Revision/Révision in areas (2024-02-10)

Agents use their own vocabularies to reason and talk about the world. Public signature awareness is satisfied if agents are aware of the vocabularies, or signatures, used by all agents they may, eventually, interact with. Multi-agent modal logics and in particular Dynamic Epistemic Logic rely on public signature awareness for modeling information flow in multi-agent systems. However, this assumption is not desirable for dynamic and open multi-agent systems because (1) it prevents agents to use unique signatures other agents are unaware of, (2) it prevents agents to openly extend their signatures when encountering new information, and (3) it requires that all future knowledge and beliefs of agents are bounded by the current state. We propose a new semantics for awareness that enables us to drop public signature awareness. This semantics is based on partial valuation functions and weakly reflexive relations. Dynamics for raising public and private awareness are then defined in such a way as to differentiate between becoming aware of a proposition and learning its truth value. With this, we show that knowledge and beliefs are not affected through the raising operations.

Public signature awareness is satisfied if agents are aware of the vocabulary, propositions, used by other agents to think and talk about the world. However, assuming that agents are fully aware of each other's signatures prevents them to adapt their vocabularies to newly gained information, from the environment or learned through agent communication. Therefore this is not realistic for open multi-agent systems. We propose a novel way to model awareness with partial valuations that drops public signature awareness and can model agent signature unawareness, and we give a first view on defining the dynamics of raising and forgetting awareness on this framework.

Agents may use ontology alignments to communicate when they represent knowledge with different ontologies: alignments help reclassifying objects from one ontology to the other. These alignments may not be perfectly correct, yet agents have to proceed. They can take advantage of their experience in order to evolve alignments: upon communication failure, they will adapt the alignments to avoid reproducing the same mistake. Such repair experiments had been performed in the framework of networks of ontologies related by alignments. They revealed that, by playing simple interaction games, agents can effectively repair random networks of ontologies. Here we repeat these experiments and, using new measures, show that previous results were underestimated. We introduce new adaptation operators that improve those previously considered. We also allow agents to go beyond the initial operators in two ways: they can generate new correspondences when they discard incorrect ones, and they can provide less precise answers. The combination of these modalities satisfy the following properties: (1) Agents still converge to a state in which no mistake occurs. (2) They achieve results far closer to the correct alignments than previously found. (3) They reach again 100% precision and coherent alignments.

Agents may use different ontologies for representing knowledge and take advantage of alignments between ontologies in order to communicate. Such alignments may be provided by dedicated algorithms, but their accuracy is far from satisfying. We already explored operators allowing agents to repair such alignments while using them for communicating. The question remained of the capability of agents to craft alignments from scratch in the same way. Here we explore the use of expanding repair operators for that purpose. When starting from empty alignments, agents fails to create them as they have nothing to repair. Hence, we introduce the capability for agents to risk adding new correspondences when no existing one is useful. We compare and discuss the results provided by this modality and show that, due to this generative capability, agents reach better results than without it in terms of the accuracy of their alignments. When starting with empty alignments, alignments reach the same quality level as when starting with random alignments, thus providing a reliable way for agents to build alignment from scratch through communication.