based agents: in terms of a specification, a precise and perspicuous account of the beliefs and non-beliefs is obtained in a monotonic setting. Levesque's logic is based on a first-order modal language with quantifying-in, thus allowing for de re versus de dicto distinctions, among other things. However, the logic and its recent dynamic extension only deal with the case of a single agent. In this work, we propose a first-order multiagent framework with knowledge, actions, sensing and only knowing, that is shown to inherit all the features of the single agent version. Most significantly, we prove reduction theorems by means of which reasoning about knowledge and actions in the framework simplifies to non-epistemic, non-dynamic reasoning about the initial situation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207