Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userUncertainty About Evidence
68
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We develop a logical framework for reasoning about knowledge and evidence in which the agent may be uncertain about how to interpret their evidence. Rather than representing an evidential state as a fixed subset of the state space, our models allow the set of possible worlds that a piece of evidence corresponds to to vary from one possible world to another, and therefore itself be the subject of uncertainty. Such structures can be viewed as (epistemically motivated) generalizations of topological spaces. In this context, there arises a natural distinction between what is actually entailed by the evidence and what the agent knows is entailed by the evidence -- with the latter, in general, being much weaker. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the corresponding bi-modal logic of knowledge and evidence entailment, and investigate some natural extensions of this core system, including the addition of a belief modality and its interaction with evidence interpretation and entailment, and the addition of a knowability modality interpreted via a (generalized) interior operator.
rate research
Read More
We solve some decision problems for timed automata which were recently raised by S. Tripakis in [ Folk Theorems on the Determinization and Minimization of Timed Automata, in the Proceedings of the International Workshop FORMATS2003, LNCS, Volume 2791, p. 182-188, 2004 ] and by E. Asarin in [ Challenges in Timed Languages, From Applied Theory to Basic Theory, Bulletin of the EATCS, Volume 83, p. 106-120, 2004 ]. In particular, we show that one cannot decide whether a given timed automaton is determinizable or whether the complement of a timed regular language is timed regular. We show that the problem of the minimization of the number of clocks of a timed automaton is undecidable. It is also undecidable whether the shuffle of two timed regular languages is timed regular. We show that in the case of timed Buchi automata accepting infinite timed words some of these problems are Pi^1_1-hard, hence highly undecidable (located beyond the arithmetical hierarchy).
Most modern (classical) programming languages support recursion. Recursion has also been successfully applied to the design of several quantum algorithms and introduced in a couple of quantum programming languages. So, it can be expected that recursion will become one of the fundamental paradigms of quantum programming. Several program logics have been developed for verification of quantum while-programs. However, there are as yet no general methods for reasoning about (mutual) recursive procedures and ancilla quantum data structure in quantum computing (with measurement). We fill the gap in this paper by proposing a parameterized quantum assertion logic and, based on which, designing a quantum Hoare logic for verifying parameterized recursive quantum programs with ancilla data and probabilistic control. The quantum Hoare logic can be used to prove partial, total, and even probabilistic correctness (by reducing to total correctness) of those quantum programs. In particular, two counterexamples for illustrating incompleteness of non-parameterized assertions in verifying recursive procedures, and, one counterexample for showing the failure of reasoning with exact probabilities based on partial correctness, are constructed. The effectiveness of our logic is shown by three main examples -- recursive quantum Markov chain (with probabilistic control), fixed-point Grovers search, and recursive quantum Fourier sampling.
This paper targets control problems that exhibit specific safety and performance requirements. In particular, the aim is to ensure that an agent, operating under uncertainty, will at runtime strictly adhere to such requirements. Previous works create so-called shields that correct an existing controller for the agent if it is about to take unbearable safety risks. However, so far, shields do not consider that an environment may not be fully known in advance and may evolve for complex control and learning tasks. We propose a new method for the efficient computation of a shield that is adaptive to a changing environment. In particular, we base our method on problems that are sufficiently captured by potentially infinite Markov decision processes (MDP) and quantitative specifications such as mean payoff objectives. The shield is independent of the controller, which may, for instance, take the form of a high-performing reinforcement learning agent. At runtime, our method builds an internal abstract representation of the MDP and constantly adapts this abstraction and the shield based on observations from the environment. We showcase the applicability of our method via an urban traffic control problem.
In functional programming, datatypes a la carte provide a convenient modular representation of recursive datatypes, based on their initial algebra semantics. Unfortunately it is highly challenging to implement this technique in proof assistants that are based on type theory, like Coq. The reason is that it involves type definitions, such as those of type-level fixpoint operators, that are not strictly positive. The known work-around of impredicative encodings is problematic, insofar as it impedes conventional inductive reasoning. Weak induction principles can be used instead, but they considerably complicate proofs. This paper proposes a novel and simpler technique to reason inductively about impredicative encodings, based on Mendler-style induction. This technique involves dispensing with dependent induction, ensuring that datatypes can be lifted to predicates and relying on relational formulations. A case study on proving subject reduction for structural operational semantics illustrates that the approach enables modular proofs, and that these proofs are essentially similar to conventional ones.
We apply a paraconsistent logic to reason about fractions.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
