Comparing the Update Expressivity of Communication Patterns and Action Models (2307.05057v1)
Abstract: Any kind of dynamics in dynamic epistemic logic can be represented as an action model. Right? Wrong! In this contribution we prove that the update expressivity of communication patterns is incomparable to that of action models. Action models, as update mechanisms, were proposed by Baltag, Moss, and Solecki in 1998 and have remained the nearly universally accepted update mechanism in dynamic epistemic logics since then. Alternatives, such as arrow updates that were proposed by Kooi and Renne in 2011, have update equivalent action models. More recently, the picture is shifting. Communication patterns are update mechanisms originally proposed in some form or other by Agotnes and Wang in 2017 (as resolving distributed knowledge), by Baltag and Smets in 2020 (as reading events), and by Velazquez, Castaneda, and Rosenblueth in 2021 (as communication patterns). All these logics have the same expressivity as the base logic of distributed knowledge. However, their update expressivity, the relation between pointed epistemic models induced by such an update, was conjectured to be different from that of action model logic. Indeed, we show that action model logic and communication pattern logic are incomparable in update expressivity. We also show that, given a history-based semantics and when restricted to (static) interpreted systems, action model logic is (strictly) more update expressive than communication pattern logic. Our results are relevant for distributed computing wherein oblivious models involve arbitrary iteration of communication patterns.
- T. Ågotnes & Y.N. Wáng (2017): Resolving distributed knowledge. Artif. Intell. 252, pp. 1–21, 10.1016/j.artint.2017.07.002.
- In: Proc. of 7th TARK, pp. 43–56.
- A. Baltag & S. Smets (2020): Learning What Others Know. In: Proc. of 23rd LPAR, EPiC Series in Computing 73, pp. 90–119, 10.29007/plm4.
- J. van Benthem, J. van Eijck & B. Kooi (2006): Logics of Communication and Change. Information and Computation 204(11), pp. 1620–1662, 10.1016/j.ic.2006.04.006.
- P. Blackburn, M. de Rijke & Y. Venema (2001): Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 10.1017/CBO9781107050884.
- CoRR abs/2207.00823, 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00823. To appear in Journal of Philosophical Logic.
- Information and Computation, p. 104544, 10.1016/j.ic.2020.104544.
- H. van Ditmarsch, J. Ruan & W. van der Hoek (2013): Connecting Dynamic Epistemic and Temporal Epistemic Logics. Logic journal of the IGPL 21(3), pp. 380–403, 10.1093/jigpal/jzr038.
- C. Dwork & Y. Moses (1990): Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Byzantine Environment: Crash Failures. Inf. Comput. 88(2), pp. 156–186, 10.1016/0890-5401(90)90014-9.
- J. van Eijck, J. Ruan & T. Sadzik (2012): Action emulation. Synthese 185(1), pp. 131–151, 10.1007/s11229-012-0083-1.
- M. Herlihy, D. Kozlov & S. Rajsbaum (2013): Distributed Computing Through Combinatorial Topology. Morgan Kaufmann, 10.1016/C2011-0-07032-1.
- B. Kooi & B. Renne (2011): Generalized Arrow Update Logic. In: Proc. of 13th TARK, pp. 205–211, 10.1145/2000378.2000403.
- L. Lamport, R. Shostak & M. Pease (1982): The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 4(3), pp. 382–401, 10.1145/357172.357176.
- Y. Moses & M.R. Tuttle (1988): Programming Simultaneous Actions Using Common Knowledge. Algorithmica 3, pp. 121–169, 10.1007/BF01762112.
- J.A. Plaza (1989): Logics of Public Communications. In: Proc. of the 4th ISMIS, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, pp. 201–216.
- F. Roelofsen (2007): Distributed knowledge. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17(2), pp. 255–273, 10.3166/jancl.17.255-273.
- D.A. Velázquez, A. Castañeda & D.A. Rosenblueth (2021): Communication Pattern Models: an Extension of Action Models for Dynamic-Network Distributed Systems. In: Proc. of TARK XVIII, EPTCS 335, pp. 307–321, 10.4204/EPTCS.335.29.
- Y.N. Wáng & T. Ågotnes (2015): Relativized common knowledge for dynamic epistemic logic. J. Appl. Log. 13(3), pp. 370–393, 10.1016/j.jal.2015.06.004.