Skip to main content

Social Networks as Communication Channels: A Logical Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11609))

Abstract

Agents use channels to communicate publicly. An agent announcing a statement on a communication channel poses non trivial questions about the nature of such a statement as well as about the attitude of the agent herself. Does the agent know whether the statement is true? Is this agent announcing that statement or its contrary in any other channel?

Extensions to Dynamic Epistemic Logics have been proposed in the recent past that give account to public announcements. One major limit of these logics is that announcements are always considered truthful. It is however clear that, in real life, incompetent agents may announce false things, while deceitful agents may even announce things they do not believe in.

In this paper, we shall provide a logical framework, called Multiple Channel Logic, able to relate true statements, agent beliefs, and announcements on communication channels. We discuss syntax and semantics of this logic and show the behaviour of the proposed deduction system. Lastly, we shall present a classification of agents based on the above introduced behaviour analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.P.: Logics of communication and change. Inf. Comput. 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Balbiani, P., Guiraud, N., Herzig, A., Lorini, E.: Agents that speak: modelling communicative plans and information sources in a logic of announcements. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, 2–6 May 2011, vol. 1–3, pp. 1207–1208 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K., Yolum, P. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, 2–6 May 2011, vol. 1–3. IFAAMAS (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balbiani, P., Seban, P.: Reasoning about permitted announcements. J. Philos. Logic 40(4), 445–472 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9187-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Olivetti, N. (ed.): TABLEAUX 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4548. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73099-6

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Plaza, J.: Logics of public communications. Synthese 158(2), 165–179 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Wooldridge, M.: Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 3(1), 9–31 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010090027213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boella, G., Governatori, G., Hulstijn, J., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., van der Torre, L.: Time and defeasibility in FIPA ACL semantics. J. Appl. Logic 9(4), 274–288 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Lutz, C.: Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In: 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, 8–12 May 2006, pp. 137–143 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cristani, M., Tomazzoli, C., Karafili, E., Olivieri, F.: Defeasible reasoning about electric consumptions, vol. 2016, pp. 885–892, May 2016

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burato, E., Cristani, M.: The process of reaching agreement in meaning negotiation. In: Nguyen, N.T. (ed.) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence VII. LNCS, vol. 7270, pp. 1–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32066-8_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Tomazzoli, C., Cristani, M., Karafili, E., Olivieri, F.: Non-monotonic reasoning rules for energy efficiency. J. Ambient Intelligence Smart Environ. 9(3), 345–360 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burato, E., Cristani, M.: Learning as meaning negotiation: a model based on English auction. In: Håkansson, A., Nguyen, N.T., Hartung, R.L., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5559, pp. 60–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01665-3_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Cristani, M., Karafili, E., Viganò, L.: Tableau systems for reasoning about risk. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 5(2), 215–247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-013-0186-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Cristani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Cristani, M., Olivieri, F., Santacà, K. (2020). Social Networks as Communication Channels: A Logical Approach. In: Brambilla, M., Cappiello, C., Ow, S. (eds) Current Trends in Web Engineering. ICWE 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51253-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51253-8_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-51252-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-51253-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics