An Epistemic Foundation for Authentication Logics (Extended Abstract)

While there have been many attempts, going back to BAN logic, to base reasoning about security protocols on epistemic notions, they have not been all that successful. Arguably, this has been due to the particular logics chosen. We present a simple logic based on the well-understood modal operators of knowledge, time, and probability, and show that it is able to handle issues that have often been swept under the rug by other approaches, while being flexible enough to capture all the higher- level security notions that appear in BAN logic. Moreover, while still assuming that the knowledge operator allows for unbounded computation, it can handle the fact that a computationally bounded agent cannot decrypt messages in a natural way, by distinguishing strings and message terms. We demonstrate that our logic can capture BAN logic notions by providing a translation of the BAN operators into our logic, capturing belief by a form of probabilistic knowledge.

A Logic for Reasoning about Upper Probabilities

We present a propositional logic to reason about the uncertainty of events, where the uncertainty is modeled by a set of probability measures assigning an interval of probability to each event. We give a sound and complete axiomatization for the logic, and show that the satisfiability problem is NP-complete, no harder than satisfiability for propositional logic.

Evidence with Uncertain Likelihoods

An agent often has a number of hypotheses, and must choose among them based on observations, or outcomes of experiments. Each of these observations can be viewed as providing evidence for or against various hypotheses. All the attempts to formalize this intuition up to now have assumed that associated with each hypothesis h there is a likelihood function {\mu}h, which is a probability measure that intuitively describes how likely each observation is, conditional on h being the correct hypothesis. We consider an extension of this framework where there is uncertainty as to which of a number of likelihood functions is appropriate, and discuss how one formal approach to defining evidence, which views evidence as a function from priors to posteriors, can be generalized to accommodate this uncertainty.

A Logic for Reasoning about Evidence

We introduce a logic for reasoning about evidence, that essentially views evidence as a function from prior beliefs (before making an observation) to posterior beliefs (after making the observation). We provide a sound and complete axiomatization for the logic, and consider the complexity of the decision problem. Although the reasoning in the logic is mainly propositional, we allow variables representing numbers and quantification over them. This expressive power seems necessary to capture important properties of evidence

Reasoning about Expectation

Expectation is a central notion in probability theory. The notion of expectation also makes sense for other notions of uncertainty. We introduce a propositional logic for reasoning about expectation, where the semantics depends on the underlying representation of uncertainty. We give sound and complete axiomatizations for the logic in the case that the underlying representation is (a) probability, (b) sets of probability measures, (c) belief functions, and (d) possibility measures. We show that this logic is more expressive than the corresponding logic for reasoning about likelihood in the case of sets of probability measures, but equi-expressive in the case of probability, belief, and possibility. Finally, we show that satisfiability for these logics is NP-complete, no harder than satisfiability for propositional logic.

Characterizing and Reasoning about Probabilistic and Non-Probabilistic Expectation

Expectation is a central notion in probability theory. The notion of expectation also makes sense for other notions of uncertainty. We introduce a propositional logic for reasoning about expectation, where the semantics depends on the underlying representation of uncertainty. We give sound and complete axiomatizations for the logic in the case that the underlying representation is (a) probability, (b) sets of probability measures, (c) belief functions, and (d) possibility measures. We show that this logic is more expressive than the corresponding logic for reasoning about likelihood in the case of sets of probability measures, but equi-expressive in the case of probability, belief, and possibility. Finally, we show that satisfiability for these logics is NP-complete, no harder than satisfiability for propositional logic.

Dealing With Logical Omniscience: Expressiveness and Pragmatics

We examine four approaches for dealing with the logical omniscience problem and their potential applicability: the syntactic approach, awareness, algorithmic knowledge, and impossible possible worlds. Although in some settings these approaches are equi-expressive and can capture all epistemic states, in other settings of interest (especially with probability in the picture), we show that they are not equi-expressive. We then consider the pragmatics of dealing with logical omniscience-- how to choose an approach and construct an appropriate model.

Deductive Algorithmic Knowledge

The framework of algorithmic knowledge assumes that agents use algorithms to compute the facts they explicitly know. In many cases of interest, a deductive system, rather than a particular algorithm, captures the formal reasoning used by the agents to compute what they explicitly know. We introduce a logic for reasoning about both implicit and explicit knowledge with the latter defined with respect to a deductive system formalizing a logical theory for agents. The highly structured nature of deductive systems leads to very natural axiomatizations of the resulting logic when interpreted over any fixed deductive system. The decision problem for the logic, in the presence of a single agent, is NP-complete in general, no harder than propositional logic. It remains NP-complete when we fix a deductive system that is decidable in nondeterministic polynomial time. These results extend in a straightforward way to multiple agents.