The challenge of finding compromises between agent proposals is fundamental to AI sub-fields such as argumentation [27], mediation [22], and negotiation [20]. Building on this tradition, Elkind et al. [9] introduced a process for coalition formation that seeks majority-supported proposals preferable to the status quo, using a metric space where each agent has an ideal point. The crucial step in this iterative process involves identifying compromise proposals around which agent coalitions can unite. How to effectively find such compromise proposals, however, remains an open question. We address this gap by formalizing a holistic model that encompasses agent bounded rationality and uncertainty and developing AI models to generate such compromise proposals. We focus on the domain of collaboratively writing text documents-e.g., to enable the democratic creation of a community constitution. We apply NLP (Natural Language Processing [7]) techniques and utilize LLMs (Large Language Models [35]) to create a semantic metric space for text and develop algorithms to suggest suitable compromise points. To evaluate the effectiveness of our algorithms, we simulate various coalition formation processes and demonstrate the potential of AIto facilitate large-scale democratic text editing, such as collaboratively drafting a constitution-an area where traditional tools are limited.
The principle of minimal change in belief revision theory requires that, when accepting new information, one keeps one's belief state as close to the initial belief state as possible. This is precisely what the method known as minimal revision does. However, unlike less conservative belief revision methods, minimal revision falls short in learning power: It cannot learn everything that can be learned by other learning methods. We begin by showing that, despite this limitation, minimal revision is still a successful learning method in a wide range of situations. Firstly, it can learn any problem that is finitely identifiable. Secondly, it can learn with positive and negative data, as long as one considers finitely many possibilities. We then characterize the prior plausibility assignments (over finitely many possibilities) that enable one to learn via minimal revision, and do the same for conditioning and lexicographic upgrade. Finally, we show that not all of our results still hold when learning from possibly erroneous information.
Impure simplicial complexes are a powerful tool to model multi-agent epistemic situations where agents may die, but it is difficult to define a satisfactory semantics for the ordinary propositional modal language on such models, since many conceptually dubious expressions involving dead agents can be expressed in this language. In this paper, we introduce a term-modal language with assignment operators, in which such conceptually dubious expressions are syntactically excluded. We define both simplicial semantics and first-order Kripke semantics for this language, characterize their respective expressivity through notions of bisimulation, and show that the two semantics are equivalent when we consider a special class of first order Kripke models called local epistemic models. We also offer a complete axiomatization for the epistemic logic based on this language, and show that our language has a notion of assignment normal form. Finally, we discuss the behavior of a kind of intensional distributed knowledge that can be naturally expressed in our language.
Simulation and refinement are variations of the bisimulation relation, where in the former we keep only atoms and forth, and in the latter only atoms and back. Quantifying over simulations and refinements captures the effects of information change in a multi-agent system. In the case of quantification over refinements, we are looking at all the ways the agents in a system can become more informed. Similarly, in the case of quantification over simulations, we are dealing with all the ways the agents can become less informed, or in other words, could have been less informed, as we are at liberty how to interpret time in dynamic epistemic logic. While quantification over refinements has been well explored in the literature, quantification over simulations has received considerably less attention. In this paper, we explore the relationship between refinements and simulations. To this end, we also employ the notion of mutual factual ignorance that allows us to capture the state of a model before agents have learnt any factual information. In particular, we consider the extensions of multi-modal logic with the simulation and refinement modalities, as well as modalities for mutual factual ignorance. We provide reduction-based axiomatizations for several of the resulting logics that are built extending one another in a modular fashion.
We introduce a new logic of graded distributed belief that allows us to express the fact that a group of agents distributively believe that a certain fact holds with at least strength k. We interpret our logic by means of computationally grounded semantics relying on the concept of belief base. The strength of the group's distributed belief is directly computed from the group's belief base after having merged its members' individual belief bases. We illustrate our logic with an intuitive example, formalizing the notion of epistemic disagreement. We also provide a sound and complete Hilbert-style axiomatization, decidability result obtained via filtration, and a tableaux-based decision procedure that allows us to state PSPACE-completeness for our logic.
