Source author record

Sujata Ghosh

Sujata Ghosh appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Artificial Intelligence Computational Complexity Computer Science and Game Theory Logic in Computer Science

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

On verifying expectations and observations of intelligent agents

Public observation logic (POL) is a variant of dynamic epistemic logic to reason about agent expectations and agent observations. Agents have certain expectations, regarding the situation at hand, that are actuated by the relevant protocols, and they eliminate possible worlds in which their expectations do not match with their observations. In this work, we investigate the computational complexity of the model checking problem for POL and prove its PSPACE-completeness. We also study various syntactic fragments of POL. We exemplify the applicability of POL model checking in verifying different characteristics and features of an interactive system with respect to the distinct expectations and (matching) observations of the system. Finally, we provide a discussion on the implementation of the model checking algorithms.

preprint2016arXiv

Do players reason by forward induction in dynamic perfect information games?

We conducted an experiment where participants played a perfect-information game against a computer, which was programmed to deviate often from its backward induction strategy right at the beginning of the game. Participants knew that in each game, the computer was nevertheless optimizing against some belief about the participant's future strategy. It turned out that in the aggregate, participants were likely to respond in a way which is optimal with respect to their best-rationalization extensive form rationalizability conjecture - namely the conjecture that the computer is after a larger prize than the one it has foregone, even when this necessarily meant that the computer has attributed future irrationality to the participant when the computer made the first move in the game. Thus, it appeared that participants applied forward induction. However, there exist alternative explanations for the choices of most participants; for example, choices could be based on the extent of risk aversion that participants attributed to the computer in the remainder of the game, rather than to the sunk outside option that the computer has already foregone at the beginning of the game. For this reason, the results of the experiment do not yet provide conclusive evidence for Forward Induction reasoning on the part of the participants.