Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Model Checking Russian Cards

Profile image of Hans van DitmarschHans van Ditmarsch

2006, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENTCS.2005.07.029
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

We implement a specific protocol for bit exchange among card-playing agents in three different state-of-the-art epistemic model checkers and compare the results.

Related papers

Playing cards with Hintikka An introduction to dynamic epistemic logic
Wiebe Van Der Hoek

2004

This contribution is a gentle introduction to so-called dynamic epistemic logics, that can describe how agents change their knowledge and beliefs. We start with a concise introduction to epistemic logic, through the example of one, two and finally three players holding cards; and, mainly for the purpose of motivating the dynamics, we also very summarily introduce the concepts of general and common knowledge. We then pay ample attention to the logic of public announcements, wherein agents change their knowledge as the result of public announcements. One crucial topic in that setting is that of unsuccessful updates: formulas that become false when announced. The Moore-sentences that were already extensively discussed at the conception of epistemic logic in Hintikka's ' Knowledge and Belief ' (1962) give rise to such unsuccessful updates. After that, we present a few examples of more complex epistemic updates. * Professor Jaakko Hintikka kindly gave permission to use his name in the title. He also observed that "My late wife Merrill was one of the best female blackjack players in the world and a championship level bridge player. Hence twenty years ago you would have been well advised to specify which Hintikka you refer to in your title!" Section 5 is partly based on a chapter of , and Section 6 is partly based on a section of . We thank an anonymous referee for very detailed helpful comments.

View PDFchevron_right
Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking
Mojca Ciglaric

2003

We present a framework for verifying temporal and epistemic properties of multi-agent systems by means of bounded model checking. We use interpreted systems as underlying semantics. We give details of the proposed technique, and show how it can be applied to the "attacking generals problem", a typical example of coordination in multi-agent systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Model checking cooperation, knowledge, and time—a case study
Wiebe Van Der Hoek

Research in Economics, 2003

Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL) is a logic developed by Alur, Henzinger, and Kupferman for reasoning about coalitional powers in multi-agent systems. Since what agents can achieve in a specific state will in general depend on the knowledge they have in that state, in an earlier paper we proposed ATEL, an epistemic extension to ATL which is interpreted over Alternating-time Temporal Epistemic Transition Systems (AETS). The logic ATEL shares with its ancestor ATL the property that its model checking problem is tractable. However, while model checkers have been implemented for ATL, no model checker yet exists for ATEL, or indeed for epistemic logics in general. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate, using the alternating bit protocol as a detailed case study, how existing model checkers for ATL can be deployed to verify epistemic properties.

View PDFchevron_right
Model checking knowledge, strategies, and games in multi-agent systems
Franco Raimondi

2006

Abstract We present an OBDD-based methodology for verifying time, knowledge, and strategies in multi-agent systems specified by the formalism of interpreted systems. To this end, we investigate the interpretation of ATL and epistemic formulae in various classes of interpreted systems, we present model checking algorithms and their implementation, and report experimental results.

View PDFchevron_right
Model Checking Degrees of Belief in a System of Agents
Franco Raimondi, Giuseppe Primiero

Proceedings of AAMAS2014

In this paper we present a unified framework to model and verify degrees of belief in a system of agents. In particu- lar, we describe an extension of the temporal-epistemic logic CTLK and we introduce a semantics based on interpreted systems for this extension. In this way, degrees of beliefs do not need to be provided externally, but can be derived automatically from the possible executions of the system, thereby providing a computationally grounded formalism. We leverage the semantics to (a) construct a model check- ing algorithm, (b) investigate its complexity, (c) provide a Java implementation of the model checking algorithm, and (d) evaluate our approach using the standard benchmark of the dining cryptographers. Finally, we provide a detailed case study: using our framework and our implementation, we assess and verify the situational awareness of the pilot of Air France 447 flying in off-nominal conditions.

View PDFchevron_right
Chapter 3 Model Checking Agent Communication
Jamal Bentahar

Model checking is a formal and automatic technique used to verify computational systems (e.g. communication protocols) against given properties. The purpose of this chapter is to describe a model checking algorithm to verify communication protocols used by autonomous agents interacting using dialogue games, which are governed by a set of logical rules. We use a variant of Extended Computation Tree Logic CTL* for specifying these dialogue games and the properties to be checked. This logic, called ACTL*, extends CTL* by allowing formulae to constrain actions as well as states. The verification method uses an on-the-fly efficient algorithm. It is based on translating formulae into a variant of alternating tree automata called Alternating Büchi Tableau Automata (ABTA). We present a tableaubased version of this algorithm and provide the soundness, completeness, termination and complexity results. Two case studies are discussed along with their respective implementations to illustrate the...

View PDFchevron_right
Model Checking Agent Communication
Jamal Bentahar

Specification and Verification of Multi-agent Systems, 2010

Model checking is a formal and automatic technique used to verify computational systems (e.g. communication protocols) against given properties. The purpose of this chapter is to describe a model checking algorithm to verify communication protocols used by autonomous agents interacting using dialogue games, which are governed by a set of logical rules. We use a variant of Extended Computation Tree Logic CTL* for specifying these dialogue games and the properties to be checked. This logic, called ACTL*, extends CTL* by allowing formulae to constrain actions as well as states. The verification method uses an on-the-fly efficient algorithm. It is based on translating formulae into a variant of alternating tree automata called Alternating Büchi Tableau Automata (ABTA). We present a tableaubased version of this algorithm and provide the soundness, completeness, termination and complexity results. Two case studies are discussed along with their respective implementations to illustrate the proposed approach. The first one is about an agent-based negotiation protocol and the second one considers a modified version of the NetBill protocol.

View PDFchevron_right
Model Checking ATL and its epistemic extensions
Franco Raimondi

2005

Abstract We present an OBDD-based methodology for verifying multi-agent systems specified by the logic ATL. We present an implementation, discuss traditional multi-agent systems examples, and report experimental results by comparing the implementation to MOCHA, a state-of-the-art model checker for ATL.

View PDFchevron_right
A New Model Checking Approach for Verifying Agent Communication Protocols
Jamal Bentahar

2006 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2006

In this paper, we propose a new model checking algorithm for verifying dialogue game protocols (DGP) for multi-agent communication. These protocols are specified as transition systems in which transitions are labeled with communicative acts. Our underlying logic (SC-CTL*) used to specify the properties to be verified extends CTL* by adding action formulae. the actions we deal with are actions that agents perform on social commitments when communicating. The verification method is based on the translation of SCCTL* formulae into a variant of alternating tree automata called Alternating Büchi Tableau Automata (ABTA). Our algorithm explores the product graph of the protocol and the ABTA representing the formula to be verified. The nodes of the product graph are signed according to the type of the formula (with or without negation). We propose a set of tableau inference rules for specifying the translation procedure. The efficiency of our algorithm is due to the fact that it uses only one depth-first search instead of two. Our algorithm explores directly the product graph using the sign of the nodes. This algorithm is an on-the-fly efficient algorithm.

View PDFchevron_right
Model Checking Epistemic and Probabilistic Properties of Multi-agent Systems
Jamal Bentahar

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

Model checking, a formal automatic verification method, has been widely used in multi-agent systems to verify specifications that contain qualitative properties (e.g safety and liveliness) and quantitative properties. Decision making processes based on inherent knowledge are necessary for agents to act appropriately, particularly in uncertain settings. In order to check epistemic (i.e knowledge) and measurable properties in multi-agent systems, we propose a new logic P CT LK, which uses probabilistic, epistemic, and temporal modal operators. We exploit Discrete-Time Markov Chains (DTMC), in which we are able to represent measurable properties with probability, to model uncertainty in multi-agent systems. We extend the formalism of interpreted systems by adding probabilistic features to suit DTMC models and to present the model checking algorithm for our logic. At the end of this paper, we simulate our algorithm using an example of online shopping.

View PDFchevron_right

References (21)

  1. M.H. Albert, R.E.L. Aldred, M.D. Atkinson, H.P. van Ditmarsch, and C.C. Handley. Safe communication for card players by combinatorial designs for two-step protocols. Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, 2005. To appear.
  2. A. Baltag and L.S. Moss. Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139:165- 224, 2004. Knowledge, Rationality & Action 1-60.
  3. M. Burrows, M. Abadi, and R. Needham. A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 8:18-36, 1990.
  4. K. Engelhardt, R. van der Meyden, and Y. Moses. Knowledge and the logic of local propositions. In I. Gilboa, editor, Proceedings of TARK VII, pages 29-41.
  5. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
  6. R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M.Y. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1995.
  7. M.J. Fischer and R.N. Wright. Bounds on secret key exchange using a random deal of cards. Journal of Cryptology, 9(2):71-99, 1996.
  8. P. Gammie and R. van der Meyden. MCK: Model checking the logic of knowledge. In R. Alur and D. Peled, editors, Proceedings of the 16th International conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2004), pages 479-483. Springer, 2004.
  9. J.D. Gerbrandy and W. Groeneveld. Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 6:147-169, 1997.
  10. J.Y. Halpern, R. van der Meyden, and M.Y. Vardi. Complete axiomatizations for reasoning about knowledge and time. SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(3):674-703, 2004.
  11. K. Koizumi, T. Mizuki, and T. Nishizeki. Necessary and sufficient numbers of cards for the transformation protocol. In K.-Y. Chwa and J. Ian Munro, editors, Computing and Combinatorics, 10th Annual International Conference (COCOON 2004), LNCS 3106, pages 92-101. Springer, 2004.
  12. Franco Raimondi and Alessio Lomuscio. Verification of multiagent systems via ordered binary decision diagrams: An algorithm and its implementation. In 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pages 630-637. IEEE Computer Society, 2004.
  13. R. Ramanujam and S. P. Suresh. Information based reasoning about security protocols. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 55(1), 2001.
  14. W. van der Hoek and M. Wooldridge. Model checking knowledge and time. In D. Bosnacki and S. Leue, editors, Model Checking Software, Proceedings of SPIN 2002 (LNCS Volume 2318), pages 95-111. Springer, 2002.
  15. R. van der Meyden. Common knowledge and update in finite environments. Information and Computation, 140(2):115-157, 1998.
  16. H.P. van Ditmarsch. Descriptions of game actions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11:349-365, 2002.
  17. H.P. van Ditmarsch. The russian cards problem. Studia Logica, 75:31-62, 2003.
  18. H.P. van Ditmarsch. The case of the hidden hand. In Liber Amicorum Dick de Jongh, 2004. (electronically published) ISBN 90 5776 1289.
  19. J. van Eijck. Dynamic epistemic modelling. Technical report, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, 2004. CWI Report SEN-E0424.
  20. J. van Eijck and J. Ruan. Action emulation. manuscript, 2005.
  21. S. van Otterloo, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge. Model checking a knowledge exchange scenario. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9-10):937-952, 2004.

Related papers

Verifying epistemic protocols under common knowledge
Jan van Eijck

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge - TARK '09, 2009

Epistemic protocols are communication protocols aiming at transfer of knowledge in a controlled way. Typically, the preconditions or goals for protocol actions depend on the knowledge of agents, often in nested form. Informal epistemic protocol descriptions for muddy children, coordinated attack, dining cryptographers, Russian cards, secret key exchange are well known. The contribution of this paper is a formal study of a natural requirement on epistemic protocols, that the contents of the protocol can be assumed to be common knowledge. By formalizing this requirement we can prove that there can be no unbiased deterministic protocol for the Russian cards problem. For purposes of our formal analysis we introduce an epistemic protocol language, and we show that its model checking problem is decidable.

View PDFchevron_right
Model Checking a Knowledge Exchange Scenario
Wiebe Van Der Hoek

Applied Artificial Intelligence, 2004

We are interested in applying model checking techniques to the verification of communication protocols which require safe communication. Typically, in such scenarios, one desires to demonstrate that one party can reliably communicate information to another party without a third party being able to determine this information. Our approach involves using the modal logic of knowledge, which has only relatively recently been studied in the context of secure protocols. We demonstrate our approach by means of a detailed case study: The Russian cards problem. This is an example of a security protocol with nontrivial requirements on the knowledge of the agents involved. Using the Russian cards problem as an example it is shown how the satisfaction of properties involving knowledge can be verified in a standard model checker -in our case, SPIN.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards Model Checking Cryptographic Protocols with Dynamic Epistemic Logic
Jan van Eijck

2015

htmlabstractWe present a variant of Kripke models to model knowledge of large numbers, applicable to cryptographic protocols. Our Epistemic Crypto Logic is a variant of Dynamic Epistemic Logic to describe com- munication and computation in a multi-agent setting. It is interpreted on register models which eciently encode larger Kripke models. As an example we formalize the well-known Die-Hellman key exchange. The presented register models also motivate a Monte Carlo method for model checking which we compare against a standard algorithm, using the key exchange as a benchmark.

View PDFchevron_right
Checking Communication Protocols with Dynamic Epistemic Logic
Jan van Eijck

Model checking techniques for communication protocols usually are phrased in terms of processes, basically labelled arcs in a labelled transition system. We propose to lift checking for such protocols to a more abstract level by analysing the protocols as composite communicative actions, with a communicative action viewed as a mapping on an appropriate class of epistemic models. As an example, we will give an epistemic analysis and check of Chaum's well-known dining cryptographers protocol, and compare this with the more traditional process analysis.

View PDFchevron_right
Dynamic Epistemic Model Checking
Jan van Eijck

2015

This lecture introduces and discusses a tiny program for epistemic model checking with S5 models in Haskell. The model update operations are public announcement and publicly observable factual change. The implementation is much more efficient than the earlier implementation of DEMO (Van Eijck 2007), but less efficient than a symbolic model checker for DEL (Lecture 3). Still, because the approach is so simple, it gives a useful idea of what goes on in model checking DEL. As examples, we implement the sum and product riddle, which is solved in a few seconds, and the parametrized muddy children problems, where the cases with up to ten children run in a matter of seconds. Next, we look at PRODEMO, a program for probabilistic epistemic model checking, and use it for solving some probabilistic epistemic model checking problems. Abstract This lecture introduces and discusses a tiny program for epistemic model checking with S5 models in Haskell. The model update operations are public announ...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Epistemic Logic

    • Cited by

    Three Steps
    Hans van Ditmarsch

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

    Given is a deal of ten cards over three players, such that two players each get four cards and the remaining player (the 'eavesdropper') two cards. We show that there does not exist a protocol of two steps for the four-card players to inform each other safely of their hands of cards, and we then present a protocol of three steps that achieves that goal. We verify the properties of that protocol by combinatorial and, mainly, logical (model checking) means. No such three-step protocol for cards was known. The method can be generalized. This will advance the characterization of card deals for which such exchanges of secrets are possible.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Symbolic Model Checking for Dynamic Epistemic Logic
    Jan van Eijck

    Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, 2015

    Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) can model complex information scenarios in a way that appeals to logicians. However, existing DEL implementations are ad-hoc, so we do not know how the framework really performs. For this purpose, we want to hook up with the best available model-checking and SAT techniques in computational logic. We do this by first providing a bridge: a new faithful representation of DEL models as so-called knowledge structures that allow for symbolic model checking. Next, we show that we can now solve well-known benchmark problems in epistemic scenarios much faster than with existing DEL methods. Finally, we show that our method is not just a matter of implementation, but that it raises significant issues about logical representation and update.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved