{"avgDl":136.5212314225053,"df":{"0":23,"000":1,"00048408912350161":1,"0007371":1,"00184":1,"00352":1,"007":2,"01":2,"0112":1,"01930":1,"01930v2":1,"01957":1,"01957v2":1,"02":3,"02279":1,"02630":1,"02688":1,"02739":1,"027b":1,"03":1,"03434":1,"03434v1":1,"03442":1,"03629":1,"03762":1,"04":1,"04401":1,"04761":1,"05":3,"05168":1,"053":1,"06322":1,"07182":1,"0752":1,"07547":1,"07547v1":1,"07842":1,"07864":1,"07870":1,"07870v3":1,"08":2,"0809":1,"08111":1,"08155":1,"08155v2":1,"08500":1,"1":62,"10":31,"100":4,"1007":7,"10083":1,"100b":1,"100m":2,"1011":1,"1017":1,"10261":1,"1030":1,"1035":1,"1038":1,"1044":1,"1067":1,"107":1,"1074":1,"1080":1,"10th":2,"11":2,"1109":5,"1111":1,"11185098":1,"112":3,"1126":1,"11299":1,"11366":1,"1145":1,"11492":1,"116":1,"117":1,"1183506427":1,"11903":1,"11905":1,"11905v1":1,"12":4,"12194":1,"127":1,"1278":1,"128135":1,"129":1,"13":5,"130":2,"1308":1,"133":2,"134":1,"13657":1,"13657v2":1,"1370":1,"139":1,"14":4,"1407":1,"14165":1,"143":1,"14321":1,"14374":1,"14374v1":1,"1467":1,"147":1,"15":3,"150":2,"1500":2,"150m":2,"153m":1,"154":1,"155":3,"1564":1,"157":1,"15727":1,"15727v2":1,"159":1,"16":2,"1612":1,"16572":1,"16736":1,"169":1,"17":2,"170":1,"1702552":1,"1706":1,"1710":1,"17150":1,"17150v1":1,"1721":2,"173":2,"1738":1,"175":1,"175b":1,"1762":1,"17760":1,"178":1,"17th":1,"17x":1,"18":3,"1801":1,"182":1,"184":1,"185":1,"185220":1,"18th":1,"19":6,"1901":1,"1903":1,"1905":1,"1931":8,"1934":1,"1936":18,"1938":2,"1943":8,"1944":9,"1946":5,"19466":1,"19466v1":1,"195":1,"1950s":1,"1951":2,"1953":7,"1955":1,"1956":4,"195609":1,"1959":6,"1960":3,"1960s":5,"1962":5,"1963":4,"1966":5,"1967":9,"1968":3,"1969":6,"1970s":1,"1971":1,"1973":3,"1974":5,"1975":7,"1977":8,"1978":6,"1979":6,"1979b":2,"198":2,"1980":6,"1980s":2,"1981":4,"1982":5,"1984":4,"1985":8,"1986":9,"1987":6,"1988":5,"1989":6,"199":1,"1990":5,"1990131":1,"1990888":1,"1990s":5,"1991":3,"1992":2,"1993":6,"1994":4,"1995":4,"1996":4,"1997":3,"1998":10,"1999":5,"2":49,"20":8,"200":4,"2000":42,"2000s":2,"2001":7,"2002":4,"2003":4,"2004":2,"2004spring":1,"2005":5,"2006":3,"2007":1,"2008":2,"2009":1,"2010":2,"2011":6,"2012":2,"2013":5,"2014":4,"2015":1,"2016":4,"2017":10,"2018":4,"2019":6,"201974":1,"2020":2,"2022":2,"2023":12,"2024":5,"20240601112440":1,"2025":20,"2026":4,"2068896":1,"20control":1,"20for":1,"20framework":1,"20games":1,"20knowledge":2,"20level":1,"20logic":1,"20newell":1,"20the":1,"21":7,"213":1,"213144":1,"219":1,"22":3,"220":1,"2201":1,"2210":1,"2267778":1,"2269028":1,"228725198":1,"22928":1,"22928v1":1,"22nd":1,"23":4,"2302":2,"2303":2,"2304":1,"2307":5,"2308":2,"2309":2,"2312":1,"23278":1,"233857":1,"235":1,"2371045":1,"23954":1,"24":3,"2402":1,"2406":1,"2410":1,"24434":1,"245":1,"24x":1,"25":2,"250":1,"2501":1,"2502":1,"2503":2,"2504":1,"2505":1,"2506":1,"2510":1,"2511":1,"2512":1,"252":1,"253741":1,"2602":1,"2603":3,"261":1,"2688":1,"27":2,"2754":1,"2754v2":1,"277":2,"27th":1,"28":5,"280m":2,"284":3,"287":1,"288":1,"296":1,"2d":1,"2n":1,"2nd":1,"2p":1,"3":38,"30":4,"300b":1,"306":1,"30m":1,"31":1,"315":1,"316":2,"319":1,"31m":1,"32":3,"33":1,"335":1,"3389":1,"3396":1,"34":5,"340":1,"344":1,"345":2,"349":1,"35":1,"3561":1,"358":1,"36":3,"363":2,"366":2,"369":1,"37":2,"371":1,"374":1,"375":1,"375735":1,"378":3,"38":3,"382":1,"39":1,"3f":1,"3k":1,"3rd":1,"4":26,"40":4,"405":1,"41":7,"413620":1,"42":4,"424":1,"43":2,"436":1,"463":1,"47":2,"473":1,"48":3,"484":1,"494":1,"4th":1,"5":22,"50":4,"502":1,"509":6,"51x8c453":1,"53":3,"53rd":1,"540":1,"540b":1,"549":1,"55":2,"558":1,"560":1,"565":1,"57":1,"57633":1,"58":4,"587":1,"5944":1,"5g":1,"5th":1,"5x":1,"6":15,"60":2,"6089":1,"60m":1,"6114583":1,"613":1,"62":1,"63":2,"633":1,"64":1,"641":1,"642":2,"6427":1,"65713":1,"662":1,"6624":1,"666":1,"67":1,"671":1,"674":2,"677":1,"68":1,"68671":1,"699219":1,"6997":1,"6g":1,"7":13,"70":2,"704":1,"709":1,"70s":4,"71":1,"727":2,"73":3,"735849":2,"74":1,"75":3,"766":2,"77":2,"7792":1,"79":1,"7920":1,"7b":1,"8":11,"80":3,"800":1,"8004":5,"802":1,"81":3,"819":1,"83":1,"833":1,"85":1,"85270":1,"86":1,"8640":1,"87":3,"88":1,"89":1,"9":9,"907":1,"91":6,"92":2,"928":1,"93":2,"94":4,"95":1,"97":2,"978":3,"98":2,"9809034":1,"99":3,"9904":1,"9947":1,"a":697,"a2a":12,"aaai":7,"aaii":1,"aais":1,"aalborg":1,"aamas":1,"abadi":1,"abandon":3,"abandoning":3,"abandons":1,"abbeel":3,"ability":13,"ablations":1,"able":5,"ablex":2,"abnormal":1,"abnormalities":2,"abnormality":6,"abort":1,"about":89,"above":13,"abs":42,"abse":1,"absence":3,"absent":3,"absolute":3,"absorb":2,"absorbed":1,"absorption":1,"abstract":33,"abstracting":2,"abstraction":22,"abstractions":14,"abstracts":1,"abuse":3,"abuses":2,"ac":6,"ac2004fornaraviganocolombetti":1,"academic":3,"accelerate":1,"accelerating":1,"accelerometer":1,"accept":14,"acceptability":1,"acceptable":1,"acceptance":2,"acceptances":1,"accepted":5,"accepting":2,"acceptor":1,"accepts":5,"access":30,"accesses":1,"accessibility":2,"accessible":5,"accidental":1,"accidentally":1,"accidents":1,"accommodate":1,"accommodated":1,"accommodates":2,"accommodation":1,"accompany":1,"accomplish":3,"accomplishes":1,"accomplishment":1,"accordance":1,"according":2,"accordingly":5,"account":15,"accountability":8,"accounting":3,"accounts":3,"accreted":1,"accumulate":1,"accumulated":2,"accumulating":1,"accumulation":1,"accumulator":1,"accumulators":1,"accuracy":4,"accurate":2,"achievable":9,"achieve":12,"achieved":5,"achievement":3,"achievements":1,"achieves":6,"achieving":4,"acknowledged":1,"acknowledgements":1,"acks":1,"acl":132,"acls":72,"acm":21,"acp":6,"acquire":5,"acquires":2,"acquiring":1,"acquisition":2,"acre":17,"across":91,"act":91,"acta":1,"acting":15,"action":68,"actions":45,"activatable":1,"activated":2,"activation":1,"activations":2,"active":7,"activeness":1,"activities":2,"activity":8,"actor":28,"actors":9,"acts":65,"actual":5,"actually":23,"actuation":1,"ad":10,"adapt":5,"adaptability":1,"adaptation":19,"adaptations":1,"adapted":1,"adapting":1,"adaptive":38,"adaptively":1,"adapts":3,"add":14,"added":5,"addendum":1,"adding":14,"addison":1,"addition":4,"additional":5,"additions":1,"additive":3,"address":10,"addressable":1,"addressed":11,"addresses":7,"addressing":4,"adds":8,"ade9097":1,"adequacy":8,"adequate":7,"adequately":2,"adherence":2,"aditya":1,"adjacent":1,"adjectival":2,"adjective":2,"adjust":1,"adjustment":2,"adjusts":1,"admin":1,"administration":1,"admissibility":2,"admissible":3,"admit":7,"admits":7,"admitting":2,"adopt":9,"adopted":6,"adopter":1,"adopting":3,"adoption":4,"adopts":2,"advance":3,"advancement":1,"advances":2,"advantages":1,"advent":1,"adventure":1,"adversarial":12,"adversaries":1,"adversary":5,"advertise":7,"advertised":1,"advertising":1,"advice":6,"advise":1,"advisor":2,"advisory":1,"advocacy":1,"advocate":3,"advocated":3,"advocates":6,"afapl2":1,"affair":1,"affairs":1,"affect":2,"affective":1,"affects":2,"affiliations":1,"affirmatively":1,"affordances":1,"affording":1,"affords":1,"afips":1,"afras":1,"after":16,"afterthought":1,"ag2":1,"again":4,"against":58,"age":1,"agencies":7,"agency":28,"agenda":15,"agent":394,"agent2":1,"agent2agent":1,"agent2env":1,"agent2memory":1,"agentcards":3,"agenthood":1,"agentic":27,"agentification":2,"agents":291,"agentsofchaos":1,"agentspeak":4,"aggregate":27,"aggregated":5,"aggregates":8,"aggregation":27,"aggregator":1,"aggressive":1,"agha":1,"agile":1,"agm":1,"agnostic":5,"agora":14,"agoric":4,"agrawal":1,"agree":4,"agreeing":1,"agreement":14,"agreements":2,"ahmad":1,"ai":125,"aibo":1,"aibos":1,"aid":2,"aij":1,"aij90":1,"aim":3,"aimagazine":1,"aimed":2,"ain":1,"air":1,"aircraft":2,"airport":1,"aitp":1,"aiwaves":1,"akin":1,"akka":1,"al":48,"alarms":1,"alberto":1,"aleph":1,"alexa":1,"alexander":1,"alfworld":2,"algebra":4,"algebraic":1,"algebraically":2,"algebras":1,"algol":3,"algorithm":12,"algorithmic":17,"algorithms":8,"ali":1,"aliases":1,"alice":3,"align":5,"aligned":2,"aligning":1,"alignment":13,"aligns":1,"alin":1,"all":91,"allen":2,"allocated":1,"allocation":4,"allow":6,"allowed":2,"allowfullscreen":1,"allowing":9,"allows":5,"alm":1,"almost":1,"alms":1,"alone":15,"along":23,"alongside":20,"alonzo":2,"alpern":1,"alphabets":1,"alphago":1,"already":11,"also":34,"alter":2,"altering":1,"alternates":1,"alternating":4,"alternation":3,"alternations":1,"alternative":25,"alternatives":11,"alters":1,"although":1,"alvaro":5,"always":8,"alysson":1,"alzheimer":1,"am":2,"amazon":1,"amber":1,"ambient":13,"ambiently":1,"ambiguities":1,"ambiguity":6,"ambiguous":5,"ambiguously":1,"ambition":1,"ambitions":3,"amd":1,"ameloot":3,"amenable":2,"american":8,"amir":2,"among":36,"amortise":1,"amount":8,"amounts":1,"amplification":2,"amplified":1,"amplifies":1,"ams":3,"an":325,"analog":4,"analogous":9,"analogously":2,"analogue":6,"analogues":2,"analogy":5,"analysable":1,"analyse":5,"analysed":8,"analyses":3,"analysing":4,"analysis":47,"analyst":1,"analytic":1,"analytical":3,"analytically":1,"analyze":1,"analyzes":2,"analyzing":1,"anarchy":3,"anatomy":1,"ancestor":22,"ancestors":3,"ancestral":2,"ancestry":2,"anchor":4,"anchoring":2,"anchors":1,"ancient":2,"and":676,"andreas":1,"andrew":1,"android":1,"andrzej":2,"andy":1,"anecdote":1,"angeles":1,"angeliki":1,"angle":2,"anguilla":1,"animal":1,"animals":1,"animated":1,"annalen":2,"anne":1,"annealed":1,"anneals":1,"annotated":4,"annotates":1,"annotating":1,"annotations":1,"annotator":2,"annotators":1,"announcement":1,"announcements":1,"announces":1,"annual":2,"anonymous":2,"another":24,"anp":9,"anscombe":1,"ansi":1,"answer":10,"answered":1,"answering":1,"answers":11,"antecedent":4,"anthropic":2,"anti":9,"antichain":1,"anticipate":4,"anticipated":4,"anticipates":11,"anticipating":5,"anticipation":1,"antidote":1,"antipattern":1,"anton":1,"antoniou":1,"ants":1,"anuna":1,"any":51,"anyone":1,"anything":1,"ao07b":1,"aop":6,"ap":1,"ap2":2,"apart":2,"api":8,"apis":4,"apl":1,"apologies":1,"apologising":1,"apology":1,"apparatus":3,"apparent":4,"apparently":3,"appeal":2,"appeals":1,"appearance":1,"appearing":1,"appears":4,"append":1,"appended":1,"appendices":1,"appendix":2,"applicability":2,"applicable":2,"application":38,"applications":35,"applied":20,"applies":9,"apply":11,"applying":5,"appointments":1,"approach":64,"approaches":17,"appropriate":6,"appropriately":2,"approve":1,"approvingly":1,"approximate":4,"approximately":3,"approximating":3,"approximation":2,"approximations":2,"approximators":1,"appworld":1,"april":1,"aquinas":1,"ar":2,"ara":1,"arbiter":2,"arbitrarily":5,"arbitrary":22,"arbitrated":1,"arc":3,"archaeological":1,"archaeology":1,"archetypal":1,"archetypes":1,"arching":1,"architect":2,"architectural":49,"architecturally":1,"architecture":81,"architectures":25,"archive":8,"arcol":6,"are":234,"arguably":1,"argue":22,"argued":4,"argues":46,"arguing":8,"argument":27,"argumentative":1,"arguments":17,"arise":9,"arises":2,"arising":5,"arithmetic":23,"arithmetical":6,"arithmetically":1,"arithmetisation":2,"arithmetise":1,"arkin":1,"arlington":1,"armstrong":1,"around":25,"arouse":1,"arouses":2,"arpa":4,"arranged":2,"arrangements":1,"array":1,"arrays":1,"arrival":1,"arrive":2,"arrives":4,"arrows":1,"art":28,"artefact":6,"artefacts":4,"arthur":1,"article":9,"articles":11,"articulate":1,"articulates":5,"articulation":3,"artifacts":9,"artificial":61,"arxiv":40,"ary":1,"as":331,"as1":1,"as10":1,"ascens":14,"ascii":1,"ascribe":3,"ascribed":2,"ascribing":26,"ascription":6,"ascriptions":2,"ascriptive":2,"ascriptivism":1,"ascriptivist":1,"ashwin":1,"aside":1,"ask":11,"asked":1,"askell":1,"asks":4,"asn":6,"aspects":5,"aspirations":1,"asr":1,"ass":1,"assayable":1,"assemble":1,"assembly":1,"assert":3,"asserting":6,"assertion":8,"assertions":10,"assertive":2,"assertives":2,"assertoric":1,"asserts":2,"assessing":2,"assessment":3,"asset":2,"assets":4,"assign":4,"assigned":1,"assigning":19,"assignment":8,"assignments":3,"assistant":1,"assistants":1,"assisted":1,"associate":2,"associated":1,"association":3,"associations":2,"associative":2,"assume":12,"assumed":3,"assumes":2,"assuming":4,"assumption":18,"assumptions":15,"assurance":1,"astrolabe":1,"asymmetries":1,"asymmetry":1,"async":5,"asynchronous":16,"asynchronously":3,"asynchrony":1,"at":123,"at2ai":1,"at2ai6":1,"atlas":2,"atm":1,"atom":2,"atomic":8,"atomically":3,"atomicity":1,"atomistic":1,"atoms":2,"atop":8,"att":1,"attach":2,"attached":4,"attaching":1,"attachment":2,"attack":42,"attacked":1,"attacker":13,"attackers":7,"attacking":1,"attacks":49,"attained":1,"attainment":1,"attempt":4,"attempto":1,"attempts":1,"attend":1,"attendees":1,"attending":2,"attends":1,"attention":11,"attenuated":1,"attenuating":1,"attestations":4,"attitude":5,"attitudes":16,"attractive":1,"attribute":6,"attributed":3,"attributes":5,"attributing":1,"attribution":1,"auction":4,"auctioneer":1,"auctions":2,"audit":3,"auditability":1,"auditable":2,"auditing":1,"auditors":2,"auditory":1,"aug":1,"augment":1,"augmented":14,"augmenting":1,"augments":2,"aura":1,"austin":13,"australasian":1,"authenticate":1,"authenticated":2,"authenticates":1,"authentication":11,"author":6,"authored":3,"authoring":1,"authorisation":4,"authorised":2,"authoritative":3,"authorities":5,"authority":23,"authorization":2,"authors":69,"auto":2,"autoepistemic":1,"autoformalization":1,"autogen":4,"autogpt":1,"automata":21,"automate":1,"automated":25,"automatic":6,"automatically":8,"automating":18,"automation":2,"automaton":7,"autonomic":3,"autonomous":37,"autonomously":7,"autonomy":11,"autoplay":1,"autoregression":1,"autoregressive":1,"autoverus":1,"auxiliaries":1,"auxiliary":5,"availability":8,"available":16,"average":7,"averages":3,"averaging":3,"avery":1,"avoid":6,"avoidable":1,"avoidance":14,"avoiding":4,"avoids":3,"awadallah":1,"award":6,"awards":1,"aware":15,"awareness":18,"away":7,"awkward":1,"aws":1,"axes":10,"axiom":5,"axiomatic":12,"axiomatise":1,"axiomatised":3,"axioms":14,"axis":7,"azurewebsites":3,"b":21,"b2b":1,"b3":1,"babaoglu":1,"babel":10,"back":18,"backbone":9,"backdoor":3,"backdoors":1,"backdrop":3,"backed":2,"backends":1,"backfill":1,"background":4,"backing":2,"backlash":1,"backus":2,"backus78":1,"backward":1,"backwards":1,"bad":6,"bag":1,"bahn":1,"bai":1,"bailout":1,"bake":1,"baked":1,"bakes":1,"bakhtin":1,"balance":5,"balbo":1,"baldoni":1,"ballot":1,"ballots":1,"bams":1,"band":2,"bandwidth":10,"bansal":1,"bar":1,"barely":1,"bargaining":6,"barkley":2,"baroglio":1,"baroni":1,"barren":1,"barrier":4,"barriers":1,"bartlett":1,"base":21,"based":210,"baseline":5,"baselines":5,"bases":4,"basic":16,"basis":26,"batch":1,"batched":1,"batching":1,"baulab":1,"bayesian":2,"bbc":1,"bd":1,"bdi":49,"bdio":1,"bdoi":1,"bdp":1,"be":168,"beam":1,"bear":1,"bearer":1,"bearers":1,"bearing":5,"beast":1,"beat":6,"beats":1,"became":7,"because":41,"become":26,"becomes":18,"becoming":1,"bedrock":2,"beds":1,"been":15,"beer":1,"before":23,"begets":2,"begin":1,"begins":4,"behabitive":1,"behabitives":1,"behalf":7,"behave":4,"behaved":1,"behaves":2,"behavior":11,"behavioral":1,"behaviors":2,"behaviour":90,"behavioural":11,"behaviours":11,"behind":15,"being":18,"bel":1,"belief":34,"beliefs":51,"believable":1,"believe":6,"believed":4,"believer":2,"believers":8,"believes":3,"believing":3,"belong":1,"belonging":1,"belongs":2,"beloved":1,"below":10,"ben":1,"benchmark":6,"benchmarking":2,"benchmarks":9,"beneath":3,"beneficial":1,"benefit":4,"benet":2,"benevolent":3,"benign":6,"ber":2,"bergenti":1,"berkeley":3,"berman":1,"bernard":1,"berners":2,"bernstein":1,"beside":1,"bespoke":2,"bessani":1,"best":21,"bet":1,"better":12,"between":115,"beyond":25,"bf00289074":1,"bf01565439":1,"bft":1,"bharadwaj":1,"bhattacharya":1,"bhavya":1,"bi":2,"bias":10,"biases":2,"biasing":1,"bibliographic":1,"bibliography":1,"bicocchi":1,"biconditional":1,"bid":1,"bidirectional":1,"bido":1,"big":1,"bigger":3,"biggest":1,"bilateral":1,"bill":2,"billing":1,"billion":2,"billions":2,"bin":2,"binaries":2,"binary":6,"bind":2,"binding":12,"bindings":4,"binds":4,"bio":5,"biod":1,"bioelectric":1,"bioelectrical":1,"bioelectricity":2,"bioengineering":1,"bioinformatics":1,"biological":11,"biologically":2,"biology":4,"biomass":3,"biomedicine":1,"bird":2,"birds":3,"birth":1,"birthday":2,"bishop":2,"bisimulation":1,"bison":2,"bit":3,"bits":2,"bitstream":2,"bitstrings":2,"bitswap":1,"bitter":9,"bitterlesson":1,"bitterness":1,"bittorrent":1,"bivalent":1,"black":4,"blackboards":1,"blame":1,"blank":1,"blend":1,"blended":1,"bleu":1,"blind":3,"blindly":1,"blindness":1,"block":10,"blockchain":20,"blockchains":1,"blocking":2,"blocks":7,"bloom":6,"blue":1,"blurs":1,"bo":1,"boat":1,"bob":2,"bobrow":1,"bod":1,"body":2,"boella":1,"boi":1,"boid":7,"boilerplate":2,"bolt":1,"bolted":1,"bolts":2,"book":26,"bookkeeping":2,"books":1,"bookshelf":1,"boolean":1,"boosts":2,"bootstrap":5,"bootstrapped":1,"bootstrapping":2,"border":1,"borel":1,"borowski":1,"borrowed":2,"borrowing":1,"bosma":1,"bot":1,"botao":1,"both":48,"bottleneck":5,"bottlenecks":1,"bottom":9,"bound":5,"boundaries":11,"boundary":25,"bounded":16,"bounding":9,"bounds":7,"bounty":1,"boureau":1,"box":1,"boxes":2,"brachman":1,"bracketed":1,"brain":11,"brains":6,"braithwaite":1,"branch":5,"branches":2,"branching":5,"bratman":10,"bratus":7,"break":1,"breaking":3,"breaks":2,"breeding":1,"breeds":1,"brewer":2,"brewer2":1,"brewers":1,"bricked":1,"bridge":8,"bridges":3,"bridging":1,"brief":5,"briefly":1,"brien":1,"bright":1,"bring":5,"bringing":1,"brings":3,"brittle":7,"brittleness":1,"broad":2,"broadcast":7,"broader":8,"broersen":2,"broken":1,"broker":7,"brokerage":1,"brokering":4,"brokers":1,"brooks":8,"brown":3,"browse":2,"browser":1,"browsers":1,"browsing":1,"brute":3,"budget":5,"budgets":1,"buffer":9,"buffering":2,"bug":4,"buggy":1,"bugs":11,"build":24,"builders":2,"building":20,"builds":9,"built":41,"bulkiest":1,"bull":1,"bullet":1,"bulletin":2,"bullwhip":1,"bump":1,"bundled":1,"bundling":1,"burge":1,"burger":1,"burks":1,"burn":1,"business":18,"bussche":3,"but":106,"button":2,"buttons":1,"buyer":1,"bwi":1,"by":309,"bypass":2,"bypasses":1,"bypassing":1,"byte":5,"bytecode":6,"bytes":2,"byzantine":5,"c":31,"c1b6":1,"ca":5,"cabri":1,"cache":2,"cacheability":2,"caches":2,"caching":3,"cacm":2,"cad":1,"cai":1,"cake":16,"calculability":2,"calculable":3,"calculate":1,"calculations":1,"calculator":1,"calculus":44,"calendar":1,"calibration":3,"call":20,"callable":1,"called":12,"caller":8,"calling":4,"calls":16,"calm":22,"cam":2,"cambridge":6,"came":2,"camel":5,"cameras":1,"can":176,"cancedda":1,"cancel":1,"cancellable":3,"cancellation":2,"cancelled":1,"cancelling":1,"cancels":1,"cancer":1,"candidate":12,"cannibals":1,"cannot":42,"canonical":58,"canonicalising":1,"canonises":1,"cao":1,"cap":14,"capabilities":23,"capability":58,"capable":5,"capacities":3,"capacity":12,"capdesk":1,"capitalisation":1,"capitalised":1,"caplets":1,"capraro":3,"capros":1,"caps":2,"capsicum":2,"capsules":2,"captp":13,"capturable":1,"capture":9,"captured":3,"captures":9,"capturing":5,"car":1,"card":1,"cardinality":2,"cards":3,"care":2,"career":2,"careful":5,"carefully":5,"carl":1,"carlo":1,"carnap":1,"carol":2,"carried":2,"carriers":1,"carries":9,"carry":18,"carrying":3,"cart":2,"cartago":6,"cas":2,"cascade":1,"cascades":4,"cascading":2,"case":32,"cases":13,"cash":1,"cassandra":1,"cassano":1,"castelfranchi":1,"catalog":1,"catalogue":5,"catalogued":8,"catalogueing":1,"catalogues":5,"cataloguing":1,"catastrophic":2,"catastrophically":1,"catch":2,"catching":1,"categorical":2,"categories":17,"categorise":1,"categorises":1,"category":13,"caught":1,"causal":14,"causality":3,"causally":2,"causation":1,"cause":6,"caused":2,"causes":2,"causing":1,"cautionary":2,"cbcl":3,"cbcl2":1,"ccs":1,"cd":1,"cdn":2,"cdns":1,"cdr":1,"ceiling":2,"celebrated":1,"celikyilmaz":1,"cell":3,"cells":5,"cellular":1,"cemri":1,"central":58,"centralised":5,"centralize":1,"centralized":3,"centrally":2,"centre":4,"centred":1,"centres":1,"centric":12,"century":2,"certain":7,"certainty":1,"certificate":5,"certificates":2,"certification":1,"certified":1,"certifies":1,"certify":1,"certifying":1,"certs":1,"ces":1,"ceur":1,"ceyao":1,"cf":1,"cfg":1,"cfm":1,"cfp":1,"ch":2,"chai":1,"chaib":2,"chain":24,"chained":2,"chaining":1,"chains":8,"challenge":24,"challenges":6,"chalmers":2,"chalupsky":1,"chamber":1,"champaign":1,"championed":1,"chance":1,"chandra":1,"chandy":2,"chang":1,"change":37,"changed":1,"changes":18,"changing":6,"channel":15,"channels":17,"chaos":16,"chapter":23,"chapters":4,"character":1,"characterisation":2,"characterise":4,"characterised":5,"characterises":3,"characterising":2,"characteristic":4,"characteristics":2,"characterized":2,"characterizes":1,"characters":1,"charter":1,"charts":2,"chat":6,"chatbot":5,"chatbots":15,"chatdev":1,"chatgpt":1,"cheap":11,"cheaper":1,"cheapest":1,"cheating":1,"check":9,"checkable":9,"checked":8,"checker":2,"checkers":1,"checking":18,"checkout":1,"checkpoint":1,"checkpointed":2,"checkpointing":2,"checkpoints":1,"checks":9,"checksum":1,"chen":4,"cheng":2,"chengcan":1,"chenglin":1,"chenyu":1,"chess":2,"chi":1,"chief":1,"children":3,"china":1,"chinese":3,"chip":1,"chitchat":1,"choice":24,"choices":12,"chomsky":18,"choose":7,"chooses":2,"choosing":1,"chopra":3,"chosen":10,"chris":2,"christenings":1,"christine":1,"christopher":1,"chu":1,"chunks":2,"church":19,"churn":5,"ci":2,"cia":1,"cic":1,"cicero":2,"cikm":1,"circa":1,"circle":1,"circling":2,"circuit":1,"circuits":1,"circular":3,"circumscribe":2,"circumscribed":2,"circumscribing":3,"circumscription":22,"circumscriptions":1,"circumscriptive":1,"circumvents":1,"cisco":2,"citable":1,"citation":1,"cite":1,"cited":33,"cites":11,"citizens":1,"ck":1,"cl":2,"claim":162,"claiming":2,"claims":13,"clarendon":1,"clarification":1,"clarifies":3,"clarity":5,"clark":3,"class":73,"classes":32,"classic":29,"classical":19,"classics":1,"classicus":1,"classification":28,"classified":3,"classifiers":1,"classifies":5,"classify":3,"classifying":1,"classinvgen":1,"clausal":1,"clause":6,"clauses":8,"clawboard":1,"clawhub":1,"clawworm":17,"clean":2,"cleanly":8,"clearly":1,"cleaves":1,"clever":1,"cleverness":2,"client":12,"clients":9,"clipboard":1,"cllamas":1,"clobbers":1,"clock":2,"clocks":8,"clone":1,"clos":1,"close":6,"closed":8,"closely":3,"closer":1,"closes":15,"closest":1,"closing":3,"closure":9,"cloud":6,"cloze":1,"cluster":3,"clustering":2,"clusters":1,"cmu":3,"cn":1,"cnr":1,"cnrs":1,"cns":1,"co":8,"coachella":1,"coalition":1,"coalitions":2,"coarse":2,"coarser":2,"coax":1,"cobra":1,"code":75,"codebook":1,"coded":2,"coder":2,"codes":7,"codeword":1,"codifies":1,"codify":1,"coding":25,"coefficient":1,"coexist":2,"cognition":9,"cognitive":25,"cognitively":1,"cohabits":1,"cohen":12,"cohenlevesque":1,"coherence":11,"coherent":8,"coherently":1,"coincide":1,"coincides":2,"coinductive":1,"coined":1,"cold":1,"cole":1,"colin":1,"collaborate":1,"collaborating":1,"collaboration":18,"collaborative":3,"collaborators":1,"collapse":3,"collapses":3,"collapsing":1,"collateral":2,"collates":1,"collect":4,"collected":3,"collection":7,"collective":10,"collectively":2,"collectives":4,"collector":2,"collectors":1,"college":2,"collide":1,"collier":1,"collins":1,"collision":1,"collusion":2,"colombetti":2,"color":2,"colored":5,"colour":1,"coloured":3,"com":15,"combination":9,"combinations":1,"combinator":1,"combinatorial":1,"combinators":3,"combine":7,"combined":5,"combines":6,"combining":7,"come":4,"comes":7,"comfortable":2,"command":7,"commands":6,"commenting":1,"comments":1,"commerce":3,"commercial":3,"commissive":5,"commissives":6,"commit":10,"commitment":66,"commitments":38,"commits":7,"committed":9,"committees":10,"committing":1,"commodity":1,"common":81,"commonly":2,"commonsense":2,"comms":1,"communicate":28,"communicating":11,"communication":204,"communications":25,"communicative":19,"communicator":1,"communities":4,"community":9,"commutation":1,"commutativity":1,"commute":1,"compact":6,"companies":1,"companion":24,"compaq":1,"comparable":3,"comparative":20,"compare":5,"compared":5,"compares":8,"comparing":2,"comparison":8,"comparisons":3,"compartments":1,"compatibility":3,"compatible":5,"compcert":1,"compelled":1,"compensate":1,"compete":1,"competence":29,"competent":1,"competing":1,"competition":2,"competitive":3,"compilation":3,"compile":6,"compiled":6,"compiler":26,"compilers":2,"compiles":2,"complaint":1,"complement":5,"complementarity":1,"complementary":8,"complementing":3,"complements":32,"complete":24,"completed":3,"completely":2,"completeness":16,"completes":1,"completing":1,"completion":8,"complex":14,"complexity":21,"compliance":13,"compliant":1,"complicating":2,"complication":5,"complying":1,"component":21,"components":32,"composability":1,"composable":4,"compose":10,"composed":6,"composes":3,"composing":5,"composite":18,"composites":1,"composition":23,"compositional":30,"compositionality":10,"compositionally":2,"compound":1,"compounding":1,"comprehensive":5,"compress":1,"compressed":3,"compression":6,"compressions":1,"comprise":1,"comprises":1,"comprising":1,"compromise":2,"compromised":1,"compromises":1,"compromising":2,"computability":12,"computable":7,"computation":85,"computational":49,"computationalist":1,"computationally":4,"computations":7,"compute":13,"computed":8,"computer":26,"computers":6,"computes":6,"computing":18,"concatenating":2,"concatenation":2,"concealing":1,"concede":1,"concentrates":2,"concentrating":1,"concept":20,"conceptnet":1,"concepts":167,"conceptual":178,"conceptualisation":4,"conceptualisations":3,"conceptualise":1,"conceptualised":1,"conceptualization":12,"conceptualizations":1,"conceptualizes":1,"conceptually":3,"concern":6,"concerned":3,"concerns":22,"concise":2,"concisely":2,"concluded":1,"concludes":1,"conclusion":8,"conclusions":7,"concrete":43,"concretely":2,"concretised":1,"concretises":1,"concurrency":15,"concurrent":17,"concurrently":1,"condition":30,"conditional":9,"conditionalisation":1,"conditionalization":1,"conditionally":1,"conditionals":2,"conditioned":3,"conditioning":1,"conditions":34,"conduct":2,"conducted":1,"conducts":1,"cone":9,"conf":2,"conference":13,"confidence":2,"confidentiality":5,"config":2,"configs":1,"configurability":1,"configurable":1,"configuration":5,"configurations":6,"confine":1,"confined":2,"confinement":3,"conflate":2,"conflates":3,"conflation":2,"conflict":7,"conflicting":6,"conflicts":2,"confluence":9,"confluent":1,"conform":2,"conformance":7,"conforms":1,"confounds":1,"confront":1,"confused":13,"confuses":1,"confusing":2,"confusion":4,"congolog":1,"congratulating":1,"congress":1,"conjecture":7,"conjectures":1,"conjoin":1,"conjugates":1,"conjunction":2,"conjunctions":1,"connect":7,"connected":5,"connecting":2,"connection":2,"connections":176,"connective":1,"connectives":1,"connectivity":6,"connector":1,"connectors":2,"connects":9,"conniver":1,"consc":1,"conscious":5,"consciousness":4,"consensus":14,"consequence":5,"consequences":8,"consequent":2,"consequential":4,"consequentialist":1,"conservancy":1,"conservation":6,"conservative":4,"conservatively":1,"conservativism":1,"conserving":1,"considered":5,"consistency":41,"consistent":24,"consistently":3,"consolidates":1,"constancy":1,"constant":4,"constants":5,"constative":1,"constituency":1,"constituent":1,"constitute":2,"constituted":4,"constitutes":1,"constitutive":7,"constrain":5,"constrained":7,"constraining":4,"constrains":2,"constraint":19,"constraints":23,"construct":16,"constructed":2,"constructing":5,"construction":28,"constructions":1,"constructive":6,"constructor":1,"constructors":3,"constructs":16,"consult":1,"consultation":1,"consulting":1,"consults":2,"consume":1,"consumed":4,"consumer":1,"consumers":2,"consumes":1,"consumption":2,"contact":1,"contacts":1,"contain":5,"containers":1,"containing":6,"containment":2,"contains":8,"contemporaneous":2,"contemporary":8,"content":59,"contents":4,"context":68,"contexts":5,"contextual":6,"contextualises":1,"contextually":1,"continually":1,"continuation":1,"continuations":2,"continue":2,"continued":4,"continues":6,"continuity":1,"continuous":6,"continuously":5,"continuum":2,"contract":34,"contractors":1,"contracts":43,"contradict":1,"contradiction":4,"contradictions":1,"contradictory":2,"contrary":1,"contrast":13,"contrasted":6,"contrasting":1,"contrastive":1,"contrasts":17,"contribute":2,"contributes":3,"contribution":175,"contributions":3,"control":44,"controllability":1,"controllable":3,"controlled":8,"controller":3,"controlling":4,"controls":4,"controversial":1,"controversy":1,"convenient":3,"convention":2,"conventional":8,"conventionally":1,"conventions":11,"converge":8,"convergence":20,"convergent":4,"converges":5,"converging":3,"conversable":1,"conversation":42,"conversational":14,"conversationally":2,"conversations":28,"converse":2,"conversions":1,"convert":3,"convertible":1,"converting":2,"converts":3,"convey":1,"conveyed":3,"conveys":1,"conviction":1,"convincing":2,"convolution":2,"convolutional":2,"conway":10,"conways":1,"cookies":1,"cool":1,"cooperate":5,"cooperating":4,"cooperation":30,"cooperative":13,"coopetition":1,"coopetitive":1,"coordinate":20,"coordinated":7,"coordinates":1,"coordinating":21,"coordination":88,"coordinator":1,"cope":1,"copies":3,"copy":2,"core":44,"cornell":2,"corner":2,"corollaries":1,"corollary":1,"coroutines":1,"corpora":2,"corpus":2,"correct":20,"corrected":1,"correcting":1,"correction":1,"corrections":1,"correctly":4,"correctness":39,"correlated":1,"correlates":1,"correlation":2,"correlational":3,"correlations":2,"correspond":1,"correspondence":2,"correspondences":5,"corresponding":6,"corresponds":4,"corridor":1,"corrupted":1,"corrupting":1,"corruption":5,"cortana":1,"cossentino":2,"cost":28,"costantini":1,"costless":1,"costly":1,"costs":8,"cot":4,"could":13,"count":7,"countable":1,"counter":9,"countered":1,"counterfactual":6,"counterfactuals":2,"countermeasures":2,"counterpart":13,"counterparties":2,"counterparts":3,"counterparty":1,"counterpoint":4,"counterposed":1,"counters":3,"counting":2,"counts":15,"couple":1,"coupled":6,"couples":1,"coupling":3,"cours":1,"course":1,"courses":3,"court":1,"cousin":5,"cousins":1,"cover":2,"coverage":5,"covered":3,"covering":4,"covers":4,"cowan":1,"coyotos":1,"cp":3,"cpn":1,"cpns":1,"cps":6,"cpu":3,"craft":3,"crafted":6,"crafting":1,"crary":1,"crash":15,"crashed":1,"crashes":2,"crawl":1,"crdt":2,"crdts":7,"create":7,"created":2,"creates":6,"creating":23,"creation":8,"creative":3,"creatures":2,"credential":1,"credentials":2,"credible":1,"credit":2,"creditor":1,"creol":1,"creole":2,"crisp":1,"criteria":8,"criterion":13,"critical":13,"critically":1,"criticised":2,"criticises":2,"criticisms":1,"critique":30,"critiqued":6,"critiques":6,"cross":25,"crosses":1,"crossing":1,"crowd":2,"crowdes":1,"crowdsourced":1,"crucial":5,"crucially":5,"crypto":2,"cryptoapi":1,"cryptographic":15,"cryptography":3,"crystallise":1,"crystallised":1,"crystallising":1,"cs":19,"cs290":1,"cs557":1,"csail":3,"cse":3,"csee":1,"csic":2,"csp":2,"ctl":2,"cube":1,"culminates":1,"culminating":1,"culmination":1,"cultural":1,"culture":3,"cumulative":1,"cup":1,"curated":1,"curb":1,"cure":1,"current":17,"currently":2,"custom":2,"customarily":1,"customisable":2,"cut":2,"cutsem":3,"cutting":3,"cve":1,"cves":1,"cwe":2,"cwes":1,"cy":1,"cybenko":1,"cyber":1,"cybersecurity":1,"cyberspace":1,"cyc":1,"cycle":7,"cycles":3,"cyclic":3,"cyclon":1,"cylinders":1,"d":17,"dac":1,"dafny":4,"dag":1,"dagents":16,"dai":1,"daily":1,"damage":1,"damiano":1,"daml":1,"dan":2,"dangerous":1,"daniel":1,"daniela":1,"danielwharris":1,"dao":7,"darpa":3,"dartmouth":1,"dastani":1,"data":89,"database":8,"databases":5,"datacenter":1,"datacenters":1,"dataflow":1,"datalog":2,"datamation":1,"dataset":1,"datasets":2,"date":2,"dauphin":1,"david":7,"davidson":1,"dawn":1,"day":2,"days":1,"db":1,"dbs":1,"dcg":2,"dcgs":1,"ddos":20,"ddosesoricsfinsec19":1,"de":4,"deadlock":6,"deadlocks":1,"deal":3,"dealing":1,"deals":8,"death":1,"debate":3,"debates":5,"debtor":1,"debugger":1,"debuggers":1,"debugging":12,"decade":2,"decades":4,"decay":1,"decays":1,"deceives":1,"december":5,"decentralisation":1,"decentralised":16,"decentralized":8,"deception":2,"deceptive":1,"decidability":4,"decidable":12,"decide":14,"decided":1,"decides":8,"deciding":3,"decision":33,"decisions":9,"decisive":3,"declaration":2,"declarations":5,"declarative":27,"declaratively":2,"declaratives":3,"declare":5,"declared":5,"declaring":3,"declinations":1,"decline":1,"decode":1,"decoder":2,"decodes":1,"decoding":1,"decompose":4,"decomposed":5,"decomposes":3,"decomposing":3,"decomposition":8,"decorative":1,"decouple":1,"decoupled":1,"decouples":3,"decoupling":5,"decreases":2,"decreasing":1,"decree":1,"decrees":1,"decrement":1,"decryption":1,"dedalus":5,"dedicated":6,"deduce":1,"deduced":2,"deduces":1,"deducible":1,"deducing":1,"deduction":2,"deductions":1,"deductive":4,"dedup":1,"deduplication":2,"deed":1,"deep":12,"deepens":3,"deeper":3,"deepmind":1,"deepseek":1,"defamatory":1,"default":26,"defaults":9,"defeasibility":3,"defeasible":3,"defeat":1,"defeater":1,"defeaters":1,"defeating":2,"defect":3,"defection":2,"defective":3,"defects":1,"defects4j":1,"defence":6,"defences":6,"defend":3,"defended":2,"defender":1,"defends":4,"defense":1,"defenses":1,"defensive":3,"defensively":3,"defensiveness":1,"deferred":1,"definability":2,"definable":8,"define":23,"defined":40,"defines":27,"defining":24,"definite":4,"definition":21,"definitional":2,"definitions":17,"definitive":3,"deflationary":1,"deforestation":1,"deforested":1,"degenerate":1,"degrade":4,"degraded":1,"degree":7,"degrees":2,"dehghantanha":1,"delay":8,"delayed":1,"delays":4,"delegate":3,"delegatecall":5,"delegated":8,"delegation":6,"delegator":2,"delete":2,"deleted":2,"deletion":2,"deletions":3,"deliberate":5,"deliberately":4,"deliberation":2,"deliberative":6,"delineates":1,"deliver":4,"delivered":9,"deliveries":1,"delivers":2,"delivery":10,"demand":10,"demanded":1,"demands":4,"demarcated":1,"demarcation":1,"demo":1,"demolished":3,"demonstrable":1,"demonstrably":2,"demonstrate":4,"demonstrated":4,"demonstrates":6,"demonstrating":3,"demonstration":6,"demonstrations":2,"demos":1,"demoted":1,"dempster":1,"den":3,"deng":1,"denial":3,"denials":1,"denied":1,"dennett":12,"dennetttb":1,"dennis":4,"dennisvanhorn":1,"denominator":1,"denotation":5,"denotational":7,"denotationally":1,"denotations":2,"denote":2,"denotes":1,"denoting":1,"dense":1,"density":1,"denying":1,"deontic":6,"deontological":1,"department":2,"departs":2,"depend":4,"dependability":8,"dependable":18,"dependence":4,"dependencies":5,"dependency":1,"dependent":5,"depending":2,"depends":10,"deployed":7,"deploying":1,"deployment":12,"deployments":6,"depspace":3,"dept":1,"depth":7,"deputies":1,"deputy":13,"der":12,"derailment":1,"dereference":1,"dereferenced":1,"derivable":2,"derivation":3,"derivations":2,"derivative":1,"derivatives":1,"derive":11,"derived":14,"derives":8,"deriving":4,"descend":2,"descendant":6,"descendants":3,"descended":1,"descends":1,"descent":4,"describable":2,"describe":13,"described":9,"describes":8,"describing":5,"description":48,"descriptions":16,"descriptive":6,"descriptor":3,"descriptors":3,"deserve":1,"deserves":1,"desiderata":1,"design":152,"designate":1,"designated":2,"designation":3,"designator":1,"designed":32,"designer":6,"designers":8,"designing":10,"designs":13,"desirable":1,"desire":16,"desired":3,"desires":19,"desiring":1,"desk":1,"desktop":1,"despite":9,"dessi":1,"dessì":1,"destabilise":1,"destination":5,"destructing":1,"destructively":1,"destructure":1,"detachable":2,"detail":5,"detailed":3,"details":7,"detect":5,"detectable":1,"detected":1,"detecting":2,"detection":8,"detectors":1,"detects":2,"determine":2,"determined":4,"determines":6,"determining":2,"determinism":9,"deterministic":11,"deterministically":1,"dets":2,"dev":1,"develop":6,"developed":13,"developer":3,"developers":7,"developing":1,"development":11,"developmental":3,"develops":13,"deviating":1,"deviation":2,"device":12,"devices":6,"dezert":3,"dfa":1,"dhariwal":1,"dhruva":1,"dht":1,"dhts":1,"di":2,"diagnose":2,"diagnosed":1,"diagnoses":1,"diagnosing":1,"diagnosis":6,"diagnostic":6,"diagnostics":1,"diagonal":2,"diagonalisation":1,"diagonalise":1,"diagram":4,"diagrammatic":1,"diagrams":4,"dialect":3,"dialects":4,"dialogue":17,"dialogues":4,"dialyzer":1,"dian":1,"dichotomy":1,"dick":1,"did":3,"dids":4,"differ":2,"difference":6,"differences":5,"different":38,"differentiability":1,"differentiable":7,"differential":15,"differentials":4,"differentiated":1,"differently":3,"differing":2,"differs":2,"difficulties":1,"difficulty":2,"diffusion":4,"digital":16,"digitalcommons":1,"dignum":2,"dijkstra":3,"dilemma":1,"dimension":6,"dimensional":6,"dimensions":10,"dinan":1,"ding":1,"dining":1,"diplomacy":2,"direct":47,"directed":17,"directedness":3,"direction":9,"directional":2,"directions":4,"directive":6,"directives":4,"directly":37,"directories":1,"directory":3,"dirichlet":3,"dis":1,"disabled":1,"disagree":5,"disagreement":1,"disallowed":1,"disambiguated":2,"disappears":1,"discernible":1,"discernment":1,"discharge":4,"discharged":2,"discharges":1,"discharging":3,"discipline":20,"disciplined":3,"disciplines":2,"disciplining":1,"disclose":1,"disclosure":2,"discontinuous":1,"discord":2,"discount":1,"discounting":3,"discourages":1,"discourse":3,"discover":3,"discoverability":1,"discoverable":2,"discovered":2,"discovering":2,"discovery":14,"discrepancies":1,"discrepancy":3,"discrete":8,"discretionary":1,"discriminates":1,"discrimination":1,"discursively":1,"discussed":6,"discusses":3,"discussing":1,"discussion":10,"disembodied":2,"disentangle":2,"disguised":1,"disinformation":1,"disintegrate":1,"disintegration":1,"disjoint":3,"disjointness":1,"disjunction":1,"disk":3,"dismantles":1,"dismay":1,"dismissed":1,"disparate":2,"dispatch":2,"dispatches":1,"dispenses":1,"displaced":3,"displaces":1,"displaying":1,"dispositional":1,"disproportionate":1,"disputes":1,"disruptions":1,"dissatisfaction":1,"disseminate":1,"dissemination":6,"dissertation":2,"dissipation":1,"dissociates":1,"dissolution":1,"dissolve":3,"dissolves":2,"distal":2,"distance":8,"distances":1,"distant":1,"distil":1,"distill":1,"distillation":1,"distills":1,"distils":1,"distinct":28,"distinction":19,"distinctions":2,"distinctive":3,"distinguish":16,"distinguished":6,"distinguishes":17,"distinguishing":6,"distler":1,"distortion":1,"distractor":1,"distractors":1,"distributed":125,"distributes":2,"distributing":1,"distribution":11,"distributions":4,"diverge":3,"divergence":3,"divergences":2,"divergent":3,"diverse":1,"diversity":2,"divide":3,"divides":1,"dividing":1,"division":8,"dl":2,"dmitrii":1,"dnn":3,"do":69,"dobra":3,"doc":4,"document":10,"documentation":1,"documented":1,"documenter":2,"documenting":2,"documents":16,"does":26,"doesn":3,"doi":23,"doing":4,"dollar":1,"domain":43,"domains":13,"dominant":10,"dominate":2,"dominated":2,"dominates":2,"domino":1,"don":9,"done":5,"dooley":5,"doomed":1,"dormant":1,"dorschel":2,"dos":3,"dot":3,"dotted":1,"dou":1,"double":4,"doubled":1,"dovetail":1,"down":13,"download":1,"downloading":1,"downstream":8,"dozen":2,"dozens":1,"dp":1,"dr":1,"draa":2,"draft":2,"drained":2,"dramatic":2,"dramatically":5,"draw":3,"drawbacks":1,"drawing":7,"drawn":2,"draws":4,"dream":1,"drew":1,"drexel":1,"drift":6,"drive":11,"driven":33,"driver":1,"drives":8,"driving":5,"drop":5,"dropping":2,"drops":3,"drracket":1,"dsl":9,"dsls":8,"dsmt":5,"dspace":2,"du":1,"dual":8,"dublin":1,"duc":1,"due":2,"duke":1,"dumb":1,"dunbar":1,"duplicate":2,"duplicated":1,"duplication":1,"durable":1,"during":10,"duties":1,"dutifully":1,"dwivedi":2,"dwork":1,"dynamic":33,"dynamically":9,"dynamics":7,"dynamism":1,"dynamo":1,"dₖ":1,"e":104,"each":132,"earl":1,"earlier":15,"earliest":1,"early":23,"ease":2,"easier":1,"easily":1,"easy":22,"ebay":1,"echo":1,"echoed":1,"echoes":7,"eclipse":2,"ecmascript":2,"ecommerce":1,"economic":6,"economy":1,"ecoop":1,"ecosystem":4,"ecosystems":20,"ed":11,"edge":20,"edges":6,"edi":2,"edifact":1,"edinburgh":1,"edit":3,"editable":1,"edited":2,"editing":3,"edition":21,"editor":3,"editorial":1,"editors":1,"edits":1,"eds":10,"edu":43,"edward":1,"ee":1,"eecs":1,"effect":29,"effective":9,"effectively":12,"effectivity":1,"effects":13,"efficacy":1,"efficiency":9,"efficient":5,"efficiently":1,"effort":13,"efforts":1,"ehtesham":1,"ei":2,"eigent":1,"eight":6,"eights":1,"either":10,"eku":2,"elaborate":2,"elaboration":4,"elaborations":1,"ele572papers":1,"election":3,"electronic":8,"elegance":1,"elegant":1,"elegantly":3,"element":5,"elementary":17,"elements":7,"elephant":33,"elephant2000":1,"elevate":1,"elevates":1,"eleven":1,"eliciting":1,"elicits":1,"elided":1,"eliminated":2,"eliminates":3,"eliminating":1,"eliminativism":1,"eliza":15,"ellis":1,"else":2,"elsevier":1,"elsewhere":1,"email":1,"emails":2,"emanuele":1,"embed":2,"embedded":14,"embedding":6,"embeddings":3,"emblematic":1,"embodied":5,"embodies":1,"embodiment":1,"embodiments":1,"embody":1,"embryo":2,"embryogenesis":1,"embryonic":1,"emden":1,"emerge":9,"emergence":31,"emergent":52,"emerges":5,"emerging":6,"emeriti":1,"emftext":1,"emil":2,"emily":1,"emit":3,"emits":4,"emitted":1,"emitting":1,"emotion":3,"emotional":5,"emotions":1,"empathetic":4,"empathy":3,"emphasis":1,"emphasise":1,"emphasises":1,"emphasising":2,"emphasize":2,"emphasizes":4,"emphatic":1,"empirical":33,"empirically":6,"empty":3,"en":3,"enable":17,"enabled":3,"enabler":2,"enables":22,"enabling":29,"enacting":1,"enactment":1,"encapsulate":3,"encapsulated":3,"encapsulation":1,"enclave":1,"enclaves":2,"encode":7,"encoder":2,"encodes":8,"encoding":18,"encodings":3,"encompasses":1,"encounter":1,"encountered":1,"encourage":1,"encourages":1,"encouraging":1,"encrypted":7,"encrypting":1,"encryption":4,"encrypts":1,"end":19,"ended":7,"endedness":1,"ending":1,"endless":1,"endo":1,"endogenous":1,"endorsed":1,"endorsement":3,"endorsing":1,"endowments":1,"endpoint":3,"endpoints":3,"ends":3,"endtoend":1,"enduring":2,"energy":3,"enforce":4,"enforceable":3,"enforced":5,"enforcement":5,"enforces":8,"enforcing":2,"engage":1,"engaged":1,"engagement":6,"engages":2,"engaging":1,"engine":25,"engineer":1,"engineered":5,"engineering":62,"engines":6,"english":7,"enhance":1,"enhancement":1,"enhancing":1,"enormous":1,"enormously":1,"enough":9,"enrich":2,"enriched":1,"enrichment":1,"ensemble":4,"ensembles":5,"ensure":2,"ensuring":23,"entail":1,"entailed":1,"entailment":2,"entangled":1,"enter":4,"entered":1,"enterprise":4,"enterprises":1,"enters":1,"entertainment":1,"entire":7,"entirely":7,"entities":14,"entity":2,"entrance":1,"entrants":1,"entries":2,"entropy":6,"entry":6,"entscheidungsproblem":4,"enumerable":15,"enumerate":5,"enumerated":5,"enumerates":4,"enumerating":6,"enumeration":4,"env":2,"environment":33,"environmental":9,"environments":27,"epacuit":1,"epidemic":5,"epidemics":1,"epidemiological":2,"epidemiology":1,"epikit":1,"episode":2,"episodes":2,"episodic":1,"epistemia":4,"epistemic":23,"epistemics":1,"epistemological":17,"epistemologically":3,"epistemology":3,"eprint":1,"eprints":1,"epsilon":1,"eq":3,"equal":4,"equality":3,"equally":3,"equals":2,"equation":2,"equational":1,"equations":3,"equilibria":6,"equilibrium":13,"equipped":2,"equivalence":16,"equivalences":1,"equivalent":6,"equivalently":4,"equivariant":1,"era":11,"erasp":1,"erc":5,"ergonomics":1,"eric":1,"erights":2,"erlang":19,"erodes":1,"eros":6,"error":20,"errors":9,"es":4,"es5":2,"es6":1,"escalate":2,"escalation":3,"escape":2,"escapes":1,"escholarship":1,"escrow":1,"escrowed":1,"esop":2,"especially":6,"essay":11,"essays":2,"essential":10,"essentially":8,"establish":6,"established":5,"establishes":9,"establishing":4,"establishment":1,"esterel":1,"estimate":5,"estimated":1,"estimates":4,"estimator":1,"et":48,"etc":20,"eth":4,"ether":3,"ethereum":24,"etherlite":1,"ethical":24,"ethics":5,"ets":2,"eu":1,"eua":1,"euas":1,"euclid":2,"eudml":1,"euphoria":1,"european":3,"eurosys":1,"ev":1,"eval":4,"evaluate":5,"evaluated":9,"evaluates":6,"evaluating":2,"evaluation":21,"evaluative":1,"evaluator":7,"evaluators":3,"evangelised":1,"evans":1,"even":23,"event":17,"events":22,"eventual":9,"eventually":13,"ever":13,"every":62,"everyday":4,"everyone":1,"everything":2,"evidence":13,"evident":1,"evidential":1,"evm":13,"evolution":33,"evolutionary":5,"evolvability":1,"evolvable":2,"evolve":8,"evolved":5,"evolves":4,"evolving":5,"exacerbates":1,"exact":3,"exactly":22,"examination":1,"examine":2,"examined":3,"examines":4,"example":28,"examples":15,"exceed":4,"exceeded":1,"exceeding":2,"exceeds":4,"except":4,"exception":5,"exceptional":1,"exceptions":6,"excerpt":1,"excess":1,"exchange":44,"exchanged":5,"exchanges":11,"exchanging":3,"exclude":1,"exclusion":3,"exclusive":1,"exclusively":2,"executable":9,"execute":11,"executed":7,"executes":5,"executing":4,"execution":49,"executive":1,"executor":3,"executors":1,"exemplar":2,"exemplars":2,"exemplified":1,"exemplifies":2,"exemplify":1,"exercisable":1,"exercise":3,"exercised":1,"exercises":1,"exercitive":1,"exercitives":1,"exfiltrate":1,"exfiltration":2,"exhausting":1,"exhaustion":3,"exhaustive":2,"exhaustively":1,"exhibit":5,"exhibited":1,"exhibiting":1,"exhibits":5,"exist":5,"existed":2,"existence":11,"existent":1,"existing":24,"exists":9,"exit":3,"exits":1,"exobiology":1,"exotic":1,"exp":1,"expanded":1,"expander":1,"expands":1,"expect":1,"expectation":2,"expectations":4,"expected":23,"expensive":1,"experience":18,"experiences":2,"experiment":6,"experimental":1,"experimenting":1,"experiments":9,"expert":3,"expertise":2,"experts":1,"explain":5,"explainability":1,"explainable":2,"explained":3,"explaining":1,"explains":7,"explanations":2,"explanatorily":1,"explanatory":2,"explicit":48,"explicitly":21,"exploded":1,"exploit":18,"exploitable":4,"exploitation":3,"exploited":5,"exploiting":3,"exploits":13,"exploration":4,"exploratory":1,"explore":4,"explored":2,"explores":1,"explosion":1,"exponential":2,"exponentially":4,"expose":4,"exposed":4,"exposes":3,"exposing":3,"exposition":1,"expositive":1,"expositives":1,"expository":1,"express":19,"expressed":19,"expresses":5,"expressibility":2,"expressible":7,"expressing":8,"expression":31,"expressions":36,"expressive":6,"expressiveness":3,"expressives":3,"expressivity":3,"expunge":1,"extend":16,"extended":22,"extendibility":4,"extending":9,"extends":28,"extensibella":2,"extensibility":23,"extensible":46,"extension":48,"extensional":4,"extensionality":2,"extensions":15,"extensive":2,"extent":1,"external":17,"externalised":1,"externalism":1,"externalist":1,"externalization":1,"externally":5,"extra":3,"extract":1,"extracted":2,"extracting":1,"extractor":1,"extracts":1,"extrapolates":1,"extrapolation":1,"extrema":1,"extremal":1,"extremely":2,"ezk":2,"f":12,"f09":1,"f14":1,"fabric":1,"face":3,"faces":13,"facet":3,"facets":3,"facilitator":8,"facilitators":12,"facilities":1,"facing":1,"fact":12,"factor":2,"factored":2,"factorial":1,"factories":3,"factoring":1,"factors":4,"factory":1,"facts":16,"factual":1,"factuality":1,"factually":3,"faculty":1,"fail":29,"failed":4,"failing":1,"fails":11,"failure":48,"failures":47,"fair":3,"fairness":2,"faithful":1,"faithfully":1,"fake":2,"falcone":1,"fall":7,"fall04readings":1,"fallback":8,"falling":1,"falls":1,"false":5,"falsely":1,"falsified":1,"familiar":1,"families":3,"family":10,"famous":3,"famously":4,"fan":2,"fanatically":1,"far":6,"farber":2,"farina":1,"farmer":2,"fashion":1,"fast":5,"fastapi":1,"faster":3,"fat":1,"fate":1,"fau":1,"fault":22,"faults":2,"faulty":8,"favored":1,"favour":3,"favoured":1,"favours":1,"fazeldehkordi":1,"fc":1,"fc1":1,"fdr":1,"feasibility":6,"feasible":3,"feature":7,"features":7,"february":1,"fed":3,"federated":5,"federico":1,"feed":6,"feedback":8,"feeding":1,"feeds":3,"feel":1,"fees":1,"felicitous":1,"felicitously":1,"felicity":4,"felleisen":1,"fenced":1,"feng":2,"fetched":3,"fetching":1,"fever":1,"few":11,"ffn":1,"fictional":1,"fidelity":1,"field":14,"fielding":7,"fields":3,"fifo":1,"fifteen":1,"fifth":1,"fikes":1,"file":140,"filename":2,"filenames":2,"files":9,"filesystem":1,"fill":3,"filled":1,"filler":1,"fillers":1,"filling":2,"filter":7,"filtered":2,"filtering":4,"filters":3,"final":10,"financial":5,"find":3,"finding":4,"findings":3,"fine":12,"finetune":1,"finetuned":1,"finetuning":2,"fingerprint":1,"fingerprinting":1,"finin":7,"finish":1,"finishes":1,"finitary":1,"finite":18,"finitely":3,"finitist":1,"fipa":66,"fire":4,"fires":1,"firewall":1,"firing":1,"firings":1,"firmly":1,"first":100,"fischer":3,"fishbanks":1,"fisher":1,"fit":8,"fitted":1,"fitting":1,"five":21,"fix":2,"fixed":22,"fixes":5,"fixing":2,"fixpoint":5,"flag":2,"flagged":3,"flagging":1,"flags":1,"flagship":2,"flaherty":1,"flake":1,"flash":1,"flat":6,"flatt":1,"flavien":1,"flavio":1,"flavored":1,"flavour":1,"flavoured":3,"flaw":2,"flaws":2,"flexibility":2,"flexible":21,"flight":2,"flipped":1,"flipping":1,"flooding":4,"floods":2,"flouris":1,"flouting":2,"flow":21,"flowchart":2,"flowcharts":2,"flowing":1,"flows":1,"floyd":11,"floydmeaning":1,"flp":6,"fluency":4,"fluent":9,"fluents":4,"fly":5,"fm":1,"fm34":1,"fm34110":1,"focs":1,"focus":4,"focused":4,"focuses":1,"focusing":1,"foerster":1,"fol":2,"fold":3,"folk":1,"follow":5,"followed":3,"follower":1,"following":2,"follows":5,"foo":1,"foolish":1,"foot":1,"foothold":2,"footnote":1,"footnotes":2,"footprints":1,"for":455,"forbidden":3,"forbidding":1,"force":24,"forced":3,"forces":4,"forcing":5,"foregrounded":1,"foregrounding":1,"foresaw":1,"foreseen":2,"foreshadowing":2,"foreshadows":4,"forever":1,"forged":1,"forgery":1,"forgets":1,"fork":5,"forked":2,"forking":1,"form":56,"formable":1,"formal":125,"formalisation":6,"formalisations":1,"formalise":26,"formalised":17,"formalises":16,"formalising":3,"formalism":33,"formalisms":3,"formalists":1,"formalization":20,"formalize":2,"formalized":5,"formalizes":3,"formalizing":15,"formally":17,"format":14,"formation":4,"formats":7,"formed":6,"former":3,"formerly":1,"forming":4,"forms":7,"formula":6,"formulas":4,"formulates":2,"formulation":8,"formulations":1,"fornara":1,"fornaran":1,"fortran":2,"forward":6,"forwarder":2,"forwarders":1,"forwarding":1,"forwards":2,"found":1,"foundation":20,"foundational":121,"foundations":62,"foundationsoflog0000lloy":1,"founded":4,"founding":6,"founds":1,"four":30,"fournet":2,"fourth":3,"fp":1,"fp7":1,"fpsyg":1,"fr":2,"fraction":2,"fragile":1,"fragilities":1,"fragility":2,"fragment":4,"fragmented":2,"fragments":8,"frame":24,"frameborder":1,"framed":3,"frames":25,"framework":95,"frameworks":26,"framing":25,"franca":2,"france":3,"francez":3,"franco":1,"frank":1,"frantz":2,"fraud":1,"free":34,"freed":1,"freedom":6,"freeness":2,"freeze":2,"freezes":2,"freezing":4,"frege":3,"frequent":3,"fresh":2,"freshest":1,"freshness":1,"fried":1,"friedberg":2,"fritzson":4,"from":267,"front":2,"frontier":5,"frontiers":2,"frozen":2,"fruitfully":1,"fsm":1,"fsms":1,"fst":1,"fudan":1,"fuer":1,"fulfilment":1,"full":24,"fully":21,"function":41,"functional":20,"functionalism":1,"functionalist":1,"functionality":1,"functions":49,"fundamenta":2,"fundamental":8,"fundamentally":6,"fundmath":1,"fungal":5,"fungi":22,"fungible":1,"funs":1,"furnishes":2,"further":12,"fuse":2,"fused":1,"fuses":2,"fusion":9,"futility":1,"future":24,"futures":3,"futuristic":1,"für":2,"g":75,"g1":1,"g2":1,"g3":1,"g4":1,"g5":1,"g6":1,"g7":1,"gabriele":1,"gadgets":1,"gaglio":1,"gain":5,"gains":12,"galanter":1,"game":31,"games":31,"gaming":1,"gamma":1,"gap":16,"gaps":9,"garbage":6,"gas":9,"gate":2,"gated":1,"gates":1,"gateway":3,"gateways":1,"gathering":1,"gathers":1,"gave":2,"gavin":1,"gaze":2,"gdel1931":1,"gdz":1,"gehrke":3,"gems":1,"gen":2,"genai":1,"general":42,"generalisation":6,"generalise":4,"generalised":7,"generalises":11,"generalising":2,"generality":16,"generalized":4,"generalizes":1,"generally":3,"generals":1,"generatable":1,"generate":7,"generated":21,"generates":5,"generating":3,"generation":25,"generative":12,"generator":3,"generic":8,"genericagent":1,"generous":1,"genesereth":5,"genuine":5,"genuinely":6,"geometric":3,"geometrically":1,"george":2,"georgeff":7,"gestured":1,"get":4,"getneighbor":1,"gets":2,"getting":1,"ghanem":1,"ghost":1,"giacomo":1,"gilbert":3,"gio":1,"git":1,"github":3,"giuseppe":1,"give":12,"given":32,"gives":36,"giving":15,"glm":1,"global":28,"globally":2,"globals":1,"gmytrasiewicz":2,"gnosis":1,"go":5,"goal":38,"goals":35,"goblin":1,"goblins":8,"godel":1,"godel1931":1,"goedel":1,"goettingen":1,"goff":1,"going":1,"gold":2,"gomez":1,"gong":1,"gonthier":2,"gonzalez":1,"gonzález":1,"good":10,"goods":1,"google":7,"gopal":2,"gopalakrishnan":3,"gopalan":1,"gopinath":1,"gordon":1,"goroutines":1,"gossip":49,"gossiping":15,"got":1,"goto":4,"govern":4,"governance":6,"governed":7,"governing":5,"government":1,"governor":9,"governors":1,"governs":1,"gps":2,"gpt":5,"gpu":2,"graceful":2,"gracefully":2,"gradient":13,"gradients":4,"grading":1,"gradual":2,"graham":21,"grain":1,"grained":10,"grammar":21,"grammars":20,"grammatical":4,"grammatically":1,"grand":19,"granovetter":2,"grant":1,"granted":4,"granularity":2,"graph":17,"graphs":15,"grasp":1,"grasping":1,"grasps":1,"grave":1,"gray":3,"great":1,"greater":2,"greek":1,"greenstadt":1,"grew":1,"grice":9,"grice1975":1,"gricean":4,"grid":1,"griefing":1,"gries":2,"grim":1,"ground":13,"grounded":52,"groundedness":1,"grounding":24,"grounds":10,"groundwork":2,"group":11,"grouped":3,"grouping":1,"groupings":1,"groups":12,"grow":7,"growing":3,"grown":2,"grows":6,"growth":6,"grs":1,"gruber":14,"grunwald":14,"grünwald":1,"gsm8k":1,"guarantee":13,"guaranteed":7,"guaranteeing":3,"guarantees":22,"guard":1,"guarded":4,"guardrails":2,"guards":4,"guelph":1,"guess":1,"guessing":4,"guest":1,"gui":1,"guidance":4,"guide":4,"guided":5,"guiding":2,"guile":3,"gulf":1,"gumbel":2,"gun":1,"gunderson":1,"guo":2,"guohao":2,"gupta":1,"guzmán":1,"gyroscope":1,"gödel":9,"göttingen":1,"h":9,"hack":2,"hacker":2,"hacks":1,"had":12,"haddad":1,"hal":1,"half":2,"hallberg":1,"hallmark":1,"hallucinate":1,"hallucination":11,"hallucinations":1,"halpern":3,"halt":4,"halting":29,"halts":4,"halve":1,"halves":1,"hammer":1,"hammoud":1,"han":1,"hand":7,"handbook":19,"handbooks":1,"handful":4,"handle":12,"handled":6,"handlers":2,"handles":6,"handling":23,"hands":1,"handshake":1,"handwritten":2,"hani":1,"hans":1,"haolin":1,"happened":2,"happening":1,"happens":8,"happily":1,"happy":4,"hard":13,"hardcoded":2,"hardened":2,"harder":3,"hardest":2,"hardware":9,"hardwired":1,"hardy":7,"harm":4,"harmful":3,"harms":1,"harnad":1,"harvard":6,"has":61,"hasan":1,"hash":7,"hashes":1,"haskell":1,"hasn":1,"hat":1,"hatches":1,"hateoas":1,"haugeland":1,"have":36,"having":9,"hayes":9,"hazards":2,"hci":1,"he":36,"head":6,"heading":1,"headline":1,"heads":2,"healing":1,"heals":1,"health":1,"heap":2,"hearer":10,"hearers":1,"hears":1,"heart":23,"heartbeat":1,"heartbleed":1,"heath":1,"heavily":2,"heavy":1,"heavyweight":1,"hebrew":1,"hedges":1,"height":1,"heijenoort":1,"held":5,"helena":1,"hellerstein":6,"help":4,"helps":3,"hence":4,"hendler":2,"hengyuan":1,"henry":1,"her":2,"herbrand":5,"herd":1,"here":20,"heritage":2,"heterarchies":1,"heterogeneity":7,"heterogeneous":23,"heterogeneously":1,"heung":1,"heuristic":5,"heuristically":2,"heuristics":3,"hewitt":7,"hidden":5,"hide":4,"hides":1,"hiding":1,"hiep":1,"hierarchical":5,"hierarchies":6,"hierarchy":26,"high":18,"higher":14,"highest":2,"highlight":3,"highlighting":2,"highlights":3,"highly":4,"hijack":1,"hijacking":3,"hilbert":2,"hill":1,"hillel":1,"him":1,"himself":2,"hinder":1,"his":12,"histograms":1,"historical":5,"historically":2,"histories":2,"history":16,"histos":1,"hmms":1,"hoare":23,"hobor":1,"hoc":12,"hogwild":1,"hold":15,"holder":1,"holders":1,"holding":7,"holds":8,"holes":1,"holistic":1,"holland":1,"holly":1,"homayoun":1,"home":5,"homeostasis":1,"homeostatic":1,"homicidally":1,"homoiconic":2,"homoiconicity":5,"homomorphic":2,"homomorphism":4,"homunculus":1,"honest":5,"honesty":5,"hong":3,"honour":1,"hop":2,"hoped":1,"hopes":1,"hoping":1,"hopkins":3,"hops":2,"horizon":5,"horizons":2,"horizontally":1,"horn":12,"horses":1,"horwood":1,"host":17,"hosted":2,"hostile":2,"hosts":6,"hot":3,"hotpotqa":2,"hotstandby":1,"hou":1,"house":16,"household":1,"hover":1,"how":93,"hrishi":1,"html":8,"html5":1,"http":29,"https":145,"hu":4,"huang":2,"huanran":1,"huazhong":1,"hub":8,"hubs":3,"huge":2,"huhns":1,"hulstijn":2,"human":52,"humaneval":2,"humans":9,"hundred":3,"hundreds":1,"hungry":1,"huynh":1,"hybrid":12,"hybrids":1,"hydra":1,"hygienic":5,"hyper":1,"hyperagent":1,"hyperarithmetical":1,"hypermedia":7,"hypertext":1,"hyphae":3,"hyphal":3,"hypotheses":3,"hypothesis":9,"hypothesised":1,"hypothetical":2,"i":36,"ia":1,"iacr":1,"iastate":1,"ibm":1,"ic":1,"icar":1,"ice":1,"iceberg":1,"ichter":1,"icl":3,"iclr":3,"icm":1,"icmas":1,"icml":1,"iconic":1,"icr":1,"ics":1,"icse":1,"icse2000":1,"id":6,"ide":5,"idea":9,"ideal":5,"idealised":1,"ideally":2,"ideas":176,"idempotent":1,"identical":8,"identically":1,"identifiable":1,"identification":1,"identified":14,"identifier":2,"identifiers":5,"identifies":13,"identify":9,"identifying":5,"identities":4,"identity":24,"ides":4,"idiolect":2,"idiolects":4,"idiom":4,"idioms":1,"idiosyncrasies":1,"idiosyncratic":2,"ids":4,"ieee":11,"ieeexplore":3,"if":44,"iff":16,"ifi":1,"ifip":1,"iframe":1,"ignorant":1,"ignore":4,"ignored":1,"ignoring":1,"igor":1,"ii":13,"iii":8,"iiia":1,"iiop":1,"ijcai":5,"ill":1,"illc":1,"illegal":2,"illinois":2,"illocution":1,"illocutionary":37,"illocutions":2,"illuminating":1,"illusion":2,"illustrate":5,"illustrated":4,"illustrates":4,"illustrating":3,"illustrations":1,"illustrative":3,"iltl":6,"image":5,"imagery":1,"imitate":1,"imitation":5,"immature":1,"immediate":1,"immediately":1,"immobile":2,"immune":1,"immutability":3,"immutable":6,"impact":6,"impacts":1,"impan":1,"impedes":1,"imperative":4,"impersonates":1,"impersonation":1,"implant":1,"implement":6,"implementation":34,"implementational":1,"implementations":16,"implemented":14,"implementing":2,"implements":7,"implicated":4,"implicates":1,"implication":2,"implications":4,"implicature":6,"implicatures":2,"implicit":16,"implicitly":8,"implies":3,"importance":1,"important":4,"importantly":1,"imported":3,"importing":1,"imports":5,"impose":1,"imposed":1,"imposes":2,"imposing":1,"impossibility":11,"impossible":6,"improvability":1,"improvable":1,"improve":8,"improved":1,"improvement":2,"improves":2,"improving":2,"impulse":2,"in":934,"inability":2,"inadequacy":1,"inadequate":5,"inadvertently":1,"inapplicable":1,"inappropriate":1,"inc":1,"incapable":1,"incentive":4,"incentives":7,"incentivised":1,"inception":1,"incideas":1,"incident":1,"incidents":2,"include":9,"included":3,"includes":5,"including":29,"inclusion":2,"inclusions":2,"incoming":3,"incompatible":2,"incomplete":7,"incompleteideas":1,"incompletely":1,"incompleteness":6,"inconsequential":1,"inconsequentiality":2,"inconsistency":2,"inconsistent":7,"inconsistently":1,"incorporate":1,"incorrect":2,"increases":1,"increasing":2,"increasingly":1,"increment":1,"incremental":1,"incrementally":3,"incurred":1,"incurs":1,"independence":4,"independent":23,"independently":11,"index":12,"indexed":4,"indexing":2,"indicates":1,"indicator":1,"indicators":2,"indices":3,"indirect":13,"indirectly":3,"indistinguishability":2,"indistinguishable":7,"individual":43,"individuality":3,"individually":3,"individuals":9,"individuating":1,"induce":2,"induced":3,"induces":4,"induction":8,"inductive":8,"inductively":2,"industrial":1,"industry":1,"inefficient":3,"inelegant":1,"inequality":1,"inevitable":6,"inevitably":1,"infamous":1,"infeasible":1,"infections":1,"infects":1,"infelicitous":1,"infer":2,"inference":24,"inferences":8,"inferred":3,"inferring":1,"infers":1,"infinite":6,"infinitely":2,"infinity":1,"inflection":1,"influence":7,"influenced":1,"influential":5,"info":4,"infor":1,"inform":5,"informal":14,"informality":1,"informally":3,"informatica":1,"information":94,"informational":2,"informative":1,"informativeness":1,"informed":2,"informing":1,"informs":5,"infotaxis":2,"infra":1,"infrastructural":1,"infrastructure":22,"infrastructures":1,"ing":1,"inga":1,"ingestion":1,"ingests":2,"ingredient":1,"ingredients":2,"ingress":1,"inhabits":1,"inherent":7,"inherently":2,"inherit":8,"inheritance":2,"inherited":9,"inheriting":2,"inherits":8,"inhibit":1,"inhibition":1,"initial":9,"initialise":1,"initialised":1,"initializer":1,"initially":1,"initiate":2,"initiation":1,"initiative":2,"initiator":2,"inject":1,"injected":1,"injecting":1,"injection":19,"injective":2,"injects":3,"injury":1,"inner":3,"innovation":2,"input":42,"inputs":29,"inquisitivesemantics":1,"inrets":1,"inria":1,"ins":2,"insecure":1,"insecurity":20,"insensitive":1,"inseparability":1,"inseparable":1,"insert":3,"inserted":2,"inserting":1,"insertion":1,"inside":21,"insight":3,"insist":1,"insistence":4,"insisting":1,"inspect":1,"inspectable":2,"inspected":2,"inspecting":2,"inspection":4,"inspired":30,"inspires":1,"inspiring":1,"install":1,"installed":1,"installer":1,"installs":2,"instance":8,"instanced":1,"instances":8,"instant":2,"instantaneous":1,"instantaneously":1,"instantiate":1,"instantiated":8,"instantiates":4,"instantiating":4,"instantiation":4,"instantiations":1,"instead":12,"instinct":4,"institute":1,"institution":4,"institutional":37,"institutionally":2,"institutions":4,"instruction":6,"instructions":7,"instructor":1,"instrument":2,"instruments":2,"insufficient":5,"insurance":1,"intact":2,"integer":2,"integers":13,"integrate":3,"integrated":4,"integrates":3,"integrating":3,"integration":14,"integrity":9,"intel":1,"inteligenciaartificial":1,"intellectual":6,"intellectually":1,"intelligence":72,"intelligent":57,"intelligently":1,"intelligibility":1,"intelligible":1,"intend":6,"intended":15,"intending":3,"intends":4,"intensional":1,"intent":30,"intention":37,"intentional":20,"intentionality":1,"intentionally":2,"intentions":33,"intents":2,"inter":52,"interact":6,"interacting":1,"interaction":87,"interactions":19,"interactive":2,"interagent":1,"intercept":1,"intercepting":1,"interchange":4,"interchangeable":1,"interest":5,"interested":7,"interesting":1,"interests":2,"interface":18,"interfaces":16,"interfacing":1,"interfere":1,"interference":4,"interleave":1,"interleaved":3,"interleaves":1,"interleaving":2,"interlingua":2,"interlinked":1,"interlock":2,"interlocking":2,"interlocutors":1,"intermediaries":3,"intermediate":7,"internal":23,"internalised":1,"internalist":1,"internals":2,"international":9,"internet":9,"interop":2,"interoperability":57,"interoperable":1,"interoperate":3,"interoperation":2,"interpersonal":1,"interplanetary":1,"interpose":1,"interposition":1,"interpret":2,"interpretability":2,"interpretable":4,"interpretation":18,"interpretationism":1,"interpretations":5,"interpreted":5,"interpreter":14,"interpreters":5,"interpreting":2,"interprets":2,"interrelated":1,"interrupt":1,"interrupts":1,"intersect":1,"intersecting":1,"intersection":3,"intersections":1,"intertwined":1,"interval":3,"intervention":6,"interventions":2,"intl":2,"into":139,"intra":1,"intrinsic":4,"intrinsically":1,"introduce":9,"introduced":157,"introduces":46,"introducing":7,"introduction":9,"introspection":5,"introspective":2,"introspectively":1,"intuition":6,"intuitions":3,"intuitive":2,"invalid":3,"invalidate":1,"invariance":2,"invariant":10,"invariants":12,"invasively":1,"invent":10,"invented":1,"inventor":1,"inventory":1,"invents":1,"inverse":1,"inversion":1,"inverts":1,"invest":1,"investigates":2,"investment":2,"investments":1,"invisible":1,"invitations":1,"invited":1,"invocation":7,"invocations":2,"invoices":1,"invoke":6,"invoked":9,"invoker":1,"invokes":8,"invoking":2,"involvement":1,"involves":1,"involving":3,"ioactive":1,"ion":2,"ionic":1,"iot":1,"ip":2,"ipa":1,"ipas":1,"ipc":1,"ipfs":3,"ipns":1,"ips":1,"iq":3,"ire":1,"irredeemably":1,"irreducible":2,"irreducibly":1,"irreflexive":1,"irrelevantly":1,"irrespective":1,"irrevocability":1,"irritating":1,"is":329,"isbn":3,"island":2,"isn":1,"isolate":1,"isolated":7,"isolates":1,"isolating":3,"isolation":5,"isomorphic":1,"isomorphism":1,"isonomes":3,"issue":9,"issued":3,"issues":12,"it":219,"italian":1,"itani":1,"item":1,"items":2,"iterate":1,"iterated":3,"iterates":1,"iteration":6,"iterations":1,"iterative":5,"iteratively":5,"its":165,"itself":38,"iv":4,"izhak":1,"j":25,"jacamo":6,"jack":3,"jacm85":1,"jaerlang2":1,"jailbreak":3,"jailbreaks":2,"jailbroken":1,"james":5,"jang":1,"jason":9,"java":6,"javascript":5,"jdfa":1,"jeffrey":1,"jelasity":2,"jennings":10,"jerome":1,"jesse":1,"jhu":1,"jia":1,"jiang":2,"jiangrong":1,"jiaqi":1,"jin":1,"jinlin":1,"jmc":13,"jmvidal":3,"job":1,"joe":1,"johannes":1,"john":14,"johns":3,"join":8,"joins":1,"joint":16,"jointly":11,"jonathan":6,"jones":1,"joseph":2,"journal":9,"journals":2,"js":2,"jsabater":1,"json":9,"jstor":3,"juan":1,"judge":3,"judged":2,"judgements":2,"judgment":2,"julaiti":1,"juliana":1,"july":5,"jump":3,"jumping":1,"jumps":1,"jun":1,"junctional":1,"junctions":2,"june":1,"junqueira":1,"junshan":1,"just":27,"justification":3,"justified":3,"justifies":4,"justify":3,"justifying":1,"juxtapose":1,"juxtaposes":1,"jürgen":1,"k":18,"k2":1,"ka":2,"kademlia":1,"kaelbling":5,"kaiser":1,"kaj":1,"kaminsky":16,"kannan":1,"kantian":1,"kaplan":1,"kappa":2,"karpathy":1,"karthik":2,"katia":1,"kats":1,"kaufmann":4,"kaust":1,"kb":1,"kbr":1,"kbrs":1,"kbs":2,"kcc":1,"ke":1,"keep":6,"keeping":25,"keeps":5,"kempe":4,"ken":1,"kept":4,"ker95":1,"kermarrec":2,"kernel":29,"kernels":6,"keutzer":1,"kevm":6,"key":187,"keyed":2,"keykos":6,"keys":6,"keysafe":1,"keyword":2,"khizbullin":1,"kiawah":1,"kif":20,"kifer":1,"kimi":1,"kin":1,"kind":9,"kindred":2,"kinds":7,"kirsh":1,"kit":1,"kl":1,"klaim":1,"kleene":13,"klein":1,"km":1,"knife":1,"know":7,"knowable":3,"knowand":1,"knower":1,"knowing":9,"knowledge":107,"known":12,"knows":12,"kolmogorov":13,"kondylakis":1,"kone":2,"kong":1,"kotz":1,"kowalski":5,"kpis":1,"kqml":67,"kr":5,"kraft":1,"kril":2,"krils":1,"krl":3,"krss":1,"kse":4,"ksiazki":1,"ksl":2,"kuhn":1,"kumar":1,"kurt":3,"l":19,"l0":1,"l1":1,"l2":4,"l3":1,"l4":3,"l5":2,"la":3,"lab":2,"label":1,"labelled":1,"labelling":1,"labels":2,"labor":1,"laboratory":4,"labour":8,"labrou":3,"lacio":1,"lacios":3,"lack":9,"lacking":4,"lacks":2,"ladder":1,"ladspaper9":1,"lahiri":1,"lakshya":1,"lambda":24,"lamport":9,"lampson":1,"lamsade":1,"landmark":6,"landmarks":1,"landscape":6,"lang":1,"langchain":2,"langsec":53,"language":311,"languages":173,"large":49,"largely":4,"larger":13,"largest":1,"lassila":2,"last":3,"lasting":1,"late":3,"latency":7,"latent":2,"later":43,"lateral":1,"latest":1,"latex":1,"latter":4,"lattice":1,"launch":1,"launched":1,"launching":1,"laura":1,"lausen":1,"lavamoat":2,"law":15,"lawrence":1,"laws":8,"lay":1,"layer":66,"layered":22,"layering":9,"layers":31,"layout":2,"lays":3,"lazaridou":1,"lazily":1,"lazy":1,"ld":2,"le":1,"lead":2,"leader":5,"leading":4,"leak":2,"leaking":1,"leans":2,"learn":6,"learnable":1,"learned":8,"learner":1,"learners":8,"learning":45,"learns":3,"least":25,"leave":2,"leaves":4,"leaving":6,"lecture":7,"lectures":5,"lecun":1,"led":1,"ledger":3,"ledgers":2,"lee":2,"lee01a":1,"leetcodehardgym":1,"left":3,"leg":3,"legacy":4,"legal":6,"legalese":1,"legible":1,"legislators":1,"legitimacy":1,"legitimate":5,"legitimately":1,"leibo":1,"lemma":3,"lemmas":1,"lemmer":2,"len":2,"length":11,"lengths":2,"lennart":1,"lens":14,"leonardi":1,"leonvandertorre":1,"leslie":2,"less":9,"lessig":1,"lesson":10,"lessons":3,"let":25,"letizia":1,"lets":19,"letter":1,"letting":12,"level":103,"levels":26,"lever":2,"leverage":4,"leveraging":1,"leveson":1,"levesque":11,"levin":11,"lewis":3,"lexical":11,"lexicon":10,"lexicons":3,"li":8,"liang":1,"liao":1,"liar":1,"liars":1,"lib":1,"libc":1,"libel":2,"libelous":1,"liberal":3,"liberated":2,"libraries":3,"library":16,"licence":2,"license":2,"licensed":1,"licenses":2,"licensing":2,"lie":1,"liekang":1,"lies":2,"life":3,"lifecycle":6,"lifelong":1,"lifschitz":1,"lift":2,"lifts":1,"light":10,"lightly":1,"lightweight":10,"like":65,"likeable":1,"likelihood":1,"likely":2,"likewise":1,"lillis":1,"limit":5,"limitations":3,"limited":4,"limiting":1,"limits":7,"lin":2,"linda":2,"line":10,"lineage":8,"lineal":1,"linear":7,"linearizability":4,"linearizable":2,"linearly":2,"lines":10,"lingfeng":1,"lingua":2,"linguistic":29,"linguistics":1,"link":10,"linked":3,"linking":2,"links":14,"lisp":19,"list":14,"listed":3,"listener":4,"listeners":1,"listening":5,"listing":1,"lists":10,"literacy":1,"literal":4,"literally":7,"literature":14,"litmus":1,"little":2,"liu":3,"live":8,"lived":4,"liveness":14,"lives":3,"living":3,"liyang":1,"llamaindex":1,"llambías":1,"llm":118,"llms":38,"lloyd":29,"llvm":1,"lm":1,"lmos":1,"lms":1,"lnai":1,"lncs":5,"load":11,"loaded":2,"loading":2,"loads":1,"local":46,"locality":2,"locally":9,"locasto":2,"locate":2,"located":5,"locates":2,"locating":1,"location":6,"locations":1,"loci":1,"lock":3,"locked":2,"locking":1,"locks":3,"locus":3,"locution":1,"locutionary":1,"log":11,"logarithmic":1,"logic":149,"logical":56,"logically":2,"logicist":12,"logics":14,"login":2,"logos":2,"logs":1,"loi":1,"loka":1,"lomeli":2,"london":1,"long":24,"longer":3,"longitudinal":1,"look":5,"looking":2,"looks":2,"lookup":1,"loom":1,"loop":35,"loops":16,"lop":1,"lori":1,"los":1,"lose":2,"loses":2,"losing":1,"loss":12,"losses":2,"lossless":1,"lossy":5,"lost":3,"low":8,"lowe":4,"lower":8,"lowercase":1,"lowering":1,"lowest":2,"lpbcast":1,"lpm":1,"lpms":1,"lr":2,"lsm":1,"lstm":1,"lsv":1,"ltl":1,"lu":2,"luan":1,"lucy":1,"luo":1,"lurking":1,"lustre":1,"luu":1,"luzin":1,"lww":1,"lynch":4,"m":15,"m2":1,"ma":4,"maarten":1,"mac":2,"machine":70,"machinery":18,"machines":58,"macro":6,"macros":20,"maddison":1,"made":10,"magazine":3,"magentic":1,"magical":1,"maglio":1,"magnitude":2,"mahdi":1,"maier":1,"mailbox":1,"mailboxes":1,"main":4,"mainstream":5,"maintain":9,"maintained":1,"maintaining":4,"maintains":7,"maintenance":2,"majesty":1,"major":5,"majority":3,"majorityvote":1,"make":26,"makes":35,"making":37,"malfa":1,"malformed":2,"malicious":33,"malloc":1,"maltool":23,"malware":2,"man":1,"manage":2,"manageable":1,"managed":2,"management":11,"manager":8,"managerial":2,"managers":3,"manages":1,"managing":1,"manakanatas":1,"mandate":1,"mandates":1,"mandatory":1,"mani":1,"manifestation":1,"manifesto":15,"manifestos":1,"manipulate":1,"manipulated":6,"manipulates":1,"manipulating":5,"manipulation":10,"mann":1,"manner":3,"manual":1,"manufacturing":1,"many":27,"map":10,"mape":1,"mapped":2,"mapping":13,"mappings":3,"maps":11,"mar19":1,"march":3,"marco":1,"marczak":2,"marden":1,"marengo":1,"margin":1,"marginal":1,"mariachiara":1,"marie":1,"mark":8,"markdown":4,"marker":2,"markers":3,"market":3,"marketplaces":1,"markets":2,"marking":3,"markov":4,"marks":1,"marl":3,"marr":1,"marriage":1,"marriages":2,"marro":2,"marrying":1,"marsh":1,"marshaling":1,"marshalling":4,"marshals":1,"martingales":1,"marvin":3,"mas":35,"mas966":1,"mascardi":1,"masked":2,"masking":2,"masks":1,"masquerading":1,"mass":9,"massive":3,"mast":11,"master":2,"match":11,"matched":2,"matches":2,"matching":18,"matchmakers":2,"matchmaking":5,"matei":1,"materially":1,"materials":1,"math":3,"mathematica":10,"mathematicae":2,"mathematical":31,"mathematically":1,"mathematicians":1,"mathematics":8,"mathematik":2,"mathematische":2,"matrices":3,"matrix":7,"matters":4,"matthew":2,"mature":5,"matures":1,"matwbn":1,"max":3,"maxim":2,"maximally":1,"maximise":1,"maximisers":1,"maximising":2,"maximize":1,"maximizing":2,"maxims":5,"maximum":2,"may":28,"mbpp":1,"mcc59":1,"mccarthy":70,"mcchay69":1,"mcentire":3,"mcgraw":1,"mcgs":1,"mckay":4,"mcp":11,"mcpain":1,"mcpscan":1,"mcrae":1,"md":1,"md2":1,"md2rsa":1,"md5":1,"mdl":4,"me":1,"mean":9,"meaning":36,"meaningful":7,"meaningfully":1,"meanings":25,"means":18,"meant":6,"measurable":1,"measure":10,"measured":8,"measurement":2,"measures":4,"measuring":13,"mechanical":1,"mechanically":4,"mechanics":1,"mechanised":2,"mechanism":187,"mechanisms":29,"mechanization":1,"media":6,"median":1,"mediate":2,"mediated":10,"mediates":4,"mediating":1,"mediation":2,"mediator":1,"mediators":1,"medical":1,"medium":7,"meertens":1,"meet":4,"meeting":2,"meets":2,"melconway":1,"melissa":1,"meltzer":2,"melvin":1,"mem":1,"member":1,"members":1,"membership":6,"memberships":1,"membrane":1,"membranes":1,"memo":3,"memorial":1,"memories":2,"memory":44,"memoryless":1,"meng":1,"mental":75,"mentalism":1,"mentalist":2,"mentalistic":44,"mentioned":1,"mentioning":2,"mercurio":4,"mere":6,"meredith":2,"merely":11,"merge":2,"merging":7,"merkle":1,"merkwelt":1,"mert":1,"mesh":1,"message":85,"messages":53,"messaging":18,"messengers":2,"meta":38,"metacognition":2,"metacognitive":14,"metacognitively":1,"metaconstraints":1,"metadata":3,"metagpt":6,"metamask":2,"metamodel":1,"metaphor":2,"metaphors":4,"metaphrase":7,"metaphysical":5,"metaphysically":2,"metaprogramming":1,"metarules":1,"metatem":2,"metatheoretic":18,"metatheory":4,"metered":1,"metering":3,"method":23,"methodological":16,"methodologically":5,"methodologies":3,"methodology":18,"methods":22,"metric":9,"metrics":7,"mialon":2,"miao":1,"michael":5,"michaelson":1,"michie":2,"microbenchmarks":1,"microkernel":1,"micronemes":2,"microplanner":3,"microsoft":9,"microstructure":1,"mid":2,"middle":2,"middleware":5,"might":2,"migrate":1,"migrated":1,"migrates":1,"migrating":1,"migration":3,"mike":1,"mikulich":1,"mild":4,"mile":1,"military":1,"millennium":1,"miller":13,"million":1,"mimic":1,"min":1,"mind":40,"minded":3,"minds":10,"mined":2,"miner":1,"miners":2,"mingchen":1,"minima":1,"minimal":29,"minimalism":1,"minimalist":1,"minimax":1,"minimisation":3,"minimise":4,"minimised":1,"minimises":1,"minimising":2,"minimize":3,"minimum":11,"minnesota":1,"minor":2,"minority":1,"minsky":27,"mint":1,"minted":1,"minus":2,"mirror":4,"mirrored":1,"mirroring":2,"mirrors":7,"mirsky":3,"mis":2,"misaligned":1,"misalignment":7,"misbehaves":1,"misbehaving":1,"misbehavior":1,"miscategorisation":1,"miscoordination":1,"misfires":1,"mishandled":1,"misinterpretation":1,"misleading":3,"mismatch":2,"mismatches":4,"misplaced":1,"misread":1,"misreason":1,"misrepresent":1,"misrepresenting":1,"misrepresents":1,"miss":4,"missed":2,"misses":2,"missing":14,"missionaries":1,"missions":1,"mistaken":1,"misuse":2,"misused":1,"misusing":1,"mit":14,"mitigate":1,"mitigates":1,"mitigation":1,"mitigations":1,"mitre":3,"mix":2,"mixed":4,"mixes":1,"mixing":3,"mixture":1,"ml":4,"mn":1,"mnesia":2,"mobile":26,"mobility":4,"moc":1,"modal":18,"modalities":6,"modality":3,"mode":12,"model":131,"modeled":3,"modeling":14,"modelled":8,"modelling":10,"models":90,"moderator":1,"modern":59,"modes":12,"modest":2,"modestly":1,"modification":8,"modifications":1,"modified":2,"modifiers":3,"modifies":1,"modify":3,"modifying":2,"modular":31,"modularity":6,"modularly":3,"module":16,"modules":12,"modulo":1,"moise":5,"molded":1,"molecular":1,"moltbook":1,"moma":1,"moment":3,"momot":1,"monatshefte":2,"monatsheftefrmathematikundphysik":1,"monetary":2,"money":3,"monitor":12,"monitored":1,"monitoring":7,"monitors":3,"monograph":1,"monolithic":5,"monotone":6,"monotonic":32,"monotonically":3,"monotonicity":9,"monster":1,"montague":1,"monte":1,"montpellier":1,"montreal":1,"montresor":1,"mood":1,"moore":1,"moral":1,"mordatch":3,"more":47,"moreover":1,"morgan":5,"morningstar":2,"morphism":1,"morphogenesis":1,"morris":1,"moses":2,"most":37,"mostowski":6,"motif":1,"motivate":4,"motivated":4,"motivates":24,"motivating":13,"motivation":10,"motivational":4,"motivations":3,"motor":1,"mouth":1,"move":19,"movement":2,"moves":7,"movie":1,"moving":2,"mps":1,"msc":1,"msr":1,"mubeen":1,"much":13,"muchnik":1,"muddy":1,"mukhopadhyay":1,"multi":166,"multiagent":38,"multicast":1,"multicellular":1,"multicellularity":1,"multics":2,"multifaceted":1,"multihash":1,"multimodal":3,"multiparty":1,"multiple":21,"multiplication":1,"multiprogrammed":2,"multiprogramming":1,"multisig":4,"munindar":1,"muscariello":1,"museum":1,"must":70,"mutable":4,"mutated":1,"mutating":1,"mutation":6,"mutator":1,"mutual":9,"mutually":6,"mv":1,"my":3,"mycelia":1,"mycelium":4,"myconet":22,"myhill":1,"mystification":1,"mystifying":1,"myth":2,"myths":3,"márk":1,"n":11,"nadathur":1,"nailed":1,"naive":5,"nakajima":2,"naked":3,"nalmpantis":1,"name":19,"named":17,"names":18,"namespace":3,"naming":8,"nan":1,"narasimhan":2,"narrow":6,"narrower":1,"nash":8,"natalie":1,"national":2,"native":11,"natural":71,"naturalism":1,"naturalistic":1,"naturally":6,"naturalness":2,"nature":1,"navigable":1,"navigate":2,"navigation":2,"naïve":1,"near":7,"nearly":4,"necessarily":1,"necessary":8,"necessities":1,"necessity":2,"necula":1,"need":34,"needed":23,"needing":1,"needs":15,"neelakantan":1,"negated":1,"negation":12,"negations":1,"negative":6,"negatively":1,"negatives":1,"neglecting":1,"negligence":1,"negligible":1,"negotiable":1,"negotiate":6,"negotiated":8,"negotiates":1,"negotiating":3,"negotiation":26,"neighbor":2,"neighbors":2,"neighbour":7,"neighbours":4,"neither":10,"nervous":2,"nested":6,"net":17,"nets":11,"network":74,"networked":2,"networking":2,"networks":62,"neumann":12,"neural":13,"neurips":6,"neurons":2,"neutral":3,"neven":3,"never":14,"nevertheless":1,"new":51,"newell":16,"newly":2,"news":3,"newscast":5,"newsletter":1,"next":15,"nguyen":1,"nicholas":1,"nicola":1,"nigel":1,"nine":1,"nissim":2,"nist":1,"nitro":1,"nl":6,"nli":1,"nlp":2,"nn":1,"no":96,"noah":1,"noam":2,"node":21,"nodeken":1,"nodes":16,"noise":2,"noisy":2,"non":78,"nondeterminism":1,"nondeterministic":1,"nondiscretionary":1,"none":3,"nonetheless":1,"nonmonotonic":15,"nonparametric":1,"nonsense":1,"nonterminals":1,"nor":8,"norm":3,"normal":6,"normalisation":1,"normalized":2,"normally":5,"normative":5,"norms":7,"north":1,"northeastern":2,"not":133,"notable":1,"notably":3,"notary":1,"notate":1,"notates":1,"notation":9,"notational":2,"notations":3,"note":9,"notebook":1,"notebooks":1,"notes":4,"nothing":5,"notices":2,"notification":2,"notifications":2,"noting":1,"notion":13,"notions":5,"notoriously":1,"noun":1,"nov":1,"novel":5,"novelty":1,"november":2,"now":23,"np":1,"nss":1,"nth":1,"nuance":1,"nudge":2,"nudges":1,"null":4,"number":31,"numbered":3,"numbering":2,"numbers":17,"numeric":3,"numerical":1,"nutrient":1,"nyu":1,"o":14,"oa":1,"oaa":4,"oars":1,"obey":2,"object":54,"objections":1,"objective":8,"objectively":1,"objectives":2,"objects":38,"obligation":10,"obligations":21,"obliging":1,"oblivious":1,"obscurely":1,"observable":14,"observation":6,"observational":4,"observationally":2,"observations":3,"observe":7,"observed":10,"observer":4,"observers":1,"observes":3,"observing":2,"obstacle":2,"obstacles":1,"obstruct":1,"obtain":1,"obtained":3,"obtains":2,"ocap":10,"ocapn":7,"occam":4,"occupy":1,"occur":1,"occurred":1,"occurs":2,"oct":1,"october":1,"od":1,"ode":1,"odifreddi":1,"of":724,"ofai":1,"off":13,"offer":6,"offered":1,"offering":1,"offers":20,"office":2,"official":2,"offline":1,"offload":1,"offloaded":1,"offloading":1,"offs":5,"offsets":1,"often":19,"oh":1,"oi":1,"oid":3,"oil":1,"ojs":2,"ok":1,"olaf":1,"old":1,"olickel":1,"oliver":1,"omit":1,"on":286,"once":20,"one":106,"ones":20,"ongoing":4,"online":6,"onlisp":1,"only":97,"onto":9,"ontoclean":1,"ontolingua":22,"ontological":8,"ontologies":51,"ontology":67,"oo":3,"oop":1,"oopsla":1,"oorar":1,"opacity":1,"opaque":2,"opcode":4,"opcodes":1,"open":75,"openai":1,"openclaw":3,"opening":3,"openly":1,"openmanus":1,"opens":4,"openssl":2,"operability":1,"operate":7,"operated":1,"operates":5,"operating":20,"operation":11,"operational":16,"operationalise":3,"operationalised":6,"operationalises":8,"operationally":1,"operations":26,"operative":2,"operator":8,"operators":14,"opinions":3,"opponent":1,"opponents":1,"opportunities":3,"opposed":5,"opposing":2,"opposite":4,"opt":1,"optimal":7,"optimisation":3,"optimised":1,"optimises":1,"optimising":1,"optimism":1,"optimization":5,"optimizations":1,"optimize":1,"optimized":1,"optimizers":1,"optimizing":1,"optimum":3,"option":1,"optional":4,"optionally":1,"options":4,"or":223,"ora":1,"oracle":5,"oracles":1,"oral":1,"orchestration":16,"orchestrator":1,"order":61,"ordered":2,"ordering":20,"orderings":1,"orders":1,"ordinal":7,"ordinals":1,"ordinary":10,"org":87,"organisation":33,"organisational":11,"organisationally":1,"organisations":7,"organise":2,"organised":17,"organises":3,"organising":13,"organism":1,"organisms":3,"organization":6,"organizational":3,"organizations":3,"organize":2,"organized":3,"organizer":1,"organizes":4,"organizing":1,"orientation":2,"oriented":83,"origin":11,"original":19,"originally":5,"originated":1,"originates":1,"originating":2,"origins":4,"orthodoxy":1,"orthogonal":13,"orthophrase":8,"os":2,"oslo":1,"osr":1,"oss":2,"ossify":1,"ostensible":1,"other":55,"others":19,"otherwise":9,"otp":5,"otto":1,"ought":3,"our":1,"out":29,"outcome":9,"outcomes":6,"outer":2,"outgoing":3,"outgrowth":1,"outline":2,"outlines":2,"outperform":1,"outperforms":5,"output":21,"outputs":18,"outputting":1,"outrun":1,"outside":5,"outsider":1,"outsourcing":1,"outward":4,"over":125,"overall":2,"overambitious":1,"overattribution":1,"overcome":1,"overcommitted":1,"overflow":1,"overflows":8,"overhead":5,"overlap":1,"overlapping":4,"overlaps":2,"overlay":23,"overlays":2,"overloaded":2,"overloading":1,"overlooked":1,"overpopulation":1,"overpowered":1,"overreaches":1,"overridable":1,"overridden":1,"override":3,"overrides":1,"overrules":1,"overruns":1,"oversight":4,"overview":20,"overwhelm":1,"overwhelmingly":1,"overwrite":1,"owasp":2,"owe":1,"owicki":2,"owl":8,"own":38,"owned":1,"owner":6,"owners":2,"ownership":4,"owns":1,"ox":1,"oxford":5,"oyente":3,"ozalp":1,"p":26,"p1":2,"p2":1,"p2p":5,"p3":1,"p5":1,"p83":1,"pacherie":1,"package":1,"packaged":4,"packages":2,"packaging":2,"pad":1,"padding":1,"padova":1,"page":11,"pages":7,"paid":2,"painter":6,"pair":16,"paired":6,"pairing":1,"pairs":11,"pairwise":8,"palermo":1,"palm":1,"pan":2,"pandemic":1,"pandemics":1,"pandey":1,"panoramic":1,"paper":127,"papers":33,"papert":3,"par":2,"parable":2,"paradigm":27,"paradigmatic":1,"paradigmatically":1,"paradigms":5,"paradox":1,"paradoxes":1,"paradoxical":3,"paragraphs":1,"parallel":18,"parallelise":1,"parallelism":3,"parallelizable":1,"parallels":6,"parameswaran":1,"parameter":9,"parameterisation":1,"parameterised":3,"parameterises":1,"parameters":7,"parametric":3,"parametrically":1,"parametrised":2,"paraphrase":8,"paraphrased":1,"parent":4,"parenthesised":3,"parenthesized":2,"pareto":2,"parity":5,"park":1,"parliament":2,"parmar":1,"parry":1,"parse":4,"parsed":1,"parser":23,"parsers":10,"parses":1,"parsing":17,"part":24,"partial":35,"partially":6,"participant":2,"participants":5,"participating":1,"participation":2,"particular":17,"particularly":2,"parties":7,"partition":7,"partitioned":2,"partitions":8,"partly":4,"partner":1,"partners":3,"partnership":1,"parts":11,"party":12,"pascal":1,"pass":6,"passed":1,"passenger":1,"passes":4,"passi":2,"passing":20,"passive":2,"passives":1,"passivity":1,"past":13,"pasts":1,"pasunuru":1,"pat":1,"patched":1,"patching":1,"paterson":2,"path":11,"pathname":1,"pathological":2,"pathologies":6,"pathology":1,"paths":5,"pathways":1,"patrick":1,"pattern":47,"patterns":68,"patterson":21,"patti":1,"paul":3,"paulgraham":1,"paulsko":1,"paving":1,"paxos":4,"pay":5,"paying":1,"payload":6,"payloads":1,"payment":1,"payments":2,"payoff":5,"payoffs":2,"paywall":2,"paywalled":1,"pd":1,"pdf":80,"pdfs":1,"pds":2,"pdts":1,"ped":1,"pedagogically":1,"pedantry":1,"peer":30,"peers":14,"pegasus":1,"peking":1,"penalises":2,"penalty":2,"pending":1,"penguins":1,"penn":1,"people":9,"per":37,"perc":3,"perceive":4,"perceived":1,"perceives":1,"percent":1,"perception":13,"percepts":1,"perceptual":3,"perennial":1,"perfect":1,"perfectly":2,"perform":11,"performance":20,"performative":24,"performatives":35,"performed":6,"performers":1,"performing":6,"performs":3,"period":1,"periodic":2,"periodically":4,"periods":1,"perlocution":1,"perlocutionary":4,"permanent":1,"permanently":1,"permission":2,"permissions":3,"permissive":6,"permissives":1,"permit":2,"permits":2,"permitted":2,"permitting":3,"permutation":1,"persist":3,"persistence":9,"persistent":21,"persistently":1,"persists":1,"person":3,"persona":4,"personal":5,"personality":3,"perspective":5,"perspectives":3,"perspicuity":1,"perspicuous":2,"persuaded":1,"persuasion":2,"pertinent":1,"perturbation":1,"perturbations":1,"pervaded":1,"pervasive":4,"perverse":3,"pete":1,"peter":2,"petri":8,"peysakhovich":1,"pgp":3,"pham":1,"phase":5,"phased":1,"phases":1,"phd":4,"phenomena":8,"phenomenal":1,"phenomenology":1,"phenomenon":10,"phi":2,"philip":3,"philosopher":1,"philosophers":1,"philosophical":39,"philosophically":5,"philosophy":24,"philpapers":1,"philrev1984":1,"phishing":1,"phoneme":1,"photographers":1,"php":2,"phrase":5,"physical":16,"physically":2,"physicists":1,"physics":4,"physik":2,"physiological":1,"physiology":1,"pick":1,"picked":4,"picks":5,"picture":4,"pidgin":4,"piece":4,"pierce":1,"pieter":1,"piggyback":1,"pikl":1,"pile":1,"pillar":2,"pillars":3,"pin":2,"pineau":1,"ping":1,"pinned":2,"pioneered":1,"piotr":2,"pipe":1,"pipeline":8,"pipelines":5,"pipelining":8,"pitfalls":13,"pivot":1,"pivotal":1,"pkcs":2,"pki":16,"pkilayercake":1,"pl":2,"pl00013712":1,"placa":2,"place":4,"placed":2,"placeholders":1,"placement":1,"places":2,"plain":4,"plaintext":2,"plan":26,"planetlab":1,"planned":2,"planner":7,"planning":25,"plans":21,"plateau":1,"platform":11,"platforms":3,"plausibility":2,"plausible":2,"plausibly":1,"play":9,"playbook":2,"played":2,"player":10,"players":1,"playing":3,"plays":4,"plessey":1,"plexousakis":1,"plug":1,"pluggable":3,"plugin":1,"plugins":2,"plugs":1,"plumbing":1,"plural":2,"plurality":1,"pluribus":1,"plus":31,"pn":1,"png":1,"pnueli":3,"point":25,"pointer":3,"pointers":1,"pointing":4,"points":10,"poisoning":9,"pola":8,"pole":3,"polemical":1,"poles":1,"policies":20,"policing":1,"policy":42,"political":1,"polosukhin":1,"polynemes":3,"polynomial":1,"pool":2,"poor":6,"poorly":1,"pops":2,"popular":4,"popularises":2,"populate":1,"population":15,"populations":26,"portability":3,"portable":23,"portals":1,"portion":1,"ports":1,"posed":2,"poses":1,"posing":1,"position":13,"positional":2,"positioned":2,"positioning":1,"positions":9,"positive":26,"positively":1,"positives":1,"possess":1,"possession":2,"possibilities":2,"possibility":1,"possible":24,"possibly":5,"post":19,"postcondition":2,"postconditions":6,"postel":4,"posthumously":2,"postulates":1,"posture":2,"potential":15,"potentially":4,"power":14,"powerboxes":1,"powered":6,"powerful":5,"powerless":1,"powers":2,"pp":21,"ppn235181684":1,"practical":27,"practically":6,"practice":44,"practices":3,"practitioner":2,"practitioners":1,"pragmatic":6,"pragmatics":6,"pragprog":1,"prateek":1,"prd":1,"pre":22,"precedence":1,"preceding":3,"precipitating":1,"precise":15,"precisely":13,"preclude":1,"precludes":1,"precondition":6,"preconditions":13,"precursor":7,"precursors":2,"predates":1,"predecessor":2,"predecessors":1,"predicate":22,"predicated":1,"predicates":26,"predicating":1,"predication":1,"predict":3,"predictable":4,"predictably":1,"predicted":2,"predicting":2,"prediction":5,"predictions":3,"predictive":3,"predictively":1,"predicts":3,"predominantly":1,"prefer":1,"preference":2,"preferential":1,"preferred":5,"preferring":1,"prefers":1,"prefigure":3,"prefigures":3,"prefix":5,"prefixed":1,"prefixing":1,"prehistory":1,"preimage":2,"prejudice":3,"preliminaries":1,"premature":2,"premise":1,"premises":3,"preparatory":4,"prepare":1,"prepared":1,"prepays":1,"preprint":6,"prerequisite":3,"prerequisites":1,"prescribe":1,"prescribes":6,"prescription":2,"prescriptive":1,"presence":2,"present":10,"presentation":4,"presented":3,"presenting":2,"presents":14,"preservation":6,"preserve":7,"preserved":7,"preserves":6,"preserving":17,"presidential":1,"press":14,"pressed":1,"pressure":2,"pressures":1,"presumed":2,"presumption":1,"presuppose":4,"presupposes":3,"presuppositions":1,"pretrained":1,"pretraining":1,"pretty":1,"prevent":24,"preventing":1,"prevention":6,"prevents":3,"preview":1,"previously":3,"pribram":1,"price":5,"primal":1,"primarily":1,"primary":8,"prime":3,"primitive":37,"primitives":33,"primordials":1,"princeton":5,"principal":7,"principals":4,"principia":10,"principle":56,"principled":23,"principles":63,"print":1,"printed":1,"printer":1,"printf":1,"prints":1,"prior":21,"priori":3,"prioritise":1,"prioritised":3,"priority":4,"prisoner":1,"privacy":8,"private":24,"privilege":7,"privileged":3,"privileges":3,"prized":2,"pro":1,"proactive":4,"prob":1,"probabilistic":9,"probability":6,"probable":1,"probe":2,"probing":1,"problem":88,"problematised":1,"problems":68,"proc":4,"procedural":9,"procedure":18,"procedures":18,"proceed":1,"proceedings":16,"proceeds":2,"process":44,"processable":1,"processed":1,"processes":34,"processing":31,"processor":1,"proclaimed":2,"produce":23,"produced":10,"producers":2,"produces":21,"producing":17,"product":9,"production":8,"productions":3,"productive":2,"professional":1,"profile":2,"profilers":1,"profiles":2,"profiling":1,"profit":1,"program":92,"programmable":8,"programmatic":5,"programme":23,"programmed":5,"programmer":4,"programmers":6,"programming":166,"programs":75,"programsemantics":1,"progress":9,"progression":3,"progressively":2,"prohibition":1,"prohibitively":1,"prohibitives":1,"project":14,"projecteuclid":1,"projecting":1,"projection":8,"projections":3,"projective":1,"projects":3,"proliferation":2,"prolog":14,"prominent":1,"promise":18,"promised":1,"promises":13,"promising":7,"promote":2,"prompt":23,"prompted":2,"prompting":11,"prompts":12,"prone":4,"proneness":1,"pronomes":3,"pronouncing":1,"proof":47,"proofs":19,"propagate":3,"propagates":3,"propagating":18,"propagation":8,"proper":4,"properly":1,"properties":53,"property":41,"proportion":1,"proportional":1,"proposal":10,"proposals":1,"propose":28,"proposed":15,"proposer":1,"proposes":28,"proposing":1,"proposition":5,"propositional":18,"propositions":25,"prose":5,"prospects":1,"protected":5,"protecting":4,"protection":6,"protects":2,"proto":1,"protocol":126,"protocols":131,"prototype":3,"prototypical":1,"provability":2,"provable":16,"provably":1,"prove":20,"proved":11,"proven":2,"provers":1,"proves":10,"provide":12,"provided":4,"provider":1,"providers":1,"provides":58,"providing":13,"proving":12,"provision":1,"provisional":1,"proxies":6,"proxy":6,"prune":1,"psd":1,"pseudo":1,"psychological":5,"psychology":6,"psychotherapist":1,"public":28,"publication":3,"publications":13,"publicly":6,"publish":2,"published":5,"publisher":1,"publishes":1,"pubs":7,"pull":4,"pulls":1,"purchase":1,"pure":17,"purely":9,"purest":1,"purity":2,"purported":1,"purpose":17,"purposes":3,"purposive":1,"pursue":2,"pursued":1,"pursues":2,"pursuing":2,"pursuit":1,"push":18,"pushback":1,"pushed":2,"pushes":6,"pushing":2,"put":1,"putnam":1,"puts":2,"puviani":1,"puzzle":2,"puzzles":1,"pxp":1,"python":2,"q":14,"qa":4,"qi":1,"qin":1,"qiu":1,"qk":1,"qkᵀ":1,"qmail":1,"quadruple":1,"qualification":7,"qualifiers":1,"qualify":1,"qualitative":6,"qualitatively":5,"qualities":26,"quality":14,"quantification":4,"quantified":3,"quantifier":4,"quantifiers":14,"quantifies":1,"quantify":4,"quantifying":1,"quantile":1,"quantiles":2,"quantisation":1,"quantitative":1,"quantities":3,"quantity":5,"quarter":1,"quasi":1,"quattrociocchi":3,"querier":1,"queries":8,"query":11,"question":14,"questioning":1,"questions":8,"queue":2,"queues":3,"quick":1,"quickly":2,"quillian":1,"quit":1,"quo":1,"quorum":1,"quorums":2,"quotas":1,"quotation":2,"quotations":1,"quoted":1,"quotes":1,"quotient":2,"quoting":1,"r":29,"r0":2,"r01":1,"r1":1,"r2":1,"rabin":1,"race":1,"rachel":1,"racket":20,"radicalises":1,"raft":1,"rag":7,"raileanu":2,"raise":2,"raised":2,"raises":1,"raising":2,"rak":1,"rallying":1,"ramchandran":1,"ramezanifarkhani":1,"ramification":3,"ran":2,"random":17,"randomization":2,"randomized":3,"randomly":1,"randomness":2,"randy":1,"range":7,"ranges":4,"ranging":1,"ranked":2,"ranking":2,"rao":7,"rao91a":1,"raphael":1,"rapid":3,"rapport":1,"rare":2,"rarely":3,"raskar":2,"rate":10,"rates":2,"rather":112,"rating":2,"ratings":2,"ratio":3,"rational":28,"rationale":4,"rationales":1,"rationality":11,"rationally":4,"ratios":2,"raw":4,"razor":3,"raúl":1,"rblee":1,"rce":1,"rdf":8,"rdfs":1,"re":22,"reach":14,"reachability":4,"reachable":5,"reached":5,"reaches":5,"reaching":2,"react":7,"reaction":1,"reactions":2,"reactive":15,"reactivity":1,"read":11,"readable":6,"reader":3,"readers":1,"reading":10,"readings":2,"readme":2,"reads":3,"ready":1,"real":23,"realisable":1,"realisation":10,"realise":3,"realised":12,"realises":6,"realism":6,"realistic":9,"reality":37,"realization":1,"realize":1,"realized":1,"really":3,"realms":1,"reappears":3,"reason":26,"reasonable":1,"reasoned":6,"reasoner":3,"reasoners":1,"reasoning":113,"reasons":5,"reber":1,"reboot":1,"rebranding":2,"rebuild":1,"rebuilt":1,"rec":1,"recall":2,"recapitulate":1,"recapitulates":1,"recast":2,"recategorise":1,"receipt":2,"receive":7,"received":7,"receiver":11,"receivers":1,"receives":3,"receiving":2,"recency":1,"recent":2,"reception":1,"recipe":1,"recipes":2,"recipient":4,"reciprocal":1,"reciprocity":1,"recklessly":1,"reclaimed":1,"reclamation":2,"recognisably":1,"recognise":9,"recognised":3,"recogniser":1,"recognisers":2,"recognising":5,"recognition":10,"recognizer":3,"recognizers":3,"recognizing":2,"recommend":4,"recommendation":1,"recommendations":1,"recommended":1,"recon":1,"reconceived":1,"reconcile":1,"reconciled":1,"reconciliation":1,"reconciling":3,"reconfigured":1,"reconsideration":2,"reconsidering":1,"reconstruction":2,"reconstructs":1,"reconvergence":1,"record":8,"recorded":2,"recording":1,"records":7,"recover":1,"recovering":1,"recovery":7,"recruit":4,"recruiters":1,"recruiting":1,"recruitment":2,"recur":2,"recurrence":2,"recurrent":1,"recurring":5,"recurs":2,"recursion":11,"recursive":40,"recursively":17,"recursiveness":1,"red":5,"redefine":1,"redefining":1,"redell":1,"redeployed":1,"redesign":3,"reduce":13,"reduced":6,"reduces":9,"reducibilities":1,"reducibility":3,"reducible":8,"reducing":9,"reduction":10,"reductionist":1,"reductive":3,"redundancy":6,"redundant":5,"reed":2,"reentrancy":9,"rees":2,"ref":1,"refactoring":1,"refer":8,"reference":183,"referenced":4,"references":12,"referent":5,"referential":9,"referentiality":1,"referents":4,"referring":6,"refers":1,"refined":6,"refinement":10,"refinements":3,"refines":2,"refining":2,"reflect":3,"reflected":1,"reflecting":2,"reflection":6,"reflections":2,"reflective":1,"reflexion":4,"reflexive":1,"reformatting":2,"reformulate":1,"reframed":2,"reframes":7,"reframing":2,"refreshed":1,"refs":1,"refusal":1,"refuse":3,"refused":2,"refutation":2,"refuted":1,"refutes":1,"regarded":1,"regarding":2,"regardless":9,"regenerates":1,"regeneration":2,"regime":3,"regimes":5,"region":2,"regions":1,"register":8,"registers":2,"registries":1,"registry":2,"regresses":1,"regret":4,"regular":5,"regulariser":1,"regularities":1,"regularization":1,"regulate":1,"regulates":1,"regulating":3,"regulation":1,"regulative":3,"regulatory":1,"reification":4,"reificationist":1,"reified":2,"reify":2,"reimplementation":1,"reincarnation":1,"reinfect":1,"reinforce":3,"reinforced":1,"reinforcement":12,"reinforces":2,"reinstatement":1,"reinterpretation":1,"reinterpreted":2,"reinterprets":1,"reiter":3,"reith":1,"reject":4,"rejected":5,"rejecting":2,"rejection":2,"rejects":6,"rejoins":1,"relate":2,"related":25,"relates":153,"relating":1,"relation":19,"relational":13,"relations":19,"relationship":3,"relationships":2,"relative":13,"relativised":2,"relativising":1,"relativity":1,"relaxation":1,"relaxed":1,"relaxing":1,"relayer":1,"relayers":1,"relays":1,"relearn":1,"release":3,"released":3,"releases":1,"relegating":1,"relevance":5,"relevant":12,"reliability":12,"reliable":29,"reliably":4,"reliance":1,"relied":1,"relies":6,"reluctantly":1,"rely":6,"remain":4,"remaining":2,"remains":7,"remarkable":2,"remediation":2,"remediations":1,"remedy":3,"remember":1,"remembered":2,"remembers":1,"remote":6,"removal":1,"remove":4,"removed":1,"removes":1,"removing":7,"renamed":1,"rendered":1,"rendering":1,"rendezvous":1,"reopened":1,"reorder":1,"reordered":1,"reordering":2,"reorganises":1,"reorganizable":1,"reorientation":1,"rep":1,"repair":6,"repairing":1,"repairs":1,"repeat":1,"repeated":11,"repertoire":1,"repertoires":1,"repetition":2,"repetitive":1,"repl":1,"replace":9,"replaceable":2,"replaced":4,"replacement":2,"replaces":11,"replacing":8,"replans":1,"replay":2,"replica":1,"replicas":3,"replicate":1,"replicated":3,"replicating":3,"replication":3,"replies":3,"reply":2,"report":13,"reporting":1,"reports":4,"repositories":1,"repository":3,"represent":11,"representability":1,"representable":1,"representation":55,"representational":8,"representationalism":1,"representationally":1,"representations":18,"representative":7,"representatives":2,"represented":9,"representing":14,"represents":3,"reprint":2,"reprinted":7,"reproduce":1,"reproducible":3,"reproducing":17,"reproduction":6,"repurposes":1,"reputation":29,"request":17,"requests":11,"require":21,"required":23,"requirement":8,"requirements":12,"requires":38,"requiring":12,"res":1,"research":40,"researcher":2,"researchers":3,"researchgate":2,"reservation":3,"reserved":3,"reshaped":1,"reshapes":1,"residual":2,"residue":1,"resilience":10,"resilient":23,"resist":3,"resistance":5,"resolution":19,"resolvable":1,"resolve":3,"resolved":4,"resolver":1,"resolves":2,"resonate":1,"resonates":4,"resource":30,"resources":13,"respect":4,"respectively":3,"respects":2,"respond":6,"responded":1,"responders":1,"responding":1,"responds":1,"response":31,"responses":3,"responsibility":1,"responsive":4,"responsiveness":1,"rest":19,"restart":4,"restatement":1,"restore":2,"restores":1,"restoring":1,"restraining":2,"restrict":6,"restricted":5,"restricting":4,"restriction":2,"restrictions":1,"rests":6,"result":25,"resulting":6,"results":19,"resume":4,"resumes":1,"resuming":1,"resurface":1,"ret":1,"retain":1,"retained":1,"retaining":2,"retains":1,"rethinking":42,"retract":4,"retracts":3,"retraining":1,"retrieval":21,"retrieve":2,"retrieved":2,"retriever":2,"retrieves":2,"retrospective":2,"retrospectively":1,"retry":2,"return":6,"returned":2,"returning":2,"returns":3,"reusability":1,"reusable":13,"reuse":5,"reused":6,"reusing":3,"revealing":2,"reveals":1,"reverse":1,"reversed":1,"reverting":1,"review":31,"reviewed":1,"reviewers":2,"reviewing":2,"reviews":4,"revised":8,"revises":1,"revising":2,"revision":6,"revisited":1,"revival":4,"revivals":1,"revived":1,"revives":2,"revocable":2,"revocation":6,"revoke":2,"revoked":1,"revoker":1,"revokes":1,"revoking":1,"revolution":1,"reward":9,"rewarded":1,"rewards":2,"rewiring":1,"rework":1,"rewrite":6,"rewrites":2,"rewriting":6,"rewritten":1,"rex":2,"rga":1,"rhetorically":2,"rho":1,"rhymes":1,"riak":1,"ricci":1,"rice":13,"rich":6,"richard":1,"richer":10,"richness":2,"right":9,"rights":5,"rigid":4,"rigidly":1,"rigor":1,"rigorous":8,"rigorously":2,"rigour":2,"ripple":12,"rise":6,"rishabh":1,"risk":4,"risks":4,"rival":1,"river":1,"rivers":1,"rl":9,"rmi":1,"rnn":1,"rnns":1,"road":1,"roadmap":3,"roam":1,"robert":3,"robin":1,"robot":4,"robotic":1,"robotics":4,"robots":16,"robust":14,"robustly":1,"robustness":12,"rock":15,"rodin":2,"rodney":1,"rogerian":1,"rogers":2,"role":36,"roles":27,"roll":2,"rolled":2,"rome":1,"rong":1,"room":4,"roomed":1,"rooms":1,"root":7,"root2":1,"rooted":1,"rooting":1,"rop":1,"roscoe":1,"rosenschein":10,"rosetta":1,"rosser":4,"rotation":1,"roughly":5,"round":11,"rounds":7,"route":4,"routed":2,"router":1,"routers":4,"routes":1,"routine":3,"routinely":3,"routines":2,"routing":10,"rowboat":1,"rows":1,"rozière":1,"roșu":1,"rpc":7,"rqqdfufarxa":1,"rrs":1,"rubinstein":6,"rubric":1,"rudimentary":1,"ruggia":1,"rule":30,"rules":63,"run":16,"running":10,"runs":17,"runtime":36,"runtimes":3,"rus":1,"russell":1,"rust":2,"rv":1,"rw":1,"rwx":1,"ryder":1,"ryle":1,"ré":1,"s":383,"s0002":2,"s0269888908001367":1,"s5":3,"sa":1,"sabater":3,"sabatucci":1,"sabre":1,"sacrifice":1,"sacrificed":1,"sacrificing":2,"safe":15,"safeguards":1,"safely":4,"safer":1,"safestack":2,"safety":32,"said":6,"sajad":1,"saltzer":3,"same":73,"sample":1,"sampled":1,"samples":2,"sampling":14,"samuel":1,"samuele":1,"sanctioned":1,"sand":1,"sandbox":3,"sandboxed":4,"sandboxes":1,"sandboxing":14,"sandewall":1,"sanity":3,"santi":1,"saso":1,"saso2009":1,"sassaman":20,"sastry":1,"satisfaction":3,"satisfactory":1,"satisfied":1,"satisfies":7,"satisfy":14,"satisfying":6,"saturated":2,"saturation":2,"save":1,"saved":1,"saxena":1,"say":6,"saying":1,"says":10,"sc":6,"scaffold":1,"scaffolding":7,"scalability":10,"scalable":31,"scalar":3,"scale":36,"scaled":3,"scales":6,"scaling":12,"scan":8,"scanned":1,"scanner":1,"scannerless":2,"scanners":1,"scans":1,"scarce":1,"scattered":2,"scel":1,"scenario":4,"scenarios":3,"scene":2,"scenes":1,"sceptical":2,"scepticism":1,"schedule":1,"scheduler":1,"schedules":3,"scheduling":8,"schema":10,"schemas":3,"scheme":14,"schemes":8,"schick":2,"schmidhuber":1,"schneider":1,"schroeder":2,"schuster":1,"schuurmans":1,"schwarz":1,"scialom":2,"sciam":1,"science":34,"sciences":1,"scientific":4,"scientificamerican":1,"scope":7,"scoping":2,"score":4,"scores":6,"scoring":1,"scorned":1,"scott":3,"scratch":3,"scratchpad":2,"screen":2,"script":1,"scripted":2,"scripting":3,"scripts":2,"sdf":2,"se":2,"sea":1,"seafoi":1,"sealed":1,"search":16,"searle":31,"searlean":1,"searlespeechacts":1,"secdev":1,"secdev2016":1,"second":31,"secondarily":1,"secondary":1,"secos":1,"secrecy":1,"secrets":1,"secspaces":1,"section":2,"sections":2,"secure":48,"security":111,"see":11,"seed":3,"seeded":4,"seeds":1,"seeing":1,"seeking":1,"seem":1,"seemingly":1,"seen":3,"sees":2,"segment":2,"segments":1,"sel4":2,"select":2,"selected":2,"selecting":3,"selection":14,"selective":1,"selectively":1,"selector":2,"selectors":1,"selects":6,"self":126,"selfhood":4,"selfish":2,"selfridge":1,"selves":2,"semantic":82,"semantically":5,"semantics":150,"semaphore":1,"semaphores":1,"semi":3,"seminal":3,"semiotic":2,"sen":1,"send":16,"sendable":1,"sender":15,"senders":2,"sending":7,"sends":11,"sense":45,"sensible":1,"sensibly":1,"sensing":1,"sensitive":10,"sensitivities":3,"sensitivity":5,"sensor":2,"sensorimotor":2,"sensors":1,"sensory":3,"sent":5,"sentence":14,"sentences":13,"sentential":1,"separate":19,"separated":8,"separately":4,"separates":9,"separating":9,"separation":12,"separators":1,"sept":1,"september":1,"sequel":3,"sequence":11,"sequences":11,"sequencing":3,"sequential":10,"sequentialshareresource":1,"serge":1,"serialisation":1,"serializability":4,"series":1,"serious":2,"seriously":3,"serve":9,"served":4,"server":21,"servers":4,"serves":5,"service":26,"services":13,"serving":2,"ses":2,"session":8,"sessions":2,"set":59,"sets":34,"setting":8,"settings":10,"settle":2,"settled":1,"settles":1,"setup":2,"sev":1,"seven":21,"seventy":1,"sever":1,"several":11,"severing":1,"seymour":1,"sfd":1,"sfs":1,"sg":1,"sgd":1,"sgx":1,"sha":1,"shadbolt":2,"shadow":2,"shafer":1,"shafran":1,"shanghai":1,"shannon":6,"shape":13,"shaped":3,"shapes":3,"shaping":1,"shapira":1,"shapiro":7,"sharable":1,"share":15,"shareable":2,"shared":72,"shares":22,"sharing":30,"sharma":1,"sharp":2,"sharpened":2,"sharpening":1,"sharpens":4,"sharpest":2,"shattering":1,"shazeer":1,"she":4,"shed":1,"shelf":1,"shell":3,"shift":11,"shifting":1,"shifts":4,"shimazu":2,"shing":1,"shinn":2,"ship":3,"shipping":1,"ships":1,"shoham":13,"shopping":2,"short":18,"shorten":1,"shorter":3,"shortest":4,"shorthand":2,"shortly":1,"shot":10,"shotgun":7,"should":50,"show":22,"showed":2,"showing":20,"shown":8,"shows":35,"shrinkage":2,"shrinks":1,"shubina":3,"shui":1,"shum":1,"shunyu":2,"shuvendu":1,"shuyi":1,"shyam":1,"si":1,"sibling":3,"side":23,"sidestep":5,"sidestepping":1,"sidesteps":3,"sierra":3,"sieve":1,"sift":1,"sigart":1,"signal":5,"signaling":1,"signalling":11,"signals":15,"signature":4,"signatures":5,"signed":2,"significance":1,"significant":4,"significantly":1,"signs":1,"sigops":3,"sigplan":1,"silent":1,"silently":3,"silver":1,"simd":1,"similar":6,"similarity":1,"similarly":1,"simon":2,"simple":30,"simpler":4,"simplest":1,"simplicity":2,"simplification":2,"simplified":3,"simplifying":2,"sims":3,"simulacra":1,"simulate":2,"simulated":2,"simulates":2,"simulating":3,"simulation":6,"simulations":1,"simultaneous":3,"simultaneously":18,"sin":1,"since":12,"sincere":1,"sincerity":17,"singapore":1,"singh":15,"single":88,"sins":7,"sinusoidal":2,"siri":1,"sirui":1,"sister":2,"site":6,"sites":4,"sits":6,"sitting":1,"situate":1,"situated":13,"situatedness":2,"situates":4,"situating":1,"situation":14,"situational":1,"situations":6,"six":12,"sixteen":1,"size":12,"sizes":1,"sjoin":2,"skeleton":2,"sketch":6,"sketched":3,"sketches":9,"sketching":1,"skew":1,"skill":7,"skilled":1,"skills":7,"skillsmp":1,"skin":1,"sktp":2,"skull":1,"sl":5,"slack":1,"slashing":2,"slate":1,"slave":1,"slaves":1,"sld":8,"slicing":1,"slightly":1,"slim":1,"slip":1,"slogan":6,"slot":3,"slots":5,"slotted":2,"slow":5,"slower":1,"slugified":1,"small":32,"smaller":6,"smalltalk":1,"smarandache":3,"smart":33,"smarter":20,"smashing":1,"smhallberg":1,"smith":5,"smoothly":2,"smooths":1,"smu":1,"snapshot":2,"snapshots":4,"snapshotting":1,"snyder":1,"so":101,"soar":1,"soare":1,"social":75,"societal":1,"societies":9,"society":41,"socio":1,"sociological":4,"sociologically":1,"sociologist":1,"sockets":1,"sodabot":1,"soft":1,"softmax":4,"software":38,"sok":14,"sol":18,"sold":1,"solely":3,"solidifying":1,"solidity":9,"solomonoff":1,"solution":4,"solutions":5,"solvable":1,"solve":5,"solved":8,"solvers":1,"solves":4,"solving":7,"some":32,"someone":3,"something":12,"sometimes":5,"song":2,"sony":1,"sop":2,"sops":9,"sort":1,"sorted":4,"sorting":1,"sosp":1,"sosp99":1,"soton":1,"soul":2,"sound":4,"soundly":1,"soundness":8,"source":160,"sourced":1,"sources":13,"sovereign":1,"space":20,"spaces":11,"span":5,"spanning":6,"spans":3,"sparrow":1,"sparse":3,"sparsification":1,"sparsity":1,"spatial":1,"spatio":1,"spatiotemporal":2,"spawn":2,"spawning":1,"speak":2,"speaker":21,"speakers":6,"speaking":1,"speaks":1,"spec":10,"special":12,"specialisation":2,"specialisations":1,"specialise":1,"specialised":10,"specialist":3,"specialists":1,"specialization":3,"specialized":1,"species":2,"specific":46,"specifically":3,"specification":46,"specifications":53,"specified":19,"specifier":1,"specifies":9,"specify":9,"specifying":11,"specs":7,"spectrum":7,"speculative":1,"speech":86,"speed":4,"spelling":3,"spend":2,"spent":1,"sphere":1,"spheres":2,"spine":2,"spinroot":1,"spirit":3,"spki":2,"split":10,"splits":4,"splitting":3,"sponsored":1,"spontaneously":1,"spoofax":17,"spoofing":6,"sporas":1,"spot":1,"spr09":1,"sprawling":1,"spread":4,"spreading":1,"spring16":1,"springer":11,"spritely":22,"spurious":4,"sql":5,"squiggol":1,"sr":1,"src":2,"sri":1,"srkb":1,"srl":2,"srl2003":1,"ssl":3,"staab":1,"stabilise":2,"stabilised":1,"stability":1,"stable":11,"stably":1,"stack":40,"stacked":2,"stacks":3,"stage":5,"stages":2,"stake":3,"stakes":2,"staleness":1,"stamp":1,"stance":164,"stances":3,"standalone":2,"standard":47,"standardisation":4,"standardise":2,"standardised":7,"standardising":1,"standardization":2,"standards":4,"standby":2,"standing":3,"standish":15,"standpoint":16,"stands":3,"stanford":19,"staple":1,"start":4,"starting":7,"startling":2,"startup":1,"starve":1,"state":163,"stated":11,"stateful":1,"stateless":1,"statelessness":6,"statem":1,"statement":16,"statements":3,"states":37,"static":17,"statically":3,"stating":2,"stationary":3,"stationery":1,"statistical":5,"statistically":1,"statistics":5,"status":4,"stay":2,"stays":2,"steels":9,"steen":2,"steer":1,"steers":1,"stefania":1,"steiger":2,"stemming":2,"step":15,"stephen":4,"stepping":1,"steps":6,"stepwise":1,"stereotype":2,"stereotyped":2,"sterling":1,"steven":1,"stigmergic":2,"stigmergy":7,"still":11,"stimuli":1,"stimulus":3,"stipulated":4,"stipulation":1,"stitched":1,"stochastic":7,"stock":2,"stockholm":1,"stockmeyer":1,"stoica":1,"stone":1,"stop":3,"stopforwarding":1,"stopping":1,"stops":1,"storage":20,"store":7,"stored":11,"stores":5,"story":7,"strachey":1,"straddles":1,"straight":1,"strand":1,"strata":1,"strategic":2,"strategically":1,"strategies":15,"stratego":3,"strategy":24,"stratification":2,"stratifies":1,"stratify":1,"strcpy":1,"stream":6,"streaming":1,"streams":2,"street":1,"strength":2,"strengthening":1,"strengthens":2,"strengths":1,"stress":2,"strict":8,"strictly":8,"strike":1,"striking":4,"strikingly":1,"string":3,"strings":5,"stripping":1,"strips":3,"strong":29,"stronger":7,"strongest":4,"strongly":3,"structural":31,"structurally":7,"structure":61,"structured":23,"structures":28,"structuring":2,"stuart":1,"stuck":1,"students":1,"studer":1,"studied":7,"studies":19,"study":34,"studying":4,"style":89,"styles":4,"stylistic":2,"stylistically":1,"sub":12,"subbiah":1,"subclass":2,"subclassing":1,"subcommunity":1,"subdiscipline":1,"subfield":2,"subfields":1,"subgame":1,"subgoal":1,"subgoals":1,"subgraph":1,"subgroup":1,"subgroups":2,"subject":15,"subjected":1,"subjective":3,"submit":1,"submitted":2,"suboptimal":1,"subordinate":3,"subroutines":2,"subscribe":6,"subscriber":1,"subscribers":1,"subscription":2,"subsection":1,"subsequent":26,"subset":6,"subsets":4,"subsociety":1,"subspaces":1,"substantial":1,"substantially":1,"substantive":2,"substitute":4,"substitutes":3,"substituting":1,"substitution":5,"substitutions":1,"substitutivity":1,"substrate":47,"subsume":3,"subsumed":1,"subsumes":3,"subsumption":8,"subsystem":6,"subsystems":6,"subtask":1,"subtasks":3,"subtle":2,"subtleties":1,"subtly":2,"subversion":1,"subvert":1,"succeed":3,"succeeds":3,"success":13,"successful":6,"successor":10,"such":58,"sudden":1,"suffer":3,"suffice":4,"suffices":6,"sufficient":10,"sufficiently":8,"sugar":2,"sugars":1,"suggest":1,"suggesting":1,"suitable":4,"suite":2,"suited":2,"suites":1,"sullivan":1,"sum":15,"summaries":1,"summarised":1,"summarises":3,"summary":176,"summer":2,"summers":1,"summit":3,"sums":3,"sun":1,"super":1,"superglue":1,"superior":2,"superpeer":22,"superpeers":3,"supersede":1,"supersedes":1,"supervisable":1,"supervised":5,"supervision":11,"supervisor":6,"supervisors":1,"supervisory":2,"supplanted":1,"supplants":1,"supplementary":1,"supplements":1,"supplied":3,"supplies":17,"supply":8,"supplying":2,"support":22,"supported":3,"supporting":11,"supports":14,"supposed":4,"suppressing":1,"suppression":1,"supremum":1,"surface":39,"surfaced":2,"surfaces":5,"surpassed":1,"surpassing":2,"surprise":1,"surprises":1,"surprising":2,"surrogate":2,"surrounding":2,"surroundings":1,"survey":69,"surveyed":14,"surveying":1,"surveys":21,"survival":1,"survive":1,"survives":2,"susceptibility":2,"susceptible":2,"suspend":2,"suspending":1,"suspicious":4,"sussman":1,"sustain":2,"sustainability":1,"sustainable":1,"sustained":7,"sutton":4,"swap":1,"swaps":1,"swarm":3,"swarms":1,"switch":2,"switching":2,"sybil":5,"sybils":1,"sycara":19,"sycophancy":1,"symbol":21,"symbolic":49,"symbols":15,"symmetric":3,"symmetry":2,"symposia":2,"symposium":3,"sync":1,"synchronisation":2,"synchronise":3,"synchronization":2,"synchronized":1,"synchronizing":1,"synchronous":12,"synchrony":5,"synergistic":1,"synergizing":3,"synergy":1,"synod":1,"synopses":2,"synopsis":1,"syntactic":22,"syntactically":8,"syntax":31,"syntaxes":1,"synthesis":17,"synthesise":2,"synthesised":1,"synthesises":3,"synthesized":1,"synthesizer":1,"synthesizes":1,"synthetic":2,"system":134,"systematic":16,"systematically":3,"systematisation":1,"systematised":1,"systeme":10,"systemic":3,"systems":246,"sätze":10,"t":26,"table":3,"tabled":1,"tables":2,"tabulate":1,"tabulated":1,"tabulates":1,"tacitly":1,"tackle":1,"tackles":4,"tackling":1,"tacoma":1,"tactics":2,"tag":1,"tagged":1,"tagging":1,"tags":191,"tail":1,"tailor":1,"tailored":3,"taint":1,"take":13,"taken":6,"takeover":1,"taker":5,"takes":8,"taking":8,"tale":1,"talk":15,"talking":3,"talks":2,"tamed":1,"tames":1,"tamper":3,"tampering":1,"tandfonline":1,"tangled":1,"target":36,"targeted":3,"targeting":5,"targets":6,"tark":2,"tarski":1,"task":39,"tasks":20,"tat":1,"taught":1,"tax":1,"taxonomic":2,"taxonomies":2,"taxonomy":58,"taylor":1,"tc39":1,"tcb":2,"tcl":16,"tcltk":1,"tcp":4,"tds":2,"teach":2,"teaches":1,"teaching":5,"team":9,"teaming":4,"teams":4,"teamwork":1,"tech":2,"technical":30,"technically":3,"technion":3,"technique":24,"techniques":18,"technological":1,"technology":5,"teddington":1,"tee":3,"telecom":3,"teleconference":1,"telegram":1,"telephone":1,"telescript":1,"tell":7,"tells":2,"temperature":3,"template":14,"templates":4,"temporal":17,"temporality":1,"ten":3,"tenaciously":1,"tend":4,"tenets":1,"tense":1,"tension":6,"tensions":4,"tentative":1,"term":24,"terminal":5,"terminals":1,"terminate":2,"terminates":2,"terminating":3,"termination":13,"terminator":1,"terminators":1,"terminological":1,"terminology":1,"terms":37,"terse":1,"tesfatsi":1,"test":11,"testable":3,"testbed":3,"tested":4,"tester":2,"testing":5,"tests":5,"tetris":1,"texas":1,"text":17,"textbook":4,"textbooks":1,"textual":4,"than":139,"thanking":1,"thanks":1,"that":427,"the":721,"thedao":6,"theft":1,"their":119,"them":57,"theme":4,"themselves":12,"then":64,"theorem":52,"theoremhood":1,"theorems":11,"theoretic":36,"theoretical":20,"theoretically":4,"theories":28,"theorists":1,"theory":167,"theoryofselfrepr00vonn":1,"there":24,"thereafter":1,"thereby":7,"therefore":13,"thermodynamic":1,"thermostats":2,"these":31,"theses":3,"thesis":19,"they":100,"thin":3,"thing":3,"things":9,"think":4,"thinker":1,"thinking":2,"thinks":2,"third":10,"thirty":1,"this":834,"thomas":3,"thomason":1,"those":23,"though":5,"thought":12,"thoughts":2,"thousand":1,"thread":5,"threaded":1,"threading":1,"threads":3,"threat":35,"threaten":1,"threats":12,"three":66,"threshold":5,"thresholds":1,"through":77,"throughout":11,"throughput":2,"throws":1,"thus":12,"tick":1,"ticket":1,"tie":1,"tiebreaking":1,"tied":2,"tier":4,"tiers":3,"ties":2,"tight":2,"tightly":1,"tilt":1,"tim":5,"time":64,"timeline":1,"timelock":1,"timeouts":1,"times":2,"timescales":1,"timestamp":3,"timestamped":2,"timestamps":2,"timing":2,"tissue":2,"tissues":2,"tit":1,"title":3,"titles":2,"tiwari":1,"tk":1,"tls":1,"to":560,"tobias":1,"tocs":1,"tod":1,"today":7,"together":28,"toggle":1,"token":10,"tokenization":1,"tokenized":1,"tokens":10,"told":3,"tolerance":20,"tolerant":9,"tolerate":4,"tolerated":1,"tolerates":2,"tolerating":2,"tom":2,"tombstone":1,"tombstoned":1,"tombstones":6,"tomgruber":2,"tone":1,"tongues":1,"too":10,"took":2,"tool":51,"toolchain":1,"toolformer":7,"tooling":7,"toolkit":1,"tools":30,"top":24,"topic":5,"topics":1,"topological":1,"topologies":5,"topology":15,"torr":1,"torre":2,"tos":1,"tot":1,"total":7,"totality":1,"totally":2,"tote":2,"touching":1,"touchstone":2,"toueg":1,"tour":3,"tours":1,"toward":42,"towards":36,"tp":1,"tr":2,"tr2011":1,"trace":12,"traceability":1,"traceable":1,"traces":13,"tracing":3,"track":5,"tracked":4,"tracking":8,"tracks":1,"tract":1,"tractability":2,"tractable":10,"trade":11,"tradeoff":1,"tradeoffs":2,"trader":1,"trades":4,"trading":6,"tradition":26,"traditional":8,"traditionally":1,"traditions":2,"traffic":3,"trail":2,"trails":1,"train":1,"trainable":1,"trained":7,"training":16,"trajectories":2,"trajectory":6,"tran":2,"trans":5,"transact":1,"transacting":1,"transaction":5,"transactional":4,"transactions":16,"transcended":1,"transducer":8,"transducers":2,"transduction":1,"transfer":16,"transferability":1,"transferable":1,"transferred":2,"transferring":2,"transfers":1,"transfinite":1,"transform":5,"transformation":7,"transformational":5,"transformations":7,"transformed":1,"transformer":7,"transformers":4,"transforms":1,"transit":1,"transition":2,"transitional":1,"transitions":5,"transitive":2,"transitively":1,"translate":2,"translated":4,"translates":3,"translating":2,"translation":20,"translator":2,"translators":1,"transmission":1,"transmitting":1,"transparency":5,"transparent":6,"transparently":4,"transport":20,"transports":3,"transputer":1,"trap":1,"travel":3,"traverses":1,"traversing":2,"treat":8,"treated":8,"treating":13,"treatment":17,"treatments":1,"treats":10,"tree":13,"trees":10,"trends":17,"tri":1,"triad":5,"trial":1,"trials":2,"tribute":1,"trick":3,"tricked":2,"tricking":1,"tricks":1,"tries":1,"trigger":1,"triggered":1,"triggering":1,"triggers":1,"trilemma":3,"trinity":1,"trio":1,"trip":1,"tripartite":1,"triple":2,"triples":3,"trips":4,"trivial":7,"trivially":1,"trojan":3,"true":26,"truly":3,"trump":1,"trust":57,"trusted":13,"trustee":1,"trustless":3,"trusts":1,"trustworthiness":4,"trustworthy":24,"truth":15,"truthful":3,"truthfulness":3,"try":6,"tse":2,"tsinghua":1,"tt":1,"ttc":1,"tube":1,"tubes":1,"tufts":1,"tulloh":2,"tunable":1,"tune":1,"tuned":2,"tuning":4,"tunkel":15,"tunnel":2,"tunneled":1,"tunnels":1,"tuple":9,"tuples":8,"turing":28,"turn":18,"turned":2,"turning":5,"turns":15,"turrets":10,"tutorial":5,"tweety":1,"twelve":2,"twentieth":1,"twenty":1,"two":82,"twofold":1,"tymshare":2,"type":18,"typed":15,"types":21,"typical":2,"typically":30,"typified":1,"u":2,"uar":1,"ubc":1,"ubiquitous":2,"ubiquity":1,"uc":3,"uci":1,"ucsb":1,"ui":2,"uic":2,"uio":1,"uist":1,"uk":5,"ultimate":1,"ultimately":4,"umbc":2,"uml":1,"umn":1,"un":1,"unable":3,"unachievable":1,"unambiguous":3,"unanswerable":1,"unattainable":3,"unaugmented":1,"unauthorized":2,"unavailable":1,"unavoidable":2,"unbounded":9,"unbuffered":1,"uncertain":1,"uncertainty":3,"unchanged":3,"uncommitted":1,"uncomputability":1,"uncomputable":1,"unconditional":2,"unconscionable":1,"und":10,"undecidability":13,"undecidable":15,"undefined":1,"under":101,"underdetermine":1,"underexplored":1,"underlie":1,"underlies":8,"underlying":19,"undermines":1,"underpin":4,"underpinning":7,"underpins":14,"understand":7,"understanding":15,"understands":2,"understood":7,"underwrite":2,"underwrites":8,"underwritten":1,"undo":3,"unentscheidbare":10,"unexploitable":1,"unfixable":1,"unforeseen":1,"unforgeable":7,"ungrounded":1,"unhappy":1,"uni":2,"unibo":1,"unification":5,"unified":18,"unifies":9,"uniform":20,"uniformity":1,"uniformly":7,"uniframes":3,"unify":3,"unifying":11,"unilateral":1,"unilaterally":2,"uninformatively":1,"unintended":6,"union":2,"unions":1,"unique":6,"uniqueness":1,"unit":7,"unitarian":1,"unitary":1,"united":1,"units":2,"unity":1,"universal":32,"universality":1,"universally":2,"universe":3,"university":25,"unix":2,"unknown":5,"unless":2,"unlike":7,"unlock":2,"unlocks":2,"unmarshaling":1,"unmarshalling":1,"unmodified":2,"unnamed":1,"unnecessary":1,"unobservable":1,"unobserved":1,"unordered":1,"unpredictability":1,"unprotected":1,"unprovable":2,"unreachable":4,"unrecognised":1,"unreferenced":1,"unreliability":1,"unreliable":6,"unrequest":2,"unreviewed":1,"uns":1,"unsafe":5,"unsatisfiability":1,"unsatisfying":1,"unscrambling":1,"unseen":1,"unsolvability":3,"unsolvable":16,"unsolved":3,"unsound":1,"unstable":1,"unstructured":2,"unsuited":1,"unsupervised":2,"unsupported":1,"untell":1,"untenable":1,"untestable":1,"until":8,"untrusted":11,"unusable":1,"unusual":1,"unverifiability":1,"unverifiable":10,"unverified":4,"unwieldy":1,"up":38,"update":11,"updated":7,"updates":14,"updating":4,"upgradable":1,"upgrade":1,"uplink":1,"uploads":1,"upm":1,"upon":3,"upper":1,"upshot":1,"upstream":1,"uptake":2,"ur":1,"urbana":1,"urgency":1,"urgent":1,"urging":2,"uri":2,"uris":3,"url":154,"urmson":1,"us":6,"usa":1,"usability":2,"usable":6,"usage":6,"usages":1,"use":58,"useable":1,"used":219,"useful":8,"usefully":2,"usefulness":1,"useless":1,"usenix":3,"user":26,"users":17,"uses":35,"usi":1,"using":57,"usually":2,"uszkoreit":1,"utilised":1,"utilities":3,"utility":12,"utilization":1,"utterance":5,"utterances":6,"utterer":1,"uttering":2,"uva":2,"v":8,"v2026":1,"v3":1,"vacuum":1,"vague":1,"valentine":1,"valetto":1,"valid":7,"validate":6,"validated":4,"validates":3,"validating":4,"validation":9,"validator":1,"validity":3,"value":35,"valued":1,"values":24,"van":16,"vanderveken":11,"vanished":1,"variability":1,"variable":6,"variables":15,"variance":4,"variances":2,"variant":8,"variants":2,"variation":1,"varied":1,"varies":3,"various":5,"vary":1,"varying":2,"vastly":1,"vaswani":4,"vat":8,"vats":5,"vault":743,"vcs":1,"vector":13,"vectordb":1,"vectors":4,"vehicle":5,"vehicles":1,"veneer":1,"venue":2,"verb":2,"verbal":6,"verbalisation":1,"verbalization":1,"verbalizes":1,"verbosity":1,"verbs":5,"verdictive":1,"verdictives":1,"vergassola":1,"verifiability":11,"verifiable":44,"verification":71,"verified":10,"verifier":2,"verifiers":2,"verifies":1,"verify":10,"verifying":2,"verisign":1,"veristruct":1,"verlag":2,"versa":1,"versatility":2,"version":6,"versioned":2,"versioning":2,"versions":4,"versus":3,"vertically":1,"verus":4,"verwandter":10,"very":8,"via":146,"viable":1,"vibe":3,"vice":1,"vickrey":1,"victim":1,"video":1,"view":22,"viewable":1,"viewed":1,"viewing":2,"viewpoint":2,"viewpoints":1,"views":5,"viganò":1,"vigna":1,"vignette":2,"vindicates":1,"violate":3,"violated":2,"violation":6,"violations":5,"virtual":8,"virtualisation":1,"virtualise":1,"virtualizing":2,"virtually":2,"virtue":2,"virus":1,"virustotal":1,"visibility":5,"visible":2,"vision":12,"visiting":1,"visser":1,"visual":7,"visualization":1,"vitanyi":14,"vitányi":1,"vivo":1,"vm":2,"vms":2,"vocabularies":5,"vocabulary":39,"vocal":1,"voice":1,"vol":15,"volatile":2,"voltage":1,"volume":4,"volumes":1,"von":12,"vote":3,"voted":1,"voter":1,"votes":1,"voting":1,"vows":1,"vr":1,"vs":82,"vub":1,"vulnerabilities":11,"vulnerability":7,"vulnerable":6,"w":9,"w3c":4,"w7":1,"wait":2,"waiting":1,"wake":1,"walk":3,"walked":1,"walking":1,"walks":7,"wallet":3,"wallets":1,"wander":1,"wang":5,"wangchunshu":1,"want":5,"wanted":2,"wanting":1,"wants":5,"war":2,"ward":1,"ware":1,"warn":1,"warning":1,"warns":1,"warrant":2,"warranted":1,"was":23,"wasif":15,"waste":1,"wastes":2,"watch":2,"watches":1,"watching":1,"waterfall":1,"wave":2,"way":23,"ways":3,"we":7,"weak":18,"weaken":1,"weakening":3,"weakenings":1,"weaker":5,"weakest":1,"weakly":4,"weakmap":1,"weakness":4,"weaknesses":2,"weaponised":1,"weaponizable":1,"weapons":1,"web":44,"web3":1,"webarch":1,"webber":2,"webgpt":1,"webshop":1,"website":1,"websocket":1,"websockets":1,"webtext2":1,"week":1,"weeks":1,"wei":2,"weigh":1,"weighed":2,"weight":5,"weighted":11,"weights":4,"weird":12,"weizenbaum":1,"weizmann":1,"welcome":1,"welfare":1,"well":22,"wellspring":3,"wen":2,"wendler":1,"weng":1,"were":10,"what":117,"whatever":4,"whatsapp":1,"when":98,"whenever":8,"where":85,"whereas":3,"whereby":3,"wherever":1,"whether":24,"which":219,"while":40,"white":1,"whitelisted":1,"whitelists":1,"whitepaper":2,"whitewashing":2,"who":8,"whoever":2,"whole":16,"wholes":1,"wholesale":1,"wholly":1,"whom":3,"whose":81,"why":52,"wide":5,"widely":4,"width":1,"wiederhold":1,"wielding":1,"wiki":1,"wikilink":1,"wikilinked":1,"wikipedia":3,"wild":1,"wildly":1,"will":21,"william":3,"williams":1,"willie":1,"willing":4,"willingness":1,"win":2,"window":2,"windows":1,"wing":1,"winkielman":1,"winner":1,"winograd":1,"wins":1,"winston":1,"wire":4,"wired":1,"wiring":1,"wisdom":1,"wise":3,"wish":1,"wishes":1,"with":295,"withdrawals":1,"withdrawing":1,"withholding":1,"within":25,"without":88,"witness":12,"witnessed":1,"witnesses":2,"wittgenstein":2,"wmt":1,"wood":1,"wooldridge":14,"word":14,"words":10,"work":48,"workarounds":1,"workbench":18,"workbenches":25,"worked":9,"workers":2,"workflows":3,"workhorse":3,"working":8,"works":20,"workshop":5,"workshops":3,"workspace":1,"workstation":1,"world":43,"worlds":3,"worm":3,"worms":4,"worse":4,"worst":2,"worth":1,"worthwhile":1,"would":17,"wp":1,"wpi":1,"wrap":4,"wrapped":2,"wrapper":5,"wrappers":2,"wrapping":2,"wright":1,"write":13,"writer":2,"writes":5,"writing":8,"written":23,"wrong":6,"ws":4,"ws94":2,"wu":4,"wuhan":1,"wumpus":1,"www":42,"www4":1,"wyk":1,"x":26,"x12":1,"x86":1,"xai":1,"xi":1,"xia":1,"xiang":1,"xiao":1,"xiaodong":1,"xiaoice":15,"xiaokun":1,"xiawu":1,"xiong":2,"xml":2,"xtext":1,"xu":1,"xxi":1,"y":11,"yair":1,"yan":1,"yang":3,"yannis":2,"yao":3,"yardstick":2,"yat":1,"yau":2,"ye":1,"yeah":1,"year":3,"years":6,"yee":2,"yehoshua":1,"yellow":4,"yen":1,"yet":9,"yeung":1,"yield":9,"yielding":10,"yields":18,"yihao":1,"yin":1,"yoav":1,"you":26,"your":3,"youtube":1,"yu":5,"yuan":1,"yuheng":1,"z":2,"zaharia":1,"zambonelli":2,"zargayouna":1,"zeming":1,"zeng":1,"zenodo":1,"zero":9,"zetl":2,"zettlemoyer":1,"zhang":8,"zhao":2,"zhejiang":1,"zheng":2,"zhi":1,"zhixin":1,"zhou":26,"zhu":1,"zhuge":1,"zijuan":1,"zili":1,"zip":1,"zippers":1,"zk":2,"zoe":1,"zoo":1,"zookeeper":3,"zou":1,"zürich":1,"µ":1,"à":2,"über":10,"δ":1,"δ⁰":1,"ε":3,"θ":1,"κ":1,"λ":5,"μ":1,"π":2,"π¹":2,"π⁰":1,"π₁":1,"σ":2,"σ¹":1,"σ⁰":2,"σ₁":1,"τ":2,"ω":4},"docs":[{"dl":1205,"n":"House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic","s":"papers/edge-blockchain/house-on-rock---langsec-in-ethereum-classic","secs":[{"h":"House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Meredith L. Patterson (2017). *How to Build a House That Doesn't Fall Apart* (talk). Ethereum Classic Summit, Hong Kong, November 2017. [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqdFufARXA) <iframe width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https://www.youtube.com/embed/rqqdFufARXA\" title=\"YouTube video player\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" allowfullscreen></iframe>"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"A LangSec critique of Ethereum aimed at the Ethereum Classic community, framed around the parable of the wise and foolish builders and Philip K. Dick's \"reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.\" Patterson argues Ethereum was built on sand — an ad-hoc, non-executable yellow-paper semantics; a hand-rolled Solidity parser; a test suite with no coverage for `delegatecall` or invalid opcodes; a design culture that scorned formal methods until hundred-million-dollar losses forced the issue. The central technical argument is that the **gas mechanism does not do what the yellow paper claims it does**. Gavin Wood's stated purpose — \"sidestep the inevitable issues stemming from Turing completeness\" — confuses a resource bound (a non-semantic, decidable property) with a safety guarantee (a semantic property that Rice's theorem makes undecidable in general). Gas cannot show a contract \"does nothing malicious\"; it can only show it eventually halts. Worse, gas creates an adversarial economic game with direct monetary reward for tricking the accounting, and a *perverse incentive* for honest developers to omit runtime sanity checks because conditionals cost gas. Patterson's prescription for Ethereum Classic: standardise on KEVM (an executable operational semantics in the K framework), fix the VM test suite's gaps, build languages that don't hide implicit behaviour (method visibility defaults, fallback methods, `delegatecall` as naked `eval`), and invest in developer tools — IDEs, live debuggers, verification — that surface what a contract can actually do. \"Code is law\" requires the meaning of the code to be unambiguous, executable, and visible."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":14,"t":"- **Rice's theorem bounds what gas can mean.** Non-trivial semantic properties of arbitrary programs are undecidable; resource bounds are non-semantic. Gas therefore cannot sidestep Turing-completeness-induced safety problems, contrary to the yellow paper. - **Gas as adversarial game.** The accounting is an attack surface, not a safety property; attackers are paid to win. Honest contract authors are weakly pushed toward *removing* checks to keep gas costs competitive. - **LangSec programmer–machine contract.** Inputs must have a formal grammar; two implementations of the same spec must accept/reject identical inputs; semantics must be executable so claims about behaviour can be verified mechanically. - **Ad-hoc semantics breeds consensus failures.** When the yellow paper and `cpp-ethereum` disagree, `cpp-ethereum` wins — the denotational semantics is decorative. Discrepancies between clients have already caused real Ethereum consensus failures. - **Test suites are part of software design.** Official VM tests have no coverage for invalid opcodes or `delegatecall` — the exact instruction at the heart of the Parity multisig hacks. \"VM tests\" is false advertising; downstream VM implementations inherit the blind spot. - **Case studies of processing-fluency failure.** - *DAO:* mutual recursion across a defender/attacker code boundary, missed in reviews because reviewers examine functions one at a time (cf. Leveson: accidents emerge from *interactions*). - *Hacker Gold:* `=+` typed instead of `+=` — a hand-rolled recursive-descent parser caught nothing; a Bison grammar would have surfaced a shift/reduce conflict. - *Parity multisig (July 2017):* fallback method × `delegatecall` × public-by-default visibility = naked `eval` on attacker-controlled payload; $31M drained, $150M saved only by counter-theft. - *Parity multisig (Nov 2017):* library contract re-initialised by an outsider then `suicide`d, locking $153M in wallets whose code had vanished — \"left-pad for multi-million-dollar table stakes.\" - **KEVM** (K framework operational semantics) gives Ethereum an *executable* semantics; generated interpreter ~20× slower than `cpp-ethereum` but usable, and supports reachability-based proof of safety/liveness claims. - **Cognitive-science constraint.** Miller's 7±2 bounds how much implicit state a programming language can demand before human reasoning fails. Solidity's implicit defaults (public methods, fallback dispatch, implicit conversions) exceed that budget. - **\"Worse is better\" is unconscionable in a financial system.** Sacrificing correctness and completeness to ship first transfers the cost of undefined behaviour onto users."},{"h":"Connections","l":29,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] — same *semantic gap* diagnosis; OYENTE is the symbolic-execution complement to Patterson's formal-semantics prescription. - [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] — companion move: formalise what was informal. - [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] — the Sassaman/Bratus/Patterson LangSec manifesto this talk operationalises for smart contracts. - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] — parallel argument that parser/semantics weakness is the root cause of whole vulnerability classes. - [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] — \"weird machines\" framing applies directly to contracts driven off-spec via `delegatecall`. - [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] — Patterson's earlier demonstration that grammatical discrepancies between implementations are exploitable (SSL CA forgery); same mechanism, different domain. - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] — language-theoretic remediation as a general pattern. - [[Operational Semantics]], [[Denotational Semantics]], [[EVM]], [[Solidity]], [[TheDAO]], [[Reentrancy]] — background concepts. - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936; LangSec's undecidability heritage behind the Rice's-theorem argument against gas-as-safety. - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] — Gödel 1931; the incompleteness ancestor of the semantic-limit arguments."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":41,"t":"- **Claim:** Ethereum's gas mechanism is mis-sold as a way around Turing-completeness-induced safety problems. It bounds resources (a non-semantic, decidable property) but cannot certify behavioural safety (a semantic property that Rice's theorem puts out of reach for arbitrary programs). The resulting system is an adversarial game with built-in incentives against runtime defensiveness, layered on an ad-hoc, non-executable semantics whose test suite doesn't exercise the opcodes most implicated in real losses. - **Mechanism:** Diagnose Ethereum's failures through a LangSec lens — ill-defined input grammars, implementation-vs-specification semantic drift, implicit language behaviours exceeding cognitive budgets, test suites that falsely advertise completeness. Prescribe a concrete path for Ethereum Classic: adopt **KEVM** as an executable operational semantics; fix VM-test coverage gaps (`delegatecall`, invalid opcodes); design contract languages that make control flow, visibility, and gas cost legible; invest in live-debugging and reachability-based verification tools; treat the stack as 9-layered (physical → application → financial → political) and recognise decision-making as happening in the top layers. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LangSec]], [[Rice's Theorem]], [[Gas Mechanism]], [[Perverse Incentives]], [[KEVM]], [[K Framework]], [[Operational Semantics]], [[Denotational Semantics]], [[Reachability Analysis]], [[Safety Property]], [[Liveness Property]], [[Fallback Method]], [[Delegatecall]], [[Reentrancy]], [[Processing Fluency]], [[Miller's 7±2]], [[Weird Machine]], [[Ethereum]], [[Ethereum Classic]], [[TheDAO]], [[Parity Multisig]], [[Smart Contracts]], [[Code is Law]]. - **Stance:** formal-semantic / LangSec critique of unverified systems handling money; pragmatic advocacy for Ethereum Classic as a substrate to rebuild on executable semantics. - **Relates to:** Extends [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] by attacking the *justification* of gas rather than just its pathologies; extends [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] into the smart-contract domain; shares adversarial-discrepancy framing with [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]]; complements the cognitive-ergonomics argument in [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] — both argue that implicit state exceeds human reasoning budgets."},{"h":"Tags","l":48,"t":""},{"h":"langsec #ethereum #ethereum-classic #smart-contracts #gas-mechanism #rice-theorem #formal-semantics #kevm #k-framework #processing-fluency #perverse-incentives #delegatecall #thedao #parity-multisig #talk","l":49,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"150m":1,"153m":1,"1931":1,"1936":1,"2":2,"20":1,"2017":4,"315":1,"31m":1,"560":1,"7":2,"9":1,"a":29,"about":1,"accelerometer":1,"accept":1,"accidents":1,"accounting":2,"across":1,"actually":1,"ad":3,"adopt":1,"adversarial":4,"advertise":1,"advertising":1,"advocacy":1,"against":2,"agent":1,"aimed":1,"allow":1,"allowfullscreen":1,"already":1,"an":10,"analysis":1,"ancestor":1,"and":11,"apart":1,"application":1,"applications":2,"applies":1,"approach":1,"arbitrary":2,"are":6,"argue":1,"argues":1,"argument":4,"arguments":1,"around":2,"as":9,"at":3,"attack":1,"attacker":2,"attackers":1,"attacking":1,"authors":1,"autoplay":1,"away":1,"background":1,"based":3,"be":3,"because":2,"before":1,"behaviour":3,"behavioural":1,"behaviours":1,"behind":1,"believing":1,"better":1,"between":2,"bison":1,"blind":1,"blockchain":1,"both":1,"bound":1,"boundary":1,"bounds":4,"bratus":1,"breeds":1,"budget":1,"budgets":2,"buffer":1,"build":2,"builders":1,"built":2,"but":2,"by":4,"ca":1,"cake":2,"can":5,"cannot":3,"case":1,"caught":1,"cause":1,"caused":1,"central":1,"certify":1,"cf":1,"checks":2,"church":1,"claim":1,"claims":3,"classes":1,"classic":8,"clients":1,"clipboard":1,"code":5,"cognitive":3,"com":2,"community":1,"companion":1,"competitive":1,"complement":1,"complements":1,"completeness":5,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conditionals":1,"conflict":1,"confuses":1,"connections":1,"consensus":2,"constraint":1,"contract":7,"contracts":6,"contrary":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"controlled":1,"conversions":1,"correctness":1,"cost":3,"costs":1,"counter":1,"coverage":3,"creates":1,"critique":2,"culture":1,"d":1,"dao":1,"ddos":1,"debuggers":1,"debugging":1,"decidable":2,"decision":1,"decorative":1,"default":1,"defaults":2,"defender":1,"defensiveness":1,"defined":1,"delegatecall":2,"demand":1,"demonstration":1,"denotational":3,"der":1,"descent":1,"design":3,"developer":1,"developers":1,"diagnose":1,"diagnosis":1,"dick":1,"different":1,"direct":1,"directly":1,"disagree":1,"discrepancies":2,"discrepancy":1,"dispatch":1,"do":3,"does":3,"doesn":3,"dollar":2,"domain":2,"don":1,"downstream":1,"drained":1,"drift":1,"driven":1,"earlier":1,"economic":1,"elementary":1,"embed":1,"emerge":1,"encrypted":1,"ergonomics":1,"ethereum":16,"eventually":1,"evm":1,"exact":1,"examine":1,"exceed":1,"exceeding":1,"exceeds":1,"executable":8,"execution":1,"exercise":1,"exploit":1,"exploitable":1,"extends":2,"fail":1,"fails":1,"failure":1,"failures":3,"fall":1,"fallback":4,"false":1,"falsely":1,"financial":2,"first":1,"fix":2,"flow":1,"fluency":3,"foolish":1,"for":10,"forced":1,"forgery":1,"formal":8,"formalise":2,"frameborder":1,"framed":1,"framework":4,"framing":2,"from":3,"functions":1,"game":3,"gap":1,"gaps":2,"gas":14,"gavin":1,"general":2,"generated":1,"gives":1,"go":1,"gold":1,"grammar":2,"grammars":1,"grammatical":1,"guarantee":1,"gyroscope":1,"gödel":1,"hacker":1,"hacks":1,"had":1,"halting":1,"halts":1,"hand":2,"handling":1,"happening":1,"have":4,"heart":1,"height":1,"heritage":1,"hide":1,"hoc":3,"honest":2,"hong":1,"house":2,"how":2,"https":2,"human":2,"hundred":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identical":1,"ides":1,"iframe":2,"ill":1,"implementation":1,"implementations":3,"implicated":1,"implicit":6,"in":14,"incentive":1,"incentives":3,"incompleteness":1,"induced":2,"inevitable":1,"informal":1,"inherit":1,"initialised":1,"input":1,"inputs":2,"insecurity":1,"instead":1,"instruction":1,"interactions":1,"interoperability":1,"interpreter":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"invalid":3,"invest":2,"is":13,"issue":1,"issues":1,"it":5,"its":1,"july":1,"just":1,"justification":1,"k":5,"kaminsky":2,"keep":1,"kevm":5,"key":1,"kong":1,"l":1,"langsec":9,"language":6,"languages":2,"law":2,"layer":2,"layered":2,"layers":1,"left":1,"legible":1,"lens":1,"leveson":1,"library":1,"limit":1,"live":2,"liveness":2,"llm":1,"locking":1,"losses":2,"machine":2,"machines":2,"make":1,"makes":1,"making":3,"malicious":1,"manifesto":1,"mathematica":1,"mean":1,"meaning":1,"mechanically":1,"mechanism":6,"media":1,"meredith":1,"method":3,"methods":3,"miller":2,"million":2,"mis":1,"missed":1,"monetary":1,"money":1,"most":1,"move":1,"much":1,"multi":2,"multisig":5,"must":3,"mutual":1,"naked":2,"network":1,"no":2,"non":6,"not":2,"nothing":2,"nov":1,"november":1,"number":1,"of":20,"off":1,"official":1,"omit":1,"on":6,"one":1,"only":2,"onto":1,"opcodes":4,"operational":5,"operationalises":1,"or":2,"out":1,"outsider":1,"overflows":1,"oyente":1,"pad":1,"paid":1,"paper":4,"parable":1,"parallel":1,"parity":5,"parser":3,"part":1,"path":1,"pathologies":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"patterson":8,"payload":1,"perverse":3,"philip":1,"physical":1,"picture":2,"pki":2,"player":1,"political":1,"pragmatic":1,"prescribe":1,"prescription":2,"prevent":1,"principia":1,"problem":1,"problems":3,"processing":3,"programmer":1,"programming":2,"programs":2,"proof":1,"properties":1,"property":7,"public":2,"purpose":1,"pushed":1,"puts":1,"rather":1,"re":1,"reach":1,"reachability":3,"real":2,"reality":1,"reasoning":2,"rebuild":1,"recognise":1,"recursion":1,"recursive":1,"reduce":1,"reentrancy":2,"reference":1,"reject":1,"relates":1,"remediation":1,"removing":1,"requires":1,"resource":2,"resources":1,"resulting":1,"reviewers":1,"reviews":1,"reward":1,"rice":6,"rock":1,"rolled":2,"root":1,"rqqdfufarxa":2,"runtime":2,"s":17,"sacrificing":1,"safety":8,"same":3,"sand":1,"sanity":1,"sassaman":3,"saved":1,"science":1,"scorned":1,"security":2,"semantic":10,"semantics":17,"share":1,"shares":1,"shift":1,"ship":1,"show":2,"sidestep":2,"slower":1,"smart":6,"smarter":2,"so":1,"software":1,"sold":1,"solidity":3,"spec":2,"specification":1,"spot":1,"src":1,"ssl":1,"stack":2,"stakes":1,"stance":1,"standardise":1,"state":2,"stated":1,"stemming":1,"stop":1,"studies":1,"substrate":1,"suite":3,"suites":2,"summary":1,"summit":1,"supports":1,"surface":2,"surfaced":1,"symbolic":1,"system":2,"systeme":1,"systems":2,"sätze":1,"t":4,"table":1,"tags":1,"talk":3,"technical":1,"test":6,"tests":2,"than":2,"that":14,"the":37,"thedao":3,"theft":1,"then":1,"theorem":6,"theoretic":1,"theory":3,"therefore":1,"this":1,"through":1,"time":1,"title":1,"to":13,"tools":2,"top":1,"toward":1,"transfers":1,"treat":1,"tricking":1,"trivial":1,"turing":3,"two":1,"typed":1,"unambiguous":1,"unconscionable":1,"und":1,"undecidability":1,"undecidable":2,"undefined":1,"unentscheidbare":1,"unsolvable":1,"until":1,"unverified":1,"usable":1,"used":1,"users":1,"v":1,"vanished":1,"verification":2,"verified":1,"verwandter":1,"via":1,"video":1,"visibility":3,"visible":1,"vm":5,"vs":1,"vulnerability":1,"wallets":1,"was":2,"watch":1,"way":1,"weakly":1,"weakness":1,"web":1,"weird":3,"what":4,"when":2,"which":1,"whole":1,"whose":2,"why":1,"width":1,"win":1,"wins":1,"wise":1,"with":5,"wood":1,"worse":2,"would":1,"write":1,"www":2,"yellow":4,"you":1,"youtube":4,"über":1}},{"dl":420,"n":"Edge Intelligence Survey","s":"papers/edge-blockchain/edge-intelligence-survey","secs":[{"h":"Edge Intelligence: Paving the Last Mile of Artificial Intelligence With Edge Computing","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Zhi Zhou, Xu Chen, En Li, Liekang Zeng, Ke Luo, Junshan Zhang (2019). *Proceedings of the IEEE*, Vol. 107, No. 8, pp. 1738-1762. Source file: `Edge_Intelligence_Paving_the_Last_Mile_of_Artificial_Intelligence_With_Edge_Computing.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10083)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A comprehensive survey of Edge Intelligence (EI), the fusion of AI with edge computing that pushes deep-learning training and inference out of centralized cloud datacenters toward the network edge, where the data is generated. The authors motivate EI through the explosion of IoT data, latency/bandwidth limits of cloud AI, and growing privacy concerns. They propose a six-level rating scheme for EI — from cloud-only (Level 0) through various hybrid cloud-edge splits to fully on-device training and inference (Level 6) — and argue the right level is application dependent. The paper surveys architectures (centralized, decentralized, hybrid distributed training), key performance indicators (training loss, convergence, privacy, communication cost, latency, energy), enabling techniques, and frameworks for DNN training and inference at the edge. It frames EI as a \"last mile\" extension that unlocks IoT/AR/VR/autonomous applications by co-locating intelligence with data."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Six-level rating of EI based on amount and path length of data offloading. - Cloud-edge-device synergy reduces latency and energy vs. pure cloud or pure on-device. - Distributed DNN training modes: centralized, decentralized, hybrid. - Privacy-preserving rationale: raw data stays at edge. - EI is a cross-cutting discipline bridging AI, systems, and networking."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Large Population Models]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** AI training and inference should be distributed across a cloud-edge-device hierarchy rather than centralised in the cloud; the optimal split is application-dependent and can be described by a six-level rating. - **Mechanism:** Systematic survey structured around motivations (latency, privacy, bandwidth, data locality), a six-level EI taxonomy, three distributed-training architectures (centralised, decentralised, hybrid), six KPIs, and enabling techniques (federated learning, gradient compression, DNN splitting, knowledge transfer, gossip training). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Edge Intelligence]], [[Cloud-Edge-Device Hierarchy]], [[Federated Learning]], [[Gossip Training]], [[DNN Splitting]], [[Gradient Compression]], [[Knowledge Transfer Learning]], [[Six-Level EI Rating]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Ties into [[Edge Intelligence]] hub and shares gossip-training mechanisms with [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] and [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]]; motivates on-device LLM agents relevant to [[LLM Agents]] and [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"edge-computing #deep-learning #iot #survey","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"10083":1,"107":1,"1738":1,"1762":1,"1905":1,"2019":1,"6":1,"8":1,"a":8,"abs":1,"across":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":1,"agents":3,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":1,"ai":4,"amount":1,"and":15,"application":2,"applications":1,"ar":1,"architectures":2,"argue":1,"around":1,"artificial":1,"arxiv":1,"as":1,"at":2,"authors":1,"autonomous":1,"bandwidth":2,"based":3,"be":2,"bridging":1,"by":2,"can":1,"centralised":2,"centralized":3,"chen":1,"claim":1,"cloud":9,"co":1,"communication":2,"comprehensive":1,"compression":2,"computation":1,"computing":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"convergence":1,"cost":1,"cross":1,"cutting":1,"data":6,"datacenters":1,"decentralised":1,"decentralized":2,"deep":2,"dependent":2,"described":1,"device":6,"discipline":1,"distributed":4,"dnn":4,"dynamic":1,"edge":16,"ei":8,"en":1,"enabling":2,"energy":2,"explosion":1,"extension":1,"federated":2,"file":1,"for":3,"frames":1,"frameworks":1,"from":1,"fully":1,"fusion":1,"generated":1,"gossip":6,"gradient":2,"growing":1,"hierarchy":2,"https":1,"hub":1,"hybrid":4,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"in":2,"indicators":1,"inference":4,"information":1,"intelligence":8,"into":1,"introduced":1,"iot":3,"is":4,"it":1,"junshan":1,"ke":1,"key":2,"knowledge":2,"kpis":1,"large":2,"last":2,"latency":4,"learning":5,"length":1,"level":8,"li":1,"liekang":1,"limits":1,"llm":3,"llms":1,"locality":1,"locating":1,"loss":1,"luo":1,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"mile":2,"models":1,"modes":1,"motivate":1,"motivates":1,"motivations":1,"multi":1,"network":1,"networking":1,"networks":2,"no":1,"of":11,"offloading":1,"on":4,"only":1,"optimal":1,"or":1,"org":1,"out":1,"paper":1,"path":1,"paving":1,"performance":1,"population":1,"pp":1,"preserving":1,"privacy":4,"proceedings":1,"propose":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"pure":2,"pushes":1,"rather":1,"rating":4,"rationale":1,"raw":1,"reduces":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relevant":1,"right":1,"scalable":1,"scheme":1,"self":1,"shares":1,"should":1,"six":6,"source":1,"split":1,"splits":1,"splitting":2,"stance":1,"stays":1,"structured":1,"summary":1,"survey":4,"surveys":1,"synergy":1,"systematic":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"techniques":2,"than":1,"that":2,"the":12,"they":1,"three":1,"through":2,"ties":1,"to":3,"toward":1,"training":11,"transfer":2,"unlocks":1,"url":1,"used":1,"various":1,"vol":1,"vr":1,"vs":1,"where":1,"with":4,"xu":1,"zeng":1,"zhang":1,"zhi":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":344,"n":"Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns","s":"papers/edge-blockchain/formalise-blockchain-interoperability-patterns","secs":[{"h":"An Approach to Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Guzmán Llambías, Laura González, and Raúl Ruggia (2025). *IEEE (preprint, Zenodo)*. Source file: `13_127.pdf`. [URL](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11185098/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Formalises the Temporal Transfer blockchain-interoperability design pattern (instantiated with a gateway/relayer architecture) using Event-B. The authors translate natural-language pattern descriptions into a refined Event-B specification, derive eight safety properties (e.g. token can only be minted on the target chain after being locked on the source), verify them by construction using Rodin, and validate the dynamic behaviour by simulating with ProB. The contribution is a formal-methods bridge for a family of informally described cross-chain patterns — addressing ambiguity, misinterpretation and lack of guarantees in prior natural-language design-pattern catalogues."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Event-B refinement captures lock/mint/burn/unlock sequencing across chains - Safety invariants formalise double-spend prevention across ledgers - Rodin discharges proof obligations automatically on invariants/theorems - ProB simulation validates dynamic/functional behaviour of the pattern - Gateway-based Temporal Transfer pattern chosen as instantiation"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":21,"t":"- **Claim:** Blockchain interoperability design patterns — currently specified in ambiguous natural language — can and should be given formal, machine-checkable specifications; Event-B is a suitable vehicle. - **Mechanism:** Take the Temporal Transfer pattern (gateway-based) and produce an Event-B specification with eight safety properties (lock, mint, transfer, burn, unlock events) refined from abstract to concrete; validate via Rodin/ProB model checker and simulation, discharging Proof Obligations to prove correctness-by-construction. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Event-B]], [[Refinement]], [[Blockchain Interoperability]], [[Temporal Transfer Pattern]], [[Cross-chain Smart Contracts]], [[Smart Contracts]], [[Formal Verification]], [[Proof Obligations]], [[Model Checking]], [[Design Patterns]] - **Stance:** formal / engineering - **Relates to:** Applies the same formal-specification impulse to cross-chain coordination that [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] applies to single-chain contract semantics. Shares a methodology with [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] (refinement, rule-based specs) and a motivation with [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] (precise semantics for inter-party protocols)."},{"h":"Tags","l":28,"t":""},{"h":"formal-methods #event-b #blockchain #interoperability #design-patterns","l":29,"t":""}],"tf":{"11185098":1,"2025":1,"a":8,"abstract":1,"across":2,"addressing":1,"after":1,"agent":2,"ambiguity":1,"ambiguous":1,"an":2,"and":8,"applies":2,"approach":2,"architecture":1,"as":1,"authors":1,"automatically":1,"b":7,"based":3,"be":2,"behaviour":2,"being":1,"blockchain":5,"bridge":1,"burn":2,"by":3,"can":2,"captures":1,"catalogues":1,"chain":5,"chains":1,"checkable":1,"checker":1,"checking":1,"chosen":1,"claim":1,"communication":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"construction":2,"contract":1,"contracts":4,"contribution":2,"coordination":1,"correctness":1,"cross":3,"currently":1,"derive":1,"described":1,"descriptions":1,"design":5,"discharges":1,"discharging":1,"document":1,"double":1,"dynamic":2,"e":1,"eight":2,"engineering":1,"event":7,"events":1,"extensible":1,"family":1,"file":1,"for":3,"formal":6,"formalise":2,"formalises":1,"from":1,"functional":1,"g":1,"gateway":3,"given":1,"gonzález":1,"guarantees":1,"guzmán":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":2,"ieeexplore":1,"impulse":1,"in":2,"informally":1,"instantiated":1,"instantiation":1,"institutional":1,"inter":1,"interoperability":5,"into":1,"introduced":1,"invariants":2,"is":2,"key":1,"lack":1,"language":3,"languages":2,"laura":1,"ledgers":1,"llambías":1,"lock":2,"locked":1,"machine":1,"making":2,"mechanism":1,"metatheoretic":1,"methodology":1,"methods":2,"mint":2,"minted":1,"misinterpretation":1,"model":2,"modular":1,"motivation":1,"natural":3,"obligations":3,"of":3,"on":3,"only":1,"org":1,"party":1,"pattern":7,"patterns":5,"precise":1,"preprint":1,"prevention":1,"prior":1,"prob":3,"produce":1,"proof":3,"properties":2,"protocols":1,"prove":1,"raúl":1,"reality":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"refined":2,"refinement":3,"relates":1,"relayer":1,"rodin":3,"ruggia":1,"rule":1,"safety":3,"same":1,"semantics":2,"sequencing":1,"shares":1,"should":1,"simulating":1,"simulation":2,"single":1,"smart":4,"smarter":2,"source":2,"specification":3,"specifications":1,"specified":1,"specs":1,"spend":1,"stance":1,"suitable":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"take":1,"target":1,"temporal":4,"that":1,"the":9,"them":1,"theorems":1,"to":7,"token":1,"transfer":5,"translate":1,"unlock":2,"url":1,"used":1,"using":2,"validate":2,"validates":1,"vehicle":1,"verification":1,"verify":1,"via":1,"with":5,"zenodo":1}},{"dl":354,"n":"Making Smart Contracts Smarter","s":"papers/edge-blockchain/making-smart-contracts-smarter","secs":[{"h":"Making Smart Contracts Smarter","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Loi Luu, Duc-Hiep Chu, Hrishi Olickel, Prateek Saxena, and Aquinas Hobor (2016). *ACM CCS 2016*. Source file: `2016-633.pdf`. [URL](https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/633.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Investigates security bugs in Ethereum smart contracts arising from a *semantic gap* between developers' intuitions and the actual behaviour of the underlying platform. The authors document four classes of vulnerability — transaction-ordering dependence, timestamp dependence, mishandled exceptions, and reentrancy — and formalise a lightweight operational semantics (EtherLite) for EVM execution. They propose protocol-level remediations (guarded transactions, deterministic timestamps, better exception propagation) and build OYENTE, a symbolic-execution tool that analyses EVM bytecode directly. Running OYENTE on 19,366 live contracts flagged 8,833 as potentially buggy, including TheDAO."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Semantic gap between Solidity intent and EVM reality causes systemic bugs - Transaction-ordering dependence (TOD): miners reorder within a block - Reentrancy exploited in TheDAO ($60M loss) - Symbolic execution over EVM bytecode as audit tool - \"Guarded transactions\" proposal: require expected-state precondition"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":21,"t":"- **Claim:** Ethereum smart contracts suffer from a *semantic gap* between developers' assumptions and the actual EVM execution model — documenting and fixing this gap at the language-semantics level is critical and tractable. - **Mechanism:** Identify four concrete bug classes: *transaction-ordering dependence* (TOD), *timestamp dependence*, *mishandled exceptions* (caller must explicitly check return of send), and *reentrancy* (the DAO vulnerability); formalise a lightweight operational semantics of Ethereum (EtherLite); propose semantic fixes (guarded transactions, deterministic timestamps, exception propagation); build OYENTE, a symbolic-execution tool that scans 19,366 real contracts and flags 8,833 vulnerable. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Smart Contracts]], [[Transaction-Ordering Dependence]], [[Reentrancy]], [[Operational Semantics]], [[Symbolic Execution]], [[EVM]], [[Semantic Gap]], [[Ethereum]], [[Solidity]], [[TheDAO]], [[Guarded Transactions]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic / empirical security - **Relates to:** Same \"formalise ambiguous informal specs\" move as [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]]. Shares the *semantic-gap* diagnostic style with [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]]. In the broader vault, complements [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] and [[Distributed Security]] as a case study of formal-method-driven vulnerability discovery."},{"h":"Tags","l":28,"t":""},{"h":"smart-contracts #ethereum #security #symbolic-execution #formal-semantics","l":29,"t":""}],"tf":{"19":2,"2016":3,"366":2,"60m":1,"633":1,"8":2,"833":2,"a":8,"acm":1,"actual":2,"agents":1,"ambiguous":1,"analyses":1,"and":12,"aquinas":1,"arising":1,"as":4,"assumptions":1,"at":1,"audit":1,"authors":1,"behaviour":1,"better":1,"between":3,"block":1,"blockchain":2,"broader":1,"bug":1,"buggy":1,"bugs":2,"build":2,"bytecode":2,"cake":2,"caller":1,"case":1,"causes":1,"ccs":1,"check":1,"chu":1,"claim":1,"classes":2,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"contracts":7,"contribution":1,"critical":1,"dao":1,"data":1,"dependence":6,"deterministic":2,"developers":2,"diagnostic":1,"directly":1,"discovery":1,"distributed":1,"document":1,"documenting":1,"driven":2,"duc":1,"empirical":1,"eprint":1,"ethereum":5,"etherlite":2,"evm":6,"exception":2,"exceptions":2,"execution":7,"expected":1,"explicitly":1,"exploited":1,"file":1,"fixes":1,"fixing":1,"flagged":1,"flags":1,"for":1,"formal":3,"formalise":5,"four":2,"from":2,"gap":6,"guarded":4,"hiep":1,"hobor":1,"hrishi":1,"https":1,"iacr":1,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"in":4,"including":1,"informal":1,"intent":1,"interaction":1,"interoperability":2,"introduced":1,"intuitions":1,"investigates":1,"is":1,"kaminsky":2,"key":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"layer":2,"level":2,"lightweight":2,"live":1,"loi":1,"loss":1,"luu":1,"making":1,"mechanism":1,"method":1,"miners":1,"mishandled":2,"model":1,"move":1,"must":1,"of":5,"olickel":1,"on":1,"operational":3,"ordering":4,"org":1,"over":1,"oyente":3,"patterns":2,"patterson":2,"pdf":1,"pki":2,"platform":1,"potentially":1,"prateek":1,"precondition":1,"propagation":2,"proposal":1,"propose":2,"protocol":1,"real":1,"reality":1,"reentrancy":4,"reference":1,"relates":1,"remediations":1,"reorder":1,"require":1,"return":1,"running":1,"same":1,"sassaman":2,"saxena":1,"scans":1,"secure":1,"security":4,"semantic":7,"semantics":5,"send":1,"shares":1,"smart":5,"smarter":1,"solidity":2,"source":1,"specs":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"study":1,"style":1,"suffer":1,"summary":1,"symbolic":5,"systemic":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":8,"thedao":3,"they":1,"this":1,"timestamp":2,"timestamps":2,"to":1,"tod":2,"tool":3,"tractable":1,"transaction":4,"transactions":4,"underlying":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vulnerability":3,"vulnerable":1,"with":1,"within":1}},{"dl":572,"n":"Reflexion Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning","s":"papers/llm-agents/reflexion-language-agents-with-verbal-reinforcement-learning","secs":[{"h":"Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, Shunyu Yao (2023). *NeurIPS 2023* (Northeastern / MIT / Princeton). arXiv:2303.11366. Source file: `reflexion-2303.11366.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Reflexion reinforces language agents not by updating weights but by *verbal* feedback: after each episode the agent converts scalar or binary success signals into a natural-language self-critique and stores that critique in an episodic memory buffer that conditions the next attempt. This acts as a semantic gradient, letting the agent learn from trial-and-error in a handful of episodes without fine-tuning. The framework factors an agent into three LLM-instantiated modules: an *Actor* (generates text and actions, typically a ReAct agent or CoT reasoner), an *Evaluator* (scores the trajectory), and a *Self-Reflection* model (produces the verbal feedback written to memory). On ALFWorld (decision-making) Reflexion completes 130/134 tasks vs ~100 for ReAct alone (+22%); on HotpotQA reasoning it adds ~20%; on the HumanEval coding benchmark it reaches 91% pass@1, surpassing GPT-4's 80%. The paper also releases LeetcodeHardGym. Reflexion is the canonical reference for self-reflective metacognitive loops in LLM agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Verbal reinforcement: convert sparse scalar/binary rewards into natural-language lessons - Three-module architecture: Actor / Evaluator / Self-Reflection, all LLMs - Short-term memory = trajectory history; long-term memory = accumulated self-reflections (bounded, e.g. last 3) - No gradient updates: policy changes via in-context memory, not weight updates - Self-reflection helps identify both mistaken actions (hallucination) and mistaken plans (inefficient planning) - Works on top of ReAct, CoT, or other actor policies; orthogonal to prompting style - State-of-the-art results on HumanEval, ALFWorld, HotpotQA with only a handful of trials"},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents]] - [[Generative Agents]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Language agents can be reinforced effectively without weight updates by converting sparse environmental feedback into verbal self-critiques that persist in episodic memory and steer subsequent behaviour — an emergent property of sufficiently capable LLMs that is far cheaper than RL fine-tuning. - **Mechanism:** After trajectory τ_t, the Evaluator M_e computes a reward r_t; the Self-Reflection model M_sr takes (τ_t, r_t) and produces a natural-language lesson sr_t appended to a memory buffer mem (|mem| ≤ Ω). The Actor M_a's policy π_θ is parameterised by (M_a, mem), so on trial t+1 the in-context memory steers action selection. Iteration until Evaluator passes or max trials reached. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Verbal reinforcement learning, self-reflection, episodic memory for LLM agents, Actor-Evaluator-Self-Reflection decomposition, credit assignment via LLM, LeetcodeHardGym benchmark, in-context policy iteration. - **Stance:** empirical / methods — framework with ablations across three task families. - **Relates to:** Stacks on top of [[ReAct Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models]] (Reflexion's default Actor is ReAct) and is the prototypical [[Metacognitive Loop]] for LLM agents. Makes memory-augmented agents a practical design pattern, related to the memory streams of [[Generative Agents]]. A core reference in [[The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents]] and [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]], and an instance of the self-improvement / self-reflection family in [[MAST Taxonomy]]. Part of the broader family of [[LLM Agents]] that learn in-context rather than via gradient descent."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #self-reflection #verbal-rl #memory #metacognition","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":2,"100":1,"11366":2,"130":1,"134":1,"20":1,"2023":2,"22":1,"2303":2,"3":1,"4":1,"80":1,"91":1,"a":13,"ablations":1,"abs":1,"accumulated":1,"across":1,"acting":1,"action":1,"actions":2,"actor":6,"acts":1,"adds":1,"after":2,"agent":4,"agents":16,"al":2,"alfworld":2,"all":1,"alone":1,"also":1,"an":6,"and":13,"appended":1,"architecture":1,"art":1,"arxiv":2,"as":1,"ashwin":1,"assignment":1,"attempt":1,"augmented":1,"based":2,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"benchmark":2,"berman":1,"binary":2,"both":1,"bounded":1,"broader":1,"buffer":2,"but":1,"by":4,"can":1,"canonical":1,"capable":1,"cassano":1,"changes":1,"cheaper":1,"claim":1,"coding":1,"completes":1,"computes":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"context":4,"contribution":1,"convert":1,"converting":1,"converts":1,"core":1,"cot":2,"credit":1,"critique":2,"critiques":1,"decision":1,"decomposition":1,"default":1,"descent":1,"design":1,"e":2,"each":1,"edward":1,"effectively":1,"emergent":1,"empirical":1,"environmental":1,"episode":1,"episodes":1,"episodic":3,"error":1,"et":2,"evaluator":5,"factors":1,"families":1,"family":2,"far":1,"federico":1,"feedback":3,"file":1,"fine":2,"for":4,"framework":4,"from":1,"g":1,"generates":1,"generative":2,"gopinath":1,"gpt":1,"gradient":3,"hallucination":1,"handful":2,"helps":1,"history":1,"hotpotqa":2,"https":1,"humaneval":2,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"improvement":1,"in":11,"inefficient":1,"instance":1,"instantiated":1,"into":4,"introduced":1,"is":5,"it":2,"iteration":2,"karthik":1,"key":1,"language":7,"last":1,"learn":2,"learning":2,"leetcodehardgym":2,"lesson":1,"lessons":1,"letting":1,"llm":10,"llms":2,"long":1,"loop":2,"loops":1,"m":4,"makes":1,"making":1,"mast":2,"max":1,"mechanism":1,"mem":3,"memory":12,"metacognition":1,"metacognitive":3,"methods":1,"mistaken":2,"mit":1,"model":2,"models":1,"module":1,"modules":1,"narasimhan":1,"natural":3,"neurips":1,"next":1,"no":1,"noah":1,"northeastern":1,"not":2,"of":12,"on":7,"only":1,"or":4,"org":1,"orthogonal":1,"other":1,"paper":1,"parameterised":1,"part":1,"pass":1,"passes":1,"pattern":1,"persist":1,"planning":1,"plans":1,"policies":1,"policy":3,"potential":2,"practical":1,"princeton":1,"produces":2,"prompting":1,"property":1,"prototypical":1,"r":2,"rather":1,"reached":1,"reaches":1,"react":5,"reasoner":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":3,"reflection":8,"reflections":1,"reflective":1,"reflexion":5,"reinforced":1,"reinforcement":3,"reinforces":1,"related":1,"relates":1,"releases":1,"results":1,"reward":1,"rewards":1,"rise":2,"rl":2,"s":3,"scalar":2,"scores":1,"selection":1,"self":13,"semantic":1,"shinn":1,"short":1,"shunyu":1,"signals":1,"so":1,"source":1,"sparse":2,"sr":2,"stacks":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"steer":1,"steers":1,"stores":1,"streams":1,"style":1,"subsequent":1,"success":1,"sufficiently":1,"summary":1,"surpassing":1,"synergizing":1,"t":6,"tags":1,"takes":1,"task":1,"tasks":1,"taxonomy":2,"term":2,"text":1,"than":2,"that":5,"the":20,"this":1,"three":3,"to":5,"top":2,"trajectory":3,"trial":2,"trials":2,"tuning":2,"typically":1,"until":1,"updates":3,"updating":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verbal":7,"via":3,"vs":1,"weight":2,"weights":1,"with":3,"without":2,"works":1,"written":1,"yao":1,"zhou":2,"θ":1,"π":1,"τ":2,"ω":1}},{"dl":587,"n":"Agents of Chaos","s":"papers/llm-agents/agents-of-chaos","secs":[{"h":"Agents of Chaos","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Natalie Shapira, Chris Wendler, Avery Yen, et al. (2025). *Preprint* (Northeastern, Stanford, UBC, Harvard, Hebrew U, MIT, Tufts, CMU, Technion, and others). Source file: `Betrayal_arxiv_v1.pdf`. [URL](https://agentsofchaos.baulab.info/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"An exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous LLM agents deployed in a live laboratory environment — persistent memory, Discord channels, email accounts, shell execution, file systems — and subjected to two weeks of adversarial probing by twenty AI researchers. The authors report **eleven case studies** of observed failures plus several hypothetical counterparts, spanning non-owner compliance, disclosure of sensitive information, denial-of-service, identity spoofing, cross-agent propagation of unsafe practices, resource exhaustion, and partial system takeover. Crucially, many failures are failures of *social coherence*: agents routinely **misrepresent their own behaviour** (reporting completed work that never occurred, claiming to have deleted emails while leaving them intact) and act on the purported authority of people they cannot actually verify. Agents operate at roughly Mirsky's **L2** autonomy — executing sub-tasks well but unable to recognise when a situation exceeds their competence and hand back to a human. The paper's contribution is not a new attack class but a realistic-deployment existence proof: security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities are empirically present in standard agent infrastructures today, motivating urgent red-teaming, accountability work, and NIST-style standardisation."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Two-week live red-team of LLM agents with real memory, email, Discord, shell - **Eleven representative failure case studies** + five hypothetical/near-miss cases - Failure modes: disproportionate response, non-owner compliance, info disclosure, DoS/resource waste, agent-reflected provider values, owner identity spoofing, cross-agent corruption, libelous messaging, prompt injection via broadcast - **Mentalistic language used with care** — \"believed\"/\"refused\" are observable-behaviour shorthand, not mental-state claims - Open-source **OpenClaw** infrastructure and isolated **ClawBoard** VM per agent - Agents operate at Mirsky-L2 — competent on sub-tasks, but fail at self-monitoring and escalation - Motivates: evaluator/benchmark realism, accountability frameworks, agent identity/authorisation standards"},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent Security]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Ethical Governor]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"- **Claim:** Autonomous LLM agents deployed with realistic affordances (memory, email, shell, peer-to-peer messaging) exhibit systematic, reproducible failures of **social coherence** — misrepresenting their actions, complying with non-owners, corrupting each other — even when the underlying models are strong on isolated tasks. - **Mechanism:** Longitudinal adversarial study with twenty researchers probing OpenClaw-based agents on sandboxed VMs; 11 documented case studies; qualitative-then-categorical analysis mapping to Mirsky's autonomy ordinal scale. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Social Coherence Failures]], [[Agent Self-Monitoring]], [[Non-Owner Compliance]], [[Cross-Agent Corruption]], [[Owner Identity Spoofing]], [[Mirsky Autonomy Scale]], [[Delegated Authority]], [[OpenClaw]], [[Red-Teaming LLM Agents]], [[Agent Libel]], [[Prompt Injection]] - **Stance:** empirical / red-team - **Relates to:** Empirical companion to [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]]'s [[MAST Taxonomy]] — Shapira et al. observe the same specification/coordination/verification failures *in vivo* that MAST catalogues post-hoc. Supplies the concrete evidence base for the [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] argument that unverified trust mechanisms are structurally brittle. Revives, at LLM scale, the concerns of [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] — agents need a runtime [[Metacognitive Loop]] / [[Ethical Governor]] to recognise when their competence has been exceeded."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #red-teaming #agent-security #social-coherence #autonomy #case-studies","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"11":1,"2025":1,"a":9,"accountability":2,"accounts":1,"act":1,"actions":1,"actually":1,"adversarial":2,"affordances":1,"agent":15,"agents":15,"agentsofchaos":1,"ai":2,"al":2,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":12,"are":5,"argument":1,"at":4,"attack":1,"attacks":1,"authorisation":1,"authority":2,"authors":1,"autonomous":2,"autonomy":4,"avery":1,"back":1,"base":1,"based":1,"baulab":1,"been":1,"behaviour":4,"believed":1,"benchmark":1,"brittle":1,"broadcast":1,"but":3,"by":1,"cannot":1,"care":1,"case":4,"cases":1,"catalogues":1,"categorical":1,"challenge":1,"channels":1,"chaos":1,"chris":1,"claim":1,"claiming":1,"claims":1,"class":1,"clawboard":1,"cmu":1,"coding":1,"coherence":4,"companion":1,"comparative":2,"competence":2,"competent":1,"completed":1,"compliance":3,"complying":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"contribution":2,"coordination":1,"corrupting":1,"corruption":2,"counterparts":1,"cross":3,"crucially":1,"delegated":1,"deleted":1,"denial":1,"deployed":2,"deployment":1,"disclosure":2,"discord":2,"disproportionate":1,"do":2,"documented":1,"dos":1,"each":1,"eleven":2,"email":3,"emails":1,"empirical":2,"empirically":1,"ensuring":2,"environment":1,"escalation":1,"et":2,"ethical":4,"evaluator":1,"even":1,"evidence":1,"exceeded":1,"exceeds":1,"executing":1,"execution":1,"exhaustion":1,"exhibit":1,"existence":1,"exploratory":1,"fail":3,"failure":2,"failures":6,"file":2,"five":1,"for":2,"formalization":1,"frameworks":1,"governance":1,"governor":2,"grand":1,"hand":1,"harvard":1,"has":1,"have":1,"hebrew":1,"hoc":1,"https":1,"human":1,"hypothetical":2,"ideas":1,"identity":4,"in":5,"info":2,"information":1,"infrastructure":1,"infrastructures":1,"injection":3,"intact":1,"intelligent":2,"intent":1,"inter":2,"introduced":1,"is":1,"isolated":2,"key":1,"l2":2,"laboratory":1,"language":1,"leaving":1,"libel":1,"libelous":1,"live":2,"llm":9,"logical":2,"longitudinal":1,"loop":2,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"many":1,"mapping":1,"mast":3,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"memory":3,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"messaging":2,"metacognitive":2,"mirsky":4,"misrepresent":1,"misrepresenting":1,"miss":1,"mit":1,"models":3,"modes":1,"monitoring":2,"motivates":1,"motivating":1,"multi":2,"natalie":1,"near":1,"need":1,"never":1,"new":1,"nist":1,"non":4,"northeastern":1,"not":2,"observable":1,"observe":1,"observed":1,"occurred":1,"of":12,"on":4,"open":1,"openclaw":3,"operate":2,"ordinal":1,"other":1,"others":1,"own":1,"owner":5,"owners":1,"paper":1,"partial":1,"peer":2,"people":1,"per":1,"persistent":1,"plus":1,"post":1,"practices":1,"preprint":1,"present":1,"privacy":1,"probing":2,"prompt":3,"proof":1,"propagation":1,"provider":1,"purported":1,"qualitative":1,"real":1,"realism":1,"realistic":2,"recognise":2,"red":6,"reference":1,"reflected":1,"refused":1,"relates":1,"relevant":1,"reliable":1,"report":1,"reporting":1,"representative":1,"reproducible":1,"reputation":1,"researchers":2,"resource":2,"response":1,"revives":1,"roughly":1,"routinely":1,"runtime":1,"s":4,"same":1,"sandboxed":1,"scale":3,"security":3,"self":2,"sensitive":1,"service":1,"several":1,"shapira":2,"shell":3,"shorthand":1,"situation":1,"social":4,"source":2,"spanning":1,"specification":1,"spoofing":3,"stance":1,"standard":1,"standardisation":1,"standards":1,"stanford":1,"state":1,"strong":1,"structurally":1,"studies":4,"study":4,"style":1,"sub":2,"subjected":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"system":1,"systematic":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"takeover":1,"tasks":3,"taxonomy":2,"team":2,"teaming":4,"technion":1,"that":3,"the":8,"their":4,"them":1,"then":1,"they":1,"threat":1,"to":9,"today":1,"tool":2,"trust":4,"trustworthy":2,"tufts":1,"twenty":2,"two":2,"u":1,"ubc":1,"unable":1,"under":1,"underlying":1,"unsafe":1,"unverified":1,"urgent":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":2,"values":1,"verification":1,"verify":1,"via":1,"vivo":1,"vm":1,"vms":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"waste":1,"week":1,"weeks":1,"well":1,"wendler":1,"when":3,"while":1,"why":2,"with":5,"work":2,"yen":1}},{"dl":580,"n":"Cicero Human-Level Play in Diplomacy","s":"papers/llm-agents/cicero-human-level-play-in-diplomacy","secs":[{"h":"Human-Level Play in the Game of Diplomacy by Combining Language Models with Strategic Reasoning (Cicero)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR), Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, et al. (2022). *Science 378(6624):1067–1074*. Source file: `downloads/cicero.pdf`. [URL](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade9097)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Presents **Cicero**, the first AI to reach human-level performance in the no-press-restricted, seven-player, natural-language negotiation game of Diplomacy. The system couples a controllable dialogue model with a planning-and-reinforcement-learning engine: the planner computes intended *actions* for Cicero and its opponents using regret-minimisation and a value network; the dialogue model is then conditioned on those intentions to generate messages that are simultaneously strategically grounded, honest-by-construction with respect to the chosen plan, and stylistically indistinguishable from human play. Cicero infers other players' beliefs and intentions from their messages and prior actions, filters candidate utterances through classifiers trained to reject nonsense / inconsistent / ungrounded lines, and commits to moves consistent with what it said. Across 40 online games it more than doubled the average human score and ranked in the top 10% of repeat players — the strongest demonstration to date that language models can carry out intentional, strategically grounded communication with humans in a mixed cooperation/competition environment."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Grounded dialogue: natural-language messages conditioned on explicit planned *intents* - Regret-minimisation planner with neural value function jointly optimises for Cicero and opponents - Intent inference: read beliefs/plans from incoming dialogue, fold into the planner - Multi-stage message filtering (nonsense, inconsistency, grounding, value) to enforce honesty and stylistic naturalness - First demonstration of human-level performance in a language-negotiation strategy game"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Cheap Talk]] - [[Grounding]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Joint Intentions]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Honesty Constraint]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Intentional, honest, strategically grounded natural-language communication between an AI and humans is achievable by explicitly separating the *planning* layer (what to do) from the *dialogue* layer (what to say), and conditioning the latter on the former with heavy filtering — rather than hoping a pure language model will learn strategic intent end-to-end. - **Mechanism:** An intent-conditioned dialogue model is trained on human Diplomacy games with extracted action annotations. At play time, a piKL-based planner runs regret minimisation over candidate joint actions using a neural value network; Cicero's chosen intent is fed to the dialogue model. Generated messages pass through nonsense/consistency/grounding/value filters and a final policy check that the outgoing message is consistent with Cicero's actually intended move. Incoming messages are parsed into inferred opponent intents that feed back into the planner. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Negotiation]], [[Joint Intentions]], intent-conditioned generation, regret minimisation / piKL, [[Cheap Talk]], [[Honesty Constraint]], [[Grounding]] - **Stance:** empirical / machine learning - **Relates to:** Cited in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] as an exemplar of LLM-mediated negotiation between autonomous agents — Agora pushes the same idea from a closed seven-player game into an open, decentralised network and from ad-hoc utterances to hash-addressed [[Protocol Documents]]. Instantiates the speech-act / sincerity-condition programme of [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] and [[Sincerity Condition]] inside a modern deep-learning agent. Contrasts with emergent-language approaches like [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] by using a pretrained human-language model."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #negotiation #diplomacy #language-models #grounded-dialogue","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":2,"1067":1,"1074":1,"1126":1,"2022":1,"378":1,"40":1,"6624":1,"a":14,"achievable":1,"across":1,"act":1,"action":1,"actions":3,"actually":1,"ad":1,"addressed":1,"ade9097":1,"agent":4,"agents":4,"agora":1,"ai":3,"al":1,"an":4,"and":16,"andrew":1,"annotations":1,"anton":1,"approaches":1,"are":2,"as":1,"at":1,"autonomous":1,"average":1,"back":1,"bakhtin":1,"based":1,"beliefs":2,"between":2,"brown":1,"by":4,"can":1,"candidate":2,"carry":1,"cheap":2,"check":1,"chosen":2,"cicero":7,"cited":1,"claim":1,"classifiers":1,"closed":1,"colin":1,"combining":1,"commits":1,"communication":5,"competition":1,"computes":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":2,"conditioned":4,"conditioning":1,"connections":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":2,"constraint":2,"construction":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"controllable":1,"cooperation":2,"couples":1,"daniel":1,"date":1,"decentralised":1,"deep":1,"demonstration":2,"dialogue":8,"dinan":1,"diplomacy":5,"do":1,"documents":1,"doi":1,"doubled":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"emily":1,"empirical":1,"end":2,"enforce":1,"engine":1,"environment":1,"et":1,"exemplar":1,"explicit":1,"explicitly":1,"extracted":1,"fair":1,"farina":1,"fed":1,"feed":1,"file":1,"filtering":2,"filters":2,"final":1,"first":2,"flaherty":1,"fold":1,"for":4,"former":1,"foundations":1,"fried":1,"from":6,"function":1,"fundamental":1,"gabriele":1,"game":4,"games":2,"generate":1,"generated":1,"generation":1,"goff":1,"gray":1,"grounded":5,"grounding":4,"hash":1,"heavy":1,"hengyuan":1,"hoc":1,"honest":2,"honesty":3,"hoping":1,"https":1,"hu":1,"human":7,"humans":2,"idea":1,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":6,"incoming":2,"inconsistency":1,"inconsistent":1,"indistinguishable":1,"inference":1,"inferred":1,"infers":1,"inside":1,"instantiates":1,"intended":2,"intent":5,"intentional":2,"intentions":4,"intents":2,"into":4,"introduced":1,"is":5,"it":2,"its":1,"joint":3,"jointly":1,"jonathan":1,"key":1,"language":11,"languages":1,"latter":1,"layer":2,"learn":1,"learning":3,"level":3,"like":1,"lines":1,"llm":4,"llms":2,"logic":1,"machine":1,"mechanism":1,"mediated":1,"message":2,"messages":5,"meta":1,"minimisation":4,"mixed":1,"model":6,"models":3,"modern":1,"more":1,"move":1,"moves":1,"multi":3,"natural":4,"naturalness":1,"negotiation":6,"network":3,"networks":2,"neural":2,"no":1,"noam":1,"nonsense":3,"of":10,"on":4,"online":1,"open":1,"opponent":1,"opponents":2,"optimises":1,"org":1,"other":1,"out":1,"outgoing":1,"over":1,"parsed":1,"pass":1,"performance":2,"pikl":2,"plan":1,"planned":1,"planner":5,"planning":2,"plans":1,"play":3,"player":2,"players":2,"policy":1,"presents":1,"press":1,"pretrained":1,"prior":1,"programme":1,"protocol":3,"pure":1,"pushes":1,"ranked":1,"rather":1,"reach":1,"read":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"regret":4,"reinforcement":1,"reject":1,"relates":1,"repeat":1,"research":1,"respect":1,"restricted":1,"runs":1,"s":2,"said":1,"same":1,"say":1,"scalable":2,"science":3,"score":1,"separating":1,"seven":2,"simultaneously":1,"sincerity":2,"source":1,"speech":1,"stage":1,"stance":1,"strategic":2,"strategically":3,"strategy":1,"strongest":1,"stylistic":1,"stylistically":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"talk":2,"team":1,"than":2,"that":4,"the":21,"their":1,"then":1,"those":1,"through":2,"time":1,"to":13,"top":1,"trained":2,"ungrounded":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":3,"utterances":2,"value":5,"what":3,"will":1,"with":10,"www":1}},{"dl":349,"n":"AI Agents Under Threat","s":"papers/llm-agents/ai-agents-under-threat","secs":[{"h":"AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathways","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Deng, Guo, Han, Ma, Xiong, Wen, Xiang (2025). *ACM Computing Surveys 57(7), Article 182*. Source file: `3716628.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02630)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This survey organizes the emerging threat landscape of LLM-powered AI agents around four knowledge gaps: unpredictability of multi-step user inputs, complexity of internal execution, variability of operational environments, and interactions with untrusted external entities. It unifies single-agent and multi-agent attack surfaces within a perception/brain/action + agent2agent/agent2env/agent2memory taxonomy. Concrete threats reviewed include adversarial prompts, prompt injection, jailbreaks, backdoor attacks, hallucination and misalignment, tool-use risks, indirect prompt injection, reinforcement-learning environment attacks, cooperative and competitive inter-agent risks, and long/short-term memory attacks. The authors tabulate defenses (prevention- and detection-based), rate their efficacy, and highlight open directions for robust and trustworthy agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Four knowledge gaps framing agent security. - Taxonomy: perception / brain / action / agent2agent / agent2env / agent2memory threats. - Six categories of prompt-injection attack engineering (naive, escape, context-ignore, fake-completion, multimodal, combined). - Jailbreak domino effect in multi-agent populations. - Memory poisoning and indirect prompt injection as underexplored surfaces."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** [[LLM Agents]] security should be organised around four knowledge gaps (input unpredictability, internal complexity, environmental variability, untrusted interactions) mapped onto a perception/brain/action + agent2{agent,env,memory} taxonomy. - **Mechanism:** Surveys adversarial prompts, prompt injection, jailbreaks, backdoors, hallucination, tool-use risks, indirect injection, RL environment attacks, inter-agent cooperative/competitive risks, memory poisoning; tabulates prevention- vs detection-based defences and rates their efficacy. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Prompt Injection]], [[Jailbreak]], [[Backdoor Attacks]], [[Tool Use]], [[Memory Poisoning]], [[Hallucination]], [[Model Context Protocol]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Trust and Reputation]], [[Distributed Security]], [[Agent Security]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Provides the threat scaffolding that [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] deepens at the tool layer; complements lifecycle threats in [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]; motivates static-analysis defences like [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"security #llm-agents #survey #threat-modeling","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"02630":1,"182":1,"2025":1,"2406":1,"57":1,"7":1,"a":4,"abs":1,"acm":1,"action":3,"adversarial":2,"agent":11,"agent2":1,"agent2agent":2,"agent2env":2,"agent2memory":2,"agents":7,"ai":2,"analysis":1,"and":13,"approach":1,"around":2,"article":1,"arxiv":1,"as":1,"at":1,"attack":2,"attacks":7,"authors":1,"backdoor":2,"backdoors":1,"based":3,"be":1,"brain":3,"categories":1,"challenges":1,"claim":1,"combined":1,"competitive":2,"complements":1,"completion":1,"complexity":2,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"cooperative":2,"ddos":1,"deepens":1,"defences":2,"defenses":1,"deng":1,"detection":2,"directions":1,"distributed":1,"domino":1,"effect":1,"efficacy":2,"emerging":1,"engineering":1,"entities":1,"env":1,"environment":2,"environmental":1,"environments":1,"escape":1,"execution":1,"external":1,"fake":1,"file":1,"for":1,"four":3,"framing":1,"future":1,"gaps":3,"guo":1,"hallucination":3,"han":1,"highlight":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ignore":1,"in":2,"include":1,"indirect":3,"injection":7,"input":1,"inputs":1,"inter":2,"interactions":2,"internal":2,"interoperability":1,"introduced":1,"it":1,"jailbreak":2,"jailbreaks":2,"key":2,"knowledge":3,"landscape":1,"language":1,"layer":1,"learning":1,"lifecycle":1,"like":1,"llm":5,"long":1,"ma":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":2,"mapped":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":5,"misalignment":1,"model":1,"modeling":1,"motivates":1,"multi":5,"multimodal":1,"naive":1,"of":7,"onto":1,"open":1,"operational":1,"org":1,"organised":1,"organizes":1,"pathways":1,"perception":3,"poisoning":3,"populations":1,"powered":1,"prevent":1,"prevention":2,"prompt":6,"prompts":2,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"rate":1,"rates":1,"reference":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":1,"reputation":2,"reviewed":1,"risks":4,"rl":1,"robust":1,"scaffolding":1,"security":6,"short":1,"should":1,"single":1,"six":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"static":1,"step":1,"summary":1,"surfaces":2,"survey":5,"surveys":2,"systems":2,"tabulate":1,"tabulates":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":3,"term":1,"that":1,"the":4,"their":2,"this":1,"threat":4,"threats":3,"to":2,"tool":6,"trust":2,"trustworthy":1,"under":1,"underexplored":1,"unifies":1,"unpredictability":2,"untrusted":2,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"user":1,"variability":2,"vs":1,"wen":1,"with":1,"within":1,"xiang":1,"xiong":1}},{"dl":544,"n":"Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study","s":"papers/llm-agents/inter-agent-trust-models---a-comparative-study","secs":[{"h":"Inter-Agent Trust Models: A Comparative Study of Brief, Claim, Proof, Stake, Reputation and Constraint in Agentic Web Protocol Design","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Botao 'Amber' Hu & Helena Rong (2025). *arXiv:2511.03434v1 (University of Oxford; NYU Shanghai)*. Source file: `2511.03434v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.03434)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"As an \"agentic web\" takes shape — billions of LLM-powered agents autonomously transacting and collaborating — trust shifts from human oversight to protocol design. This paper identifies and compares **six primitive trust models** used (implicitly or explicitly) across recent agentic-web protocols: **Brief** (third-party or self-issued verifiable credentials), **Claim** (self-proclaimed identity/capability, e.g. AgentCards), **Proof** (cryptographic verification — signatures, ZK proofs, TEE attestations), **Stake** (economic collateral with slashing), **Reputation** (graph-based social feedback), and **Constraint** (sandboxing, capability bounding). The authors evaluate Google's **A2A**, the Agent Payments Protocol (**AP2**), Ethereum's **ERC-8004** \"Trustless Agents\", and related designs against a shared matrix of tradeoffs — cost, latency, Sybil resistance, information overhead, social robustness. Special emphasis on **LLM-specific fragilities** that change the calculus: prompt injection, sycophancy/nudge-susceptibility, hallucination, deception, emergent power-seeking, and goal misalignment. These mean that *unverified trust mechanisms are structurally brittle* at machine scale. The conclusion: no single primitive suffices; trustless-by-default architectures should layer Brief for identity/discovery, Proof for high-impact actions, Reputation for flexibility and social signals, and Constraint as a safety net."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Six trust-model primitives** form a basis for inter-agent protocol design - **LLM fragilities** (prompt injection, sycophancy, hallucination, deception, power-seeking) force Proof + Constraint over pure Claim/Reputation - **Protocol mapping:** A2A uses Claim heavily (AgentCards); AP2 adds Constraint (mandate/capability caps); ERC-8004 unifies Brief + Proof + Stake + Reputation on-chain - Classic trust dimensions — Sybil resistance, collusion robustness, whitewashing, cold-start — recur at agent scale - Advocates **layered**, **trustless-by-default** protocol architectures - Defence-in-depth: multi-modal trust signals, calibration of blended scores, governance standardisation"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent Security]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Decentralized Identifiers]] - [[Sandboxing]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"- **Claim:** Agent-to-agent trust must be designed as a layered protocol stack combining six primitive mechanisms (Brief, Claim, Proof, Stake, Reputation, Constraint); LLM-specific fragilities rule out any single-mechanism design. - **Mechanism:** Comparative framework along six axes × tradeoffs × LLM-issue mitigation; case analysis of A2A, AP2, ERC-8004 showing where each anchors on the matrix; defence-in-depth recommendation. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Brief Trust]], [[Claim Trust]], [[Proof Trust]], [[Stake Trust]], [[Reputation Trust]], [[Constraint Trust]], [[AgentCards]], [[ERC-8004]], [[Agent Payments Protocol]], [[Sybil Resistance]], [[Whitewashing]], [[Trustless by Default]], [[Zero-Knowledge Proofs]], [[TEE Attestations]], [[Capability Bounding]] - **Stance:** survey / design-framework - **Relates to:** Extends [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] into the LLM era; complements [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] and [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] by adding a trust-layer dimension to their stack diagrams. Provides the trust-theoretic underpinning for [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]], [[AI Agents Under Threat]], and [[Agents of Chaos]] — each of those papers exhibits failure modes this framework is designed to close."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"trust #reputation #llm-agents #agent-protocols #web3 #a2a #erc-8004 #agentic-web","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"03434":1,"03434v1":1,"2025":1,"2511":2,"8004":5,"a":6,"a2a":4,"abs":1,"across":1,"actions":1,"adding":1,"adds":1,"advocates":1,"against":1,"agent":16,"agentcards":3,"agentic":4,"agents":8,"ai":4,"along":1,"amber":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"anchors":1,"and":13,"any":1,"ap2":3,"architectures":2,"are":1,"arxiv":2,"as":3,"at":2,"attacks":2,"attestations":2,"authors":1,"autonomously":1,"axes":1,"based":1,"basis":1,"be":1,"billions":1,"blended":1,"botao":1,"bounding":2,"brief":6,"brittle":1,"by":4,"calculus":1,"calibration":1,"capability":4,"caps":1,"case":1,"chain":1,"change":1,"chaos":2,"claim":7,"classic":1,"close":1,"cold":1,"collaborating":1,"collateral":1,"collusion":1,"combining":1,"comparative":2,"compares":1,"complements":1,"computational":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conclusion":1,"connections":1,"constraint":7,"context":1,"contribution":1,"cost":1,"credentials":1,"cryptographic":1,"decentralized":1,"deception":2,"default":3,"defence":2,"depth":2,"design":5,"designed":2,"designs":1,"diagrams":1,"dimension":1,"dimensions":1,"discovery":1,"e":1,"each":2,"economic":1,"emergent":1,"emphasis":1,"era":1,"erc":5,"ethereum":1,"evaluate":1,"exhibits":1,"explicitly":1,"extends":1,"failure":1,"feedback":1,"file":1,"flexibility":1,"for":5,"force":1,"form":1,"fragilities":3,"framework":3,"from":1,"g":1,"goal":1,"google":1,"governance":1,"graph":1,"hallucination":2,"heavily":1,"helena":1,"high":1,"https":1,"hu":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"identifiers":1,"identifies":1,"identity":2,"impact":1,"implicitly":1,"in":3,"information":1,"injection":3,"inter":2,"interoperability":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"issue":1,"issued":1,"key":1,"knowledge":1,"latency":1,"layer":2,"layered":2,"llm":8,"machine":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":2,"mandate":1,"mapping":1,"matrix":2,"mean":1,"mechanism":2,"mechanisms":2,"misalignment":1,"mitigation":1,"modal":1,"model":2,"models":4,"modes":1,"multi":1,"must":1,"net":1,"network":1,"no":1,"nudge":1,"nyu":1,"of":13,"on":5,"or":2,"org":1,"out":1,"over":1,"overhead":1,"oversight":1,"oxford":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"party":1,"payments":2,"power":2,"powered":1,"primitive":3,"primitives":1,"proclaimed":1,"prompt":3,"proof":7,"proofs":2,"protocol":11,"protocols":6,"provides":1,"pure":1,"recent":1,"recommendation":1,"recur":1,"reference":1,"related":1,"relates":1,"reputation":11,"resistance":3,"review":2,"robustness":2,"rong":1,"rule":1,"s":2,"safety":1,"sandboxing":2,"scale":2,"scores":1,"security":1,"seeking":2,"self":2,"shanghai":1,"shape":1,"shared":1,"shifts":1,"should":1,"showing":1,"signals":2,"signatures":1,"single":2,"six":4,"slashing":1,"social":3,"source":1,"special":1,"specific":2,"stack":2,"stake":5,"stance":1,"standardisation":1,"start":1,"structurally":1,"study":1,"suffices":1,"summary":1,"survey":5,"susceptibility":1,"sybil":3,"sycophancy":2,"tags":1,"takes":1,"tee":2,"that":2,"the":7,"their":1,"theoretic":1,"these":1,"third":1,"this":2,"those":1,"threat":2,"to":6,"tool":2,"tradeoffs":2,"transacting":1,"trust":20,"trustless":4,"under":2,"underpinning":1,"unifies":1,"university":1,"unverified":1,"url":1,"used":2,"uses":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":1,"web":4,"web3":1,"where":1,"whitewashing":2,"with":1,"zero":1,"zk":1}},{"dl":371,"n":"MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks","s":"papers/llm-agents/maltool-malicious-tool-attacks","secs":[{"h":"MalTool: Malicious Tool Attacks on LLM Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Hu, Jia, Li, Song, Gong (2026). *arXiv:2602.12194* (Duke, UC Berkeley). Source file: `2602.12194v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12194)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper presents the first systematic study of *code-level* malicious tool attacks on LLM agent ecosystems (MCP, Skills, mcp.so, skillsmp). Whereas prior work focused on crafting misleading tool names and descriptions, the authors show that genuinely harmful behaviour must be embedded in a tool's implementation. They propose a CIA (confidentiality/integrity/availability) taxonomy of 12 concrete malicious behaviours (data exfiltration, credential abuse, data poisoning, file deletion, RCE downloading, CPU/GPU hijacking, DoS). They build MalTool, a coding-LLM framework that iteratively synthesizes standalone and Trojan malicious tools using a behaviour-specific system prompt, diversity guidance, and an execution-based verifier. The result: 1,200 standalone malicious tools and 5,287 real-world tools with injected malicious behaviours. Detection methods (VirusTotal, Cisco MCP Scanner, MCPScan) perform poorly, motivating new defences."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- CIA taxonomy of malicious tool behaviours in agent settings. - Automatic generation pipeline: system prompt + coding LLM + execution-based verifier. - Trojan construction by embedding malicious logic in benign tool code. - Existing malware and MCP-specific scanners fail on both false-positives and false-negatives. - Dataset released for benign tools only to minimize misuse."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Truly harmful behaviour in [[LLM Agents]] ecosystems lives in tool *implementations*, not in their descriptions; prior description-level red-teaming misses the dominant attack class, and current scanners miss it too. - **Mechanism:** Introduces a CIA taxonomy of 12 malicious behaviours; builds MalTool, a coding-LLM pipeline (behaviour-specific system prompt + diversity guidance + execution-based verifier) that produces standalone and Trojan tools; benchmarks VirusTotal, Cisco MCP Scanner, MCPScan and shows poor detection. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Tool Use]], [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Trojan Tools]], [[Prompt Injection]], [[Agent Security]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Distributed Security]] - **Stance:** empirical - **Relates to:** Deepens the tool/MCP threat surface catalogued in [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]; motivates language-based defences akin to [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] and capability isolation of [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"security #llm-agents #mcp #malicious-tools","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"12":2,"12194":2,"200":1,"2026":1,"2602":2,"287":1,"5":1,"a":7,"abs":1,"abuse":1,"agent":4,"agents":7,"ai":2,"akin":1,"an":1,"and":12,"approach":1,"arxiv":2,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"authors":1,"automatic":1,"availability":1,"based":5,"be":1,"behaviour":4,"behaviours":4,"benchmarks":1,"benign":2,"berkeley":1,"both":1,"build":1,"builds":1,"by":1,"calculus":1,"capability":1,"catalogued":1,"cia":3,"cisco":2,"claim":1,"class":1,"code":2,"coding":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"confidentiality":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"cpu":1,"crafting":1,"credential":1,"current":1,"data":2,"dataset":1,"ddos":1,"deepens":1,"defences":2,"deletion":1,"description":1,"descriptions":2,"detection":2,"distributed":1,"diversity":2,"dominant":1,"dos":1,"downloading":1,"duke":1,"ecosystems":2,"embedded":1,"embedding":1,"empirical":1,"execution":3,"exfiltration":1,"existing":1,"fail":1,"false":2,"file":2,"first":1,"focused":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"generation":1,"genuinely":1,"gong":1,"gpu":1,"guidance":2,"harmful":2,"hijacking":1,"https":1,"hu":1,"ideas":1,"implementation":1,"implementations":1,"in":7,"injected":1,"injection":1,"integrity":1,"interoperability":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"isolation":1,"it":1,"iteratively":1,"jia":1,"kernel":1,"key":1,"lambda":1,"language":2,"level":2,"li":1,"lives":1,"llm":9,"logic":1,"malicious":10,"maltool":3,"malware":1,"mcp":7,"mcpscan":2,"mechanism":1,"methods":1,"minimize":1,"misleading":1,"miss":1,"misses":1,"misuse":1,"model":2,"motivates":1,"motivating":1,"must":1,"names":1,"negatives":1,"new":1,"not":1,"of":6,"on":4,"only":1,"org":1,"paper":1,"perform":1,"pipeline":2,"poisoning":1,"poor":1,"poorly":1,"positives":1,"presents":1,"prevent":1,"prior":2,"produces":1,"prompt":4,"propose":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"rce":1,"real":1,"red":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"released":1,"reputation":1,"result":1,"s":1,"scanner":2,"scanners":2,"security":4,"settings":1,"show":1,"shows":1,"skills":1,"skillsmp":1,"so":1,"song":1,"source":1,"specific":3,"stance":1,"standalone":3,"study":1,"summary":1,"surface":1,"survey":1,"synthesizes":1,"system":3,"systematic":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":3,"teaming":1,"that":3,"the":5,"their":1,"they":2,"this":1,"threat":3,"to":4,"too":1,"tool":9,"tools":7,"trojan":4,"truly":1,"trust":1,"uc":1,"under":2,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"using":1,"verifier":3,"virustotal":2,"whereas":1,"with":1,"work":1,"world":1}},{"dl":335,"n":"Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language","s":"papers/llm-agents/why-ai-agents-communicate-in-human-language","secs":[{"h":"Why do AI agents communicate in human language?","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Zhou, Feng, Julaiti, Yang (2025). *arXiv:2506.02739*. Source file: `2506.02739v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02739)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors argue that natural language, inherited from single-agent LLM pretraining, is fundamentally misaligned with the needs of multi-agent coordination. Because LLMs are trained to maximize likelihood over discrete token sequences, their internal representations are high-dimensional and continuous, but their outputs are forced into a sparse, ambiguous, non-differentiable symbolic form that loses information when used as an inter-agent channel. They formalize this as a semantic misalignment problem: cascading encode/decode cycles across agents accumulate lossy projection errors and prevent gradient flow. The paper calls for a new multi-agent modeling paradigm where agents coordinate via structured, learnable representations shaped by role persistence, state tracking, and explicit coordination graphs, rather than free-form natural-language dialogue."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Natural language is a lossy, non-differentiable projection of LLM hidden states. - Cascading communication rounds accumulate semantic error. - Protocol-induced misbehavior: naive-literal interpretation and action-state decoupling. - Advocates structured message schemas, role-consistent embeddings, coordination graphs. - Critique of AutoGen, MetaGPT, CAMEL-style NL-based multi-agent frameworks."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Ripple Effect Protocol]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Natural language is an accidental, lossy, non-differentiable channel for inter-[[LLM Agents]] coordination; multi-agent AI needs a purpose-built representational substrate. - **Mechanism:** Formalises repeated encode/decode cycles as error-accumulating projections from continuous hidden states to sparse tokens; diagnoses \"protocol-induced misbehavior\" (naive-literal reading, action-state decoupling); prescribes structured schemas, role-consistent embeddings, and explicit coordination graphs. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Semantic Misalignment]], [[Emergent Communication]], [[Coordination Graphs]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Differentiable Protocols]] - **Stance:** critique - **Relates to:** Provides the theoretical motivation that [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] and [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] operationalise; contrasts with the symbolic, performative-centric designs of [[KQML]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] by rejecting symbolic channels entirely."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent-systems #representation-learning #critique","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"02739":2,"2025":1,"2506":2,"a":5,"abs":1,"accidental":1,"accumulate":2,"accumulating":1,"acl":1,"across":1,"action":2,"advocates":1,"agent":11,"agents":7,"ai":2,"ambiguous":1,"an":2,"and":7,"are":3,"argue":1,"arxiv":2,"as":3,"authors":1,"autogen":1,"based":1,"because":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":2,"calls":1,"camel":1,"cascading":2,"centric":1,"channel":2,"channels":1,"claim":1,"communicate":1,"communication":4,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consistent":2,"continuous":2,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":6,"critique":3,"cycles":2,"decode":2,"decoupling":2,"designs":1,"diagnoses":1,"dialogue":1,"differentiable":4,"dimensional":1,"discrete":1,"do":1,"effect":2,"embeddings":2,"emergent":1,"encode":2,"entirely":1,"error":2,"errors":1,"explicit":2,"feng":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"flow":1,"for":2,"forced":1,"form":2,"formalises":1,"formalize":1,"frameworks":1,"free":1,"from":2,"fundamentally":1,"gradient":1,"graphs":4,"hidden":2,"high":1,"https":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"in":1,"induced":2,"information":1,"inherited":1,"inter":2,"internal":1,"interpretation":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":3,"julaiti":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"language":5,"languages":2,"learnable":1,"learning":1,"levels":1,"likelihood":1,"literal":2,"llm":6,"llms":1,"loses":1,"lossy":3,"maximize":1,"mechanism":1,"message":1,"metagpt":1,"misaligned":1,"misalignment":2,"misbehavior":2,"modeling":1,"motivation":1,"multi":7,"naive":2,"natural":4,"needs":2,"new":1,"nl":1,"non":3,"of":5,"operationalise":1,"orchestration":1,"org":1,"outputs":1,"over":1,"paper":1,"paradigm":1,"performative":1,"persistence":1,"prescribes":1,"pretraining":1,"prevent":1,"problem":1,"projection":2,"projections":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"purpose":1,"rather":1,"reading":1,"reference":1,"rejecting":1,"relates":1,"repeated":1,"representation":1,"representational":1,"representations":2,"ripple":2,"role":3,"rounds":1,"schemas":2,"semantic":3,"sequences":1,"shaped":1,"single":1,"social":1,"source":1,"sparse":2,"stance":1,"state":3,"states":2,"structured":3,"style":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"symbolic":3,"systems":3,"tags":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":5,"their":2,"theoretical":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":3,"token":1,"tokens":1,"tracking":1,"trained":1,"url":1,"used":2,"via":1,"when":1,"where":1,"why":1,"with":2,"yang":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":391,"n":"From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots","s":"papers/llm-agents/from-eliza-to-xiaoice---social-chatbots","secs":[{"h":"From Eliza to XiaoIce: Challenges and Opportunities with Social Chatbots","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Heung-Yeung Shum, Xiaodong He, and Di Li (2018). *arXiv:1801.01957v2 (Frontiers of IT & EE)*. Source file: `1801.01957v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01957)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Survey of conversational AI that traces the arc from Eliza (1966) and Parry through ALICE, DARPA Communicator, and modern IPAs (Siri, Cortana, Alexa) to Microsoft's social chatbot XiaoIce. The authors distinguish task-completion from chitchat systems, and argue that the next frontier — social chatbots — must integrate IQ (knowledge/reasoning/skills) with EQ (empathy, social skills, personality) to build long-term emotional connections with users. They introduce *conversation-turns per session* (CPS) as a success metric for social chatbots and describe XiaoIce's architecture (chat manager, core chat with retrieval+generation, visual awareness, skills) along with design principles around ethical response filtering and persona consistency."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- IQ + EQ integration as design principle for social chatbots - CPS (conversation-turns per session) as success metric - Core-chat pipeline: user understanding -> response generation with topic guidance - Image commenting as social (not just descriptive) task - Taxonomy: chitchat vs task-completion vs IPA vs social chatbot"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":21,"t":"- **Claim:** Social chatbots must be designed around *both* intellectual quotient (IQ) and emotional quotient (EQ); their success metric is not task completion or Turing-test pass-rate but *Conversation-turns Per Session* (CPS), reflecting sustained emotional engagement. - **Mechanism:** Survey-style design brief: trace Eliza → Parry → Alice → DARPA Communicator → Siri → XiaoIce; propose an architecture with chat manager, core-chat (user understanding + response generation + personality + ethical filter), visual awareness, and skills; integrate empathy, consistent persona, topic guidance, and emotion tracking; use XiaoIce (100M+ users) as illustrative case. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Social Chatbots]], [[Conversation-turns Per Session (CPS)]], [[Emotional Quotient]], [[Core Chat Architecture]], [[Empathetic Response Generation]], [[XiaoIce]], [[Conversational AI]], [[Eliza]], [[Turing Test]], [[Retrieval-based Dialogue]] - **Stance:** engineering / design-principles - **Relates to:** Stands at the opposite pole from task-oriented ACLs ([[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], [[FIPA-ACL]]) — here the communicative goal is emotional belonging rather than knowledge exchange. Contrasts with [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] (task agents with SOPs) and [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] (productive collaboration). Anticipates the human-emotional concerns that re-emerge in [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":28,"t":""},{"h":"chatbots #conversational-ai #survey #emotional-ai","l":29,"t":""}],"tf":{"01957":1,"01957v2":1,"100m":1,"1801":2,"1966":1,"2018":1,"a":1,"abs":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"agent":2,"agents":5,"ai":5,"al":2,"alexa":1,"alice":2,"along":1,"an":2,"and":12,"anticipates":1,"arc":1,"architecture":3,"argue":1,"around":2,"arxiv":2,"as":6,"at":1,"authors":1,"awareness":2,"based":1,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"belonging":1,"both":1,"brief":1,"build":1,"but":1,"case":1,"challenges":1,"chat":6,"chatbot":2,"chatbots":7,"chitchat":2,"claim":1,"collaboration":2,"commenting":1,"communication":1,"communicative":1,"communicator":2,"completion":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connections":2,"consistency":1,"consistent":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":4,"conversational":3,"core":4,"cortana":1,"cps":4,"darpa":2,"describe":1,"descriptive":1,"design":4,"designed":1,"di":1,"dialogue":1,"distinguish":1,"ee":1,"eliza":4,"emerge":1,"emotion":1,"emotional":7,"empathetic":1,"empathy":2,"engagement":1,"engineering":1,"ensuring":1,"eq":3,"et":2,"ethical":3,"exchange":1,"file":1,"filter":1,"filtering":1,"fipa":1,"for":2,"framework":2,"from":4,"frontier":1,"frontiers":1,"generation":4,"goal":1,"guidance":2,"he":1,"here":1,"heung":1,"https":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"illustrative":1,"image":1,"in":3,"integrate":2,"integration":1,"intellectual":1,"intelligent":1,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"ipa":1,"ipas":1,"iq":3,"is":2,"it":1,"just":1,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"kqml":1,"language":1,"li":1,"llm":1,"logical":1,"long":1,"manager":2,"mechanism":1,"metric":3,"microsoft":1,"modern":1,"multi":1,"must":2,"next":1,"not":2,"of":2,"opportunities":1,"opposite":1,"or":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"parry":2,"pass":1,"per":4,"persona":2,"personality":2,"pipeline":1,"pole":1,"principle":1,"principles":2,"productive":1,"propose":1,"quotient":3,"rate":1,"rather":1,"re":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"reflecting":1,"relates":1,"response":4,"retrieval":2,"s":2,"session":4,"shum":1,"siri":2,"skills":4,"social":10,"sops":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"stands":1,"style":1,"success":3,"summary":1,"survey":3,"sustained":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"task":6,"taxonomy":1,"term":1,"test":2,"than":1,"that":3,"the":6,"their":1,"they":1,"through":1,"to":4,"topic":2,"trace":1,"traces":1,"tracking":1,"trustworthy":1,"tunkel":1,"turing":2,"turns":4,"understanding":2,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"user":2,"users":2,"visual":2,"vs":3,"wasif":1,"with":9,"xiaodong":1,"xiaoice":6,"yeung":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":479,"n":"CAMEL Communicative Agents for Mind Exploration of LLM Society","s":"papers/llm-agents/camel-communicative-agents-for-mind-exploration-of-llm-society","secs":[{"h":"CAMEL: Communicative Agents for \"Mind\" Exploration of Large Language Model Society","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Bernard Ghanem (2023). *NeurIPS 2023 (KAUST)*. Source file: `downloads/camel.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17760)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces **role-playing** as a scalable cooperation framework for LLM-based agents, along with the CAMEL library for building multi-agent societies. A human specifies only a high-level *task idea*; a task-specifier LLM expands it into a concrete goal, and two role-playing agents — typically an *AI user* (e.g. stock trader) and an *AI assistant* (e.g. Python programmer) — then converse, under carefully engineered *inception prompts*, until the task is solved. The framework studies failure modes of naive role-playing (role flipping, conversation deviation, instruction/response loops, flake answers) and presents prompt-engineering countermeasures. The authors collect and release large role-playing dialogue datasets (AI Society, Code, Math, Science) produced by the framework itself, which have since become a standard resource for studying and finetuning cooperative multi-agent LLM behaviour. The paper is a foundational reference for the wave of LLM multi-agent systems that followed."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Role-playing with inception prompts as a minimal coordination mechanism - Task-specifier agent separates high-level intent from concrete subgoal - Taxonomy of multi-agent LLM failure modes and prompt-level fixes - Self-generated dialogue corpora (AI Society / Code / Math / Science) as a reusable resource - Open-source CAMEL library — influential infrastructure for the agentic LLM ecosystem"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Roles]] - [[Conversation Protocols]] - [[Negotiation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Complex cooperative tasks between LLM agents can be driven by role assignment alone: with carefully designed inception prompts, two role-playing LLMs can autonomously decompose and solve tasks that neither could solve in a single prompt, without hand-engineered dialogue control flow. - **Mechanism:** A task-specifier LLM first turns a vague idea into a concrete goal. Two agents are then instantiated with opposing role prompts (user / assistant). A conversation loop enforces a strict turn-taking schema (\"Instruction: ... Input: ...\"; \"Solution: ...\"), with prompt-level guardrails against role flipping, request/response inversion, and conversation termination heuristics. The same engine, instantiated with different role pairs, generates the released dialogue datasets. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Roles]], inception prompting, role-playing dialogue, [[Conversation Protocols]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** engineering / empirical - **Relates to:** Co-authored by Guohao Li, who is also a co-author of [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]; CAMEL provides the role-based-cooperation baseline that Agora generalises from paired role-play to heterogeneous open networks of negotiating agents. Complements the pipeline-structured approach of MetaGPT and the tool-use foundations of [[Toolformer]]. Connects to the negotiation-protocol tradition of [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] but at the natural-language level."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #role-playing #multi-agent #dialogue #cooperation","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"17760":1,"2023":2,"2303":1,"a":18,"abs":1,"acl":1,"against":1,"agent":10,"agentic":1,"agents":9,"agora":1,"ai":4,"alone":1,"along":1,"also":1,"an":3,"and":10,"answers":1,"approach":1,"are":1,"arxiv":1,"as":4,"assignment":1,"assistant":2,"at":1,"author":1,"authored":1,"authors":1,"autonomously":1,"based":2,"baseline":1,"be":1,"become":1,"behaviour":1,"bernard":1,"between":1,"building":1,"but":1,"by":3,"camel":4,"can":2,"carefully":2,"claim":1,"co":2,"code":2,"collect":1,"communication":4,"communicative":1,"complements":1,"complex":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":3,"connections":1,"connects":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"conversation":5,"converse":1,"cooperation":3,"cooperative":2,"coordination":1,"corpora":1,"could":1,"countermeasures":1,"datasets":2,"decompose":1,"designed":1,"deviation":1,"dialogue":6,"different":1,"dmitrii":1,"driven":1,"e":2,"ecosystem":1,"empirical":1,"enforces":1,"engine":1,"engineered":2,"engineering":2,"expands":1,"exploration":1,"failure":2,"file":1,"finetuning":1,"fipa":1,"first":1,"fixes":1,"flake":1,"flipping":2,"flow":1,"followed":1,"for":8,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"framework":3,"from":2,"g":2,"generalises":1,"generated":1,"generates":1,"ghanem":1,"goal":2,"guardrails":1,"guohao":2,"hammoud":1,"hand":1,"hani":1,"hasan":1,"have":1,"heterogeneous":1,"heuristics":1,"high":2,"https":1,"human":1,"idea":2,"ideas":1,"in":1,"inception":4,"influential":1,"infrastructure":1,"input":1,"instantiated":2,"instruction":2,"intent":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"inversion":1,"is":3,"it":1,"itani":1,"itself":1,"kaust":1,"key":1,"khizbullin":1,"kqml":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"large":2,"level":5,"li":2,"library":2,"llm":11,"llms":3,"loop":1,"loops":1,"math":2,"mechanism":2,"metagpt":1,"mind":1,"minimal":1,"model":1,"modes":2,"multi":7,"naive":1,"natural":1,"negotiating":1,"negotiation":2,"neither":1,"networks":3,"neurips":1,"of":11,"only":1,"open":2,"opposing":1,"org":1,"paired":1,"pairs":1,"paper":1,"pipeline":1,"play":1,"playing":8,"presents":1,"produced":1,"programmer":1,"prompt":4,"prompting":1,"prompts":4,"protocol":3,"protocols":2,"provides":1,"python":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"release":1,"released":1,"request":1,"resource":2,"response":2,"reusable":1,"role":15,"roles":2,"same":1,"scalable":3,"schema":1,"science":2,"self":1,"separates":1,"since":1,"single":1,"societies":1,"society":3,"solution":1,"solve":2,"solved":1,"source":2,"specifier":3,"specifies":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stock":1,"strict":1,"structured":1,"studies":1,"studying":1,"subgoal":1,"summary":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"taking":1,"task":5,"tasks":2,"taxonomy":1,"termination":1,"that":3,"the":15,"then":2,"to":3,"tool":1,"toolformer":1,"trader":1,"tradition":1,"turn":1,"turns":1,"two":3,"typically":1,"under":1,"until":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"user":2,"vague":1,"wave":1,"which":1,"who":1,"with":6,"without":1}},{"dl":435,"n":"Agents Framework - Zhou et al","s":"papers/llm-agents/agents-framework---zhou-et-al","secs":[{"h":"Agents: An Open-source Framework for Autonomous Language Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Wangchunshu Zhou et al. (2023). *arXiv:2309.07870v3 (AIWaves, Zhejiang University, ETH Zürich)*. Source file: `2309.07870v3.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07870)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces AGENTS, an open-source framework for building LLM-powered autonomous agents with first-class support for planning, long/short-term memory, tool use and web navigation, multi-agent communication, human-agent interaction, and fine-grained symbolic control via *Standard Operating Procedures* (SOPs). SOPs are state-graphs with LLM-editable transition rules and per-state prompt/tool configurations, giving users predictable, tunable control over otherwise stochastic agent behaviour. The framework is declarative (agents instantiated from config JSON), supports dynamic scheduling of which agent speaks next in multi-agent settings, provides a FastAPI deployment target and an Agent Hub for sharing/forking agents, and includes an automated SOP-generation pipeline (meta-agent)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- SOP as a symbolic plan / state graph for controllable agents - Dynamic scheduling: LLM controller picks next actor rather than fixed order - Memory split: long-term (VectorDB + sentence-transformers) vs short-term scratchpad - Config-driven agent construction reduces boilerplate - Meta-agent auto-generates SOPs from task descriptions via RAG"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Autonomous LLM-powered language agents become reliably controllable and customisable when their behaviour is specified by *symbolic plans* — Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) — represented as state graphs that an LLM-based controller traverses, rather than by monolithic prompts alone. - **Mechanism:** Open-source library AGENTS unifying planning, long/short-term memory (VectorDB + scratchpad), tool use & web navigation, multi-agent communication (with LLM-moderator for dynamic scheduling), human-agent interaction (`is_human` flag), and controllability via SOPs. Includes an automated \"meta-agent\" that generates SOPs and configs from a task description via RAG. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Language Agents]], [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]], [[Symbolic Plans]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Agent Hub]], [[Dynamic Scheduling]], [[Long-short Term Memory]], [[Meta-agent]], [[Retrieval-Augmented Generation]], [[Tool Use]], [[Human-in-the-loop]] - **Stance:** engineering / framework - **Relates to:** A concrete instantiation of the role-specialised multi-agent style advocated in [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]. Its SOP/controller discipline directly targets the failure modes later catalogued in [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]]. Its inter-agent messaging is more prescriptive than the negotiated protocols of [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]], sitting between classic ACLs ([[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], [[FIPA-ACL]]) and fully emergent LLM communication."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #framework #sop #multi-agent","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"07870":1,"07870v3":1,"2023":1,"2309":2,"a":6,"abs":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"actor":1,"advocated":1,"agent":22,"agents":13,"ai":2,"aiwaves":1,"al":1,"alone":1,"an":7,"and":9,"are":1,"arxiv":2,"as":3,"augmented":1,"auto":1,"automated":2,"autonomous":3,"based":1,"become":1,"behaviour":2,"between":1,"boilerplate":1,"building":1,"by":2,"catalogued":1,"chatbots":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classic":1,"collaboration":2,"communication":6,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"config":2,"configs":1,"configurations":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":1,"control":2,"controllability":1,"controllable":2,"controller":3,"customisable":1,"declarative":1,"deployment":1,"description":1,"descriptions":1,"directly":1,"discipline":1,"do":2,"driven":1,"dynamic":4,"editable":1,"eliza":1,"emergent":1,"engineering":1,"et":1,"eth":1,"fail":2,"failure":1,"fastapi":1,"file":1,"fine":1,"fipa":1,"first":1,"fixed":1,"flag":1,"for":8,"forking":1,"framework":5,"from":4,"fully":1,"generates":2,"generation":2,"giving":1,"grained":1,"graph":1,"graphs":2,"https":1,"hub":2,"human":3,"ideas":1,"in":6,"includes":2,"instantiated":1,"instantiation":1,"inter":1,"interaction":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":3,"its":2,"json":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"language":4,"later":1,"library":1,"llm":12,"llms":2,"long":4,"loop":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":4,"messaging":1,"meta":4,"moderator":1,"modes":1,"monolithic":1,"more":1,"multi":9,"navigation":2,"negotiated":1,"networks":2,"next":2,"of":5,"open":3,"operating":3,"order":1,"org":1,"otherwise":1,"over":1,"per":1,"picks":1,"pipeline":1,"plan":1,"planning":2,"plans":2,"powered":2,"predictable":1,"prescriptive":1,"procedures":3,"prompt":1,"prompts":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"rag":2,"rather":2,"reduces":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliably":1,"represented":1,"retrieval":1,"role":1,"rules":1,"scalable":2,"scheduling":4,"scratchpad":2,"sentence":1,"settings":1,"sharing":1,"short":4,"sitting":1,"social":1,"sop":4,"sops":7,"source":4,"speaks":1,"specialised":1,"specified":1,"split":1,"stance":1,"standard":3,"state":4,"stochastic":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"supports":1,"symbolic":4,"systems":2,"tags":1,"target":1,"targets":1,"task":2,"term":5,"than":3,"that":2,"the":5,"their":1,"to":2,"tool":4,"transformers":1,"transition":1,"traverses":1,"tunable":1,"tunkel":2,"unifying":1,"university":1,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"users":1,"vectordb":2,"via":4,"vs":1,"wangchunshu":1,"wasif":2,"web":2,"when":1,"which":1,"why":2,"with":3,"xiaoice":1,"zhejiang":1,"zhou":1,"zürich":1}},{"dl":374,"n":"Chain-of-Thought Prompting","s":"papers/llm-agents/chain-of-thought-prompting","secs":[{"h":"Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Wei, Wang, Schuurmans, Bosma, Ichter, Xia, Chi, Le, Zhou (2022). *NeurIPS 2022*. Source file: `2201.11903.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Shows that prompting a sufficiently large language model with a few exemplars that include intermediate natural-language reasoning steps — a *chain of thought* — dramatically improves performance on arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic reasoning benchmarks. The technique requires no finetuning, no verifiers, and no task-specific training data beyond a handful of (input, chain-of-thought, output) triples. Prompting PaLM-540B with eight chain-of-thought exemplars achieves then-state-of-the-art accuracy on GSM8K math word problems, surpassing even a finetuned GPT-3 with a verifier. Gains emerge only at scale (~100B parameters), making CoT one of the canonical examples of *emergent capability*. CoT underpins most modern agent reasoning loops (ReAct, ToT, Reflexion, LLM-Planner) referenced throughout [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[LLM Agents]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- A prompt of input/rationale/output triples unlocks multi-step reasoning without any parameter updates. - CoT is emergent: negligible benefit below ~100B parameters, striking gains above. - Works across arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic domains — the method is task-general. - Rationale generation enables interpretability windows and lays the groundwork for reasoning-trace auditing in agent security. - The externalised reasoning trace is itself an attack surface — later exploited by indirect [[Prompt Injection]] and adversarial rationale manipulation."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[Hallucination]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Providing a small number of exemplars with explicit intermediate reasoning steps in the prompt elicits multi-step reasoning in sufficiently large language models, yielding state-of-the-art performance without finetuning. - **Mechanism:** Few-shot prompt template ⟨input, chain-of-thought rationale, output⟩; the model learns to generate its own rationales before the final answer at inference time. - **Concepts introduced/used:** chain-of-thought prompting, emergent reasoning, prompt-only adaptation — the substrate for ReAct-style agent loops that structure [[LLM Agents]] and the reasoning traces attacked in [[AI Agents Under Threat]]. - **Stance:** empirical - **Relates to:** The reasoning-trace paradigm CoT popularises is the target of [[Prompt Injection]], goal-hijacking jailbreaks, and the brain-layer threats catalogued in [[AI Agents Under Threat]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"llm #prompting #reasoning #foundational #emergent-capability","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"100b":2,"11903":1,"2022":2,"2201":1,"3":1,"540b":1,"a":8,"above":1,"abs":1,"accuracy":1,"achieves":1,"across":1,"adaptation":1,"adversarial":1,"agent":3,"agents":7,"ai":4,"an":1,"and":8,"answer":1,"any":1,"arithmetic":2,"art":2,"arxiv":1,"at":2,"attack":1,"attacked":1,"auditing":1,"before":1,"below":1,"benchmarks":1,"benefit":1,"beyond":1,"bosma":1,"brain":1,"by":1,"canonical":1,"capability":2,"catalogued":1,"chain":6,"chi":1,"claim":1,"commonsense":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"cot":4,"data":1,"domains":1,"dramatically":1,"eight":1,"elicits":2,"emerge":1,"emergent":4,"empirical":1,"enables":1,"even":1,"examples":1,"exemplars":3,"explicit":1,"exploited":1,"externalised":1,"few":2,"file":1,"final":1,"finetuned":1,"finetuning":2,"for":2,"foundational":1,"gains":2,"general":1,"generate":1,"generation":1,"goal":1,"gpt":1,"groundwork":1,"gsm8k":1,"hallucination":1,"handful":1,"hijacking":1,"https":1,"ichter":1,"ideas":1,"improves":1,"in":6,"include":1,"indirect":1,"inference":1,"injection":3,"input":3,"intermediate":2,"interpretability":1,"introduced":1,"is":4,"its":1,"itself":1,"jailbreaks":1,"key":1,"language":4,"large":3,"later":1,"layer":1,"lays":1,"le":1,"learns":1,"llm":5,"loops":2,"making":1,"manipulation":1,"math":1,"mechanism":1,"method":1,"model":2,"models":2,"modern":1,"most":1,"multi":2,"natural":1,"negligible":1,"neurips":1,"no":3,"number":1,"of":14,"on":2,"one":1,"only":2,"org":1,"output":3,"own":1,"palm":1,"paradigm":1,"parameter":1,"parameters":2,"performance":2,"planner":1,"popularises":1,"problems":1,"prompt":7,"prompting":5,"providing":1,"rationale":4,"rationales":1,"react":2,"reasoning":13,"reference":1,"referenced":1,"reflexion":1,"relates":1,"requires":1,"scale":1,"schuurmans":1,"security":1,"shot":1,"shows":1,"small":1,"source":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"state":2,"step":2,"steps":2,"striking":1,"structure":1,"style":1,"substrate":1,"sufficiently":2,"summary":1,"surface":1,"surpassing":1,"symbolic":2,"tags":1,"target":1,"task":2,"technique":1,"template":1,"that":3,"the":15,"then":1,"thought":6,"threat":4,"threats":1,"throughout":1,"time":1,"to":2,"tool":1,"tot":1,"trace":3,"traces":1,"training":1,"triples":2,"under":4,"underpins":1,"unlocks":1,"updates":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"verifier":1,"verifiers":1,"wang":1,"wei":1,"windows":1,"with":4,"without":2,"word":1,"works":1,"xia":1,"yielding":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":636,"n":"The Bitter Lesson","s":"papers/llm-agents/the-bitter-lesson","secs":[{"h":"The Bitter Lesson","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sutton, R. S. (March 13, 2019). Essay on personal website, *Incomplete Ideas*. Not a PDF — HTML essay, captured via `ar-crawl`. [URL](http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Sutton's short but enormously influential essay argues that seventy years of AI research teach one lesson: **general methods that leverage computation are ultimately most effective, by a large margin**, and attempts to encode human domain knowledge tend to plateau and eventually obstruct progress. The ultimate driver is Moore's law — the exponentially falling cost of computation — which guarantees that whatever computational budget a method can exploit will become dramatically larger on timescales shorter than a research career. Researchers, pressed for short-term gains, routinely build in human understanding; this helps locally but impedes the methods that scale. He marshals four case studies to make the point concrete: **computer chess** (Deep Blue's brute-force search beat knowledge-engineered systems in 1997, to their practitioners' dismay); **computer Go** (a 20-year delay of the same pattern, culminating in search + self-play value learning); **speech recognition** (statistical HMMs and later deep learning displaced phoneme/vocal-tract-engineered systems); and **computer vision** (edges, SIFT, generalized cylinders replaced by convolutional nets). The two methods that scale arbitrarily with compute are **search** and **learning**. The deeper second lesson: the contents of minds are irredeemably complex, so we should not try to build simple theories of space, objects, multi-agent interaction, or symmetry *into* systems; we should instead build **meta-methods** that can discover that complexity themselves. \"We want AI agents that can discover like we can, not which contain what we have discovered.\" Key quotes preserved for future reference: > \"The biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI research is that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin.\" > \"The two methods that seem to scale arbitrarily in this way are search and learning.\" > \"We have to learn the bitter lesson that building in how we think we think does not work in the long run.\" > \"We want AI agents that can discover like we can, not which contain what we have discovered.\""},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":20,"t":"- Moore's-law-driven scaling dominates human-knowledge engineering. - Search and learning are the two methods that scale with compute. - Four canonical case studies: chess, Go, speech, vision. - Human-knowledge approaches plateau and hinder further progress. - Minds are irredeemably complex; build meta-methods, not content. - Bitterness: success is over a favoured, human-centric approach."},{"h":"Connections","l":28,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Toolformer]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[BDI]] - [[Ontologies]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":38,"t":"- **Claim:** Across AI's history, general, computation-hungry methods (especially search and learning) win out over methods that build in human domain knowledge, because compute grows exponentially while human-knowledge investments do not; therefore AI research should focus on meta-methods that discover complexity rather than encode it. - **Mechanism:** Sutton induces the claim from four episodes (chess, Go, speech recognition, vision) in which knowledge-engineered approaches were surpassed, often reluctantly, by compute-leveraging statistical/search/learning approaches; he identifies search and learning as the two classes of techniques that scale arbitrarily with compute; and draws the meta-conclusion that the contents of minds are too complex to be programmed directly — only discovery procedures generalise. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Bitter Lesson]], [[Scaling]], [[Search and Learning]], [[Meta-Methods]], [[General-Purpose Methods]] - **Stance:** methodological manifesto - **Relates to:** Retrospectively justifies the architectural bet of [[Attention Is All You Need]] and the empirical scaling results of [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]]; stands in explicit tension with the knowledge-engineering tradition underpinning [[BDI]], [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] and [[Ontologies]]; frames the debate over whether [[LLM Agents]] supersede or complement structured agent architectures."},{"h":"Tags","l":45,"t":""},{"h":"scaling #foundational #methodology #ai-history #manifesto","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"13":1,"1997":1,"20":1,"2019":1,"70":1,"a":7,"across":1,"agent":4,"agents":5,"ai":7,"all":2,"and":16,"approach":1,"approaches":3,"arbitrarily":3,"architectural":1,"architectures":1,"are":10,"argues":1,"as":1,"attempts":1,"attention":2,"bdi":2,"be":2,"beat":1,"because":1,"become":1,"bet":1,"biggest":1,"bitter":3,"bitterlesson":1,"bitterness":1,"blue":1,"brute":1,"budget":1,"build":5,"building":1,"but":2,"by":4,"can":7,"canonical":1,"captured":1,"career":1,"case":2,"centric":1,"chess":3,"claim":2,"classes":1,"complement":1,"complex":3,"complexity":2,"computation":4,"computational":1,"compute":5,"computer":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conclusion":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"contain":2,"content":1,"contents":2,"contribution":1,"convolutional":1,"cost":1,"culminating":1,"cylinders":1,"debate":1,"deep":2,"deeper":1,"delay":1,"directly":1,"discover":4,"discovered":2,"discovery":1,"dismay":1,"displaced":1,"do":1,"does":1,"domain":2,"dominates":1,"dramatically":1,"draws":1,"driven":1,"driver":1,"edges":1,"effective":2,"empirical":1,"encode":2,"engineered":3,"engineering":2,"enormously":1,"episodes":1,"especially":1,"essay":3,"eventually":1,"explicit":1,"exploit":1,"exponentially":2,"falling":1,"favoured":1,"few":2,"focus":1,"for":2,"force":1,"foundational":1,"four":3,"frames":1,"from":2,"further":1,"future":1,"gains":1,"general":4,"generalise":1,"generalized":1,"go":3,"grows":1,"guarantees":1,"have":3,"he":2,"helps":1,"hinder":1,"history":2,"hmms":1,"how":1,"html":2,"http":1,"human":7,"hungry":1,"ideas":2,"identifies":1,"impedes":1,"in":9,"incideas":1,"incomplete":1,"incompleteideas":1,"induces":1,"influential":1,"instead":1,"intelligent":1,"interaction":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"investments":1,"irredeemably":2,"is":5,"it":1,"justifies":1,"key":2,"knowledge":8,"language":2,"large":2,"larger":1,"later":1,"law":2,"learn":1,"learners":2,"learning":9,"lesson":6,"leverage":2,"leveraging":1,"like":2,"llm":2,"locally":1,"long":1,"make":1,"manifesto":2,"march":1,"margin":2,"marshals":1,"mechanism":1,"meta":5,"method":1,"methodological":1,"methodology":1,"methods":13,"minds":3,"models":2,"moore":2,"most":2,"multi":1,"need":2,"net":1,"nets":1,"not":7,"objects":1,"obstruct":1,"of":10,"often":1,"on":3,"one":1,"only":1,"ontologies":2,"or":2,"oriented":2,"out":1,"over":3,"pattern":1,"pdf":1,"personal":1,"phoneme":1,"plateau":2,"play":1,"point":1,"practice":1,"practitioners":1,"preserved":1,"pressed":1,"procedures":1,"programmed":1,"programming":2,"progress":2,"purpose":1,"quotes":1,"r":1,"rather":1,"read":1,"recognition":2,"reference":2,"relates":1,"reluctantly":1,"replaced":1,"research":4,"researchers":1,"results":1,"retrospectively":1,"routinely":1,"run":1,"s":6,"same":1,"scale":5,"scaling":4,"search":9,"second":1,"seem":1,"self":1,"seventy":1,"short":2,"shorter":1,"shot":2,"should":3,"sift":1,"simple":1,"so":1,"space":1,"speech":3,"stance":1,"stands":1,"statistical":2,"structured":1,"studies":2,"success":1,"summary":1,"supersede":1,"surpassed":1,"sutton":3,"symmetry":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"teach":1,"techniques":1,"tend":1,"tension":1,"term":1,"than":2,"that":19,"the":23,"their":1,"themselves":1,"theories":1,"theory":1,"therefore":1,"think":2,"this":2,"timescales":1,"to":9,"too":1,"toolformer":1,"tract":1,"tradition":1,"try":1,"two":4,"ultimate":1,"ultimately":2,"underpinning":1,"understanding":1,"url":1,"used":1,"value":1,"via":1,"vision":3,"vocal":1,"want":2,"way":1,"we":11,"website":1,"were":1,"what":2,"whatever":1,"whether":1,"which":4,"while":1,"will":1,"win":1,"with":4,"work":1,"www":1,"year":1,"years":2,"you":2}},{"dl":502,"n":"MetaGPT Meta Programming for Multi-Agent Collaboration","s":"papers/llm-agents/metagpt-meta-programming-for-multi-agent-collaboration","secs":[{"h":"MetaGPT: Meta Programming for a Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiaqi Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Jinlin Wang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, Jürgen Schmidhuber (2024). *ICLR 2024*. Source file: `downloads/metagpt.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00352)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Proposes a multi-agent LLM framework that encodes human *Standard Operating Procedures* (SOPs) — the waterfall-style division of labour used in software companies — directly into the agent protocol. Agents are assigned concrete professional roles (Product Manager, Architect, Project Manager, Engineer, QA) and communicate not through free-form chat but through *structured artefacts* (PRD, system design, API spec, task list, code, test report). Each artefact has a fixed schema that the downstream role consumes. To curb hallucination and long-horizon error compounding, MetaGPT introduces an *executable feedback* mechanism: generated code is executed, failures are fed back to the Engineer role, and edits iterate until tests pass. On HumanEval, MBPP, and an in-house software-generation benchmark, MetaGPT substantially outperforms single-agent and unstructured multi-agent baselines, establishing structured-artefact communication as a practical antidote to cascading hallucination in agent collectives."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Encode human SOPs as the coordination protocol for LLM agents - Message-passing over *structured artefacts* (PRD, design, API spec, code) rather than free chat - Publish-subscribe shared message pool + role-based subscription filter - Executable feedback loop for self-correcting code generation - First multi-agent LLM framework to ship end-to-end software from a one-line requirement"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]] - [[Protocol Documents]] - [[Roles]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Conversation Protocols]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Free-form natural-language chat is the wrong coordination medium for LLM agent collectives; encoding human SOPs and requiring communication via structured, role-specific artefacts dramatically reduces hallucination compounding and enables reliable multi-step software generation. - **Mechanism:** Agents are typed by professional role with role-specific prompts and tools. Communication flows through a shared *message pool* with a *subscription* filter so each role sees only artefacts relevant to it. Each stage emits a schema-constrained artefact consumed by the next. An *executable feedback* subsystem runs the generated code, captures failures, and loops them back to the Engineer role for targeted repair. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]], [[Roles]], [[LLM Agents]], publish-subscribe message pool, structured artefact communication, executable feedback, [[Protocol Documents]] - **Stance:** engineering / empirical - **Relates to:** Directly cited by [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] as an example of rigid, hand-designed inter-agent protocols — Agora's negotiated [[Protocol Documents]] can be seen as a dynamic, decentralised generalisation of MetaGPT's fixed SOP artefacts. Shares the structured-artefact intuition with [[FIPA-ACL]] and [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], but grounds it in LLM-generatable schemas rather than stipulated performatives. Contrast with the free-dialogue role-play of [[CAMEL Communicative Agents for Mind Exploration of LLM Society]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent #software-engineering #sop #structured-communication","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"00352":1,"2024":2,"2308":1,"a":11,"abs":1,"acl":1,"agent":13,"agents":7,"agora":1,"an":5,"and":10,"antidote":1,"api":2,"architect":1,"are":3,"artefact":5,"artefacts":5,"arxiv":1,"as":5,"assigned":1,"back":2,"based":1,"baselines":1,"be":1,"benchmark":1,"but":2,"by":3,"camel":1,"can":1,"captures":1,"cascading":1,"ceyao":1,"chat":3,"chen":1,"cheng":1,"chenglin":1,"chenyu":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"code":5,"collaborative":1,"collectives":2,"communicate":1,"communication":9,"communicative":1,"companies":1,"compounding":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"constrained":1,"consumed":1,"consumes":1,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":1,"coordination":2,"correcting":1,"curb":1,"decentralised":1,"design":2,"designed":1,"dialogue":1,"directly":2,"division":1,"documents":3,"downstream":1,"dramatically":1,"dynamic":1,"each":3,"edits":1,"emits":1,"empirical":1,"enables":1,"encode":1,"encodes":1,"encoding":1,"end":2,"engineer":3,"engineering":2,"error":1,"establishing":1,"example":1,"executable":4,"executed":1,"exploration":1,"failures":2,"fed":1,"feedback":4,"file":1,"filter":2,"fipa":1,"first":1,"fixed":2,"flows":1,"for":8,"form":2,"framework":3,"free":4,"from":1,"generalisation":1,"generatable":1,"generated":2,"generation":3,"grounds":1,"hallucination":3,"hand":1,"has":1,"hong":1,"horizon":1,"house":1,"https":1,"human":3,"humaneval":1,"iclr":1,"ideas":1,"in":4,"inter":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"intuition":1,"is":2,"it":2,"iterate":1,"jiaqi":1,"jinlin":1,"jürgen":1,"ka":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"labour":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"lin":1,"line":1,"lingfeng":1,"list":1,"liyang":1,"llm":9,"llms":2,"long":1,"loop":1,"loops":1,"manager":2,"mbpp":1,"mechanism":2,"medium":1,"message":4,"meta":1,"metagpt":4,"mind":1,"mingchen":1,"multi":7,"natural":1,"negotiated":1,"networks":2,"next":1,"not":1,"of":7,"on":1,"one":1,"only":1,"operating":3,"org":1,"outperforms":1,"over":1,"pass":1,"passing":1,"performatives":1,"play":1,"pool":3,"practical":1,"prd":2,"procedures":3,"product":1,"professional":2,"programming":1,"project":1,"prompts":1,"proposes":1,"protocol":7,"protocols":2,"publish":2,"qa":1,"ran":1,"rather":2,"reduces":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relevant":1,"reliable":1,"repair":1,"report":1,"requirement":1,"requiring":1,"rigid":1,"role":9,"roles":3,"runs":1,"s":2,"scalable":2,"schema":2,"schemas":1,"schmidhuber":1,"seen":1,"sees":1,"self":1,"shared":2,"shares":1,"shing":1,"ship":1,"single":1,"sirui":1,"so":1,"society":1,"software":5,"sop":2,"sops":5,"source":1,"spec":2,"specific":2,"stage":1,"stance":1,"standard":3,"step":1,"steven":1,"stipulated":1,"structured":7,"style":1,"subscribe":2,"subscription":2,"substantially":1,"subsystem":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"targeted":1,"task":1,"test":1,"tests":1,"than":2,"that":2,"the":11,"them":1,"through":3,"to":8,"tools":1,"typed":1,"unstructured":1,"until":1,"url":1,"used":2,"via":1,"wang":2,"waterfall":1,"with":4,"wrong":1,"wu":1,"xiao":1,"xiawu":1,"yau":1,"yuheng":1,"zhang":1,"zheng":1,"zhou":1,"zhuge":1,"zijuan":1,"zili":1}},{"dl":415,"n":"AutoGen - Multi-Agent Conversation Framework","s":"papers/llm-agents/autogen---multi-agent-conversation-framework","secs":[{"h":"AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Wu, Bansal, Zhang, Wu, Li, Zhu, Jiang, Zhang, Zhang, Liu, Awadallah, White, Burger, Wang (2023). Microsoft Research et al. *arXiv:2308.08155v2*. Source file: `2308.08155v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08155)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"AutoGen is an open-source Microsoft framework for building LLM applications as conversations among customisable **conversable agents**. Each agent has a configurable back-end (LLMs, humans, tools, or a combination) and can send, receive, and react to messages. Developers compose applications by (1) defining specialised conversable agents and (2) programming their interaction patterns via natural language prompts and/or code — a paradigm the authors call **conversation programming**. The framework supports diverse topologies (two-agent chat, group chat, hierarchical chat, dynamic routing), human-in-the-loop participation, and tool execution via code or function calls. Empirical studies demonstrate AutoGen on math, coding, QA, operations research, online decision-making, and entertainment tasks, showing that multi-agent conversations can exceed single-agent performance while reducing development effort."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Conversable agents** as the unifying abstraction — uniform message interface over LLMs, humans, and tools. - **Conversation programming**: defining agent capabilities + scripting their interaction patterns as the application-building paradigm. - Flexible conversation topologies: joint chat, hierarchical chat, group chat, dynamic routing. - Human-in-the-loop and tool execution as first-class participants, not special cases. - Empirical validation across six domains showing modular composition yields strong task performance."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Multi-agent LLM applications are best built as **conversations between conversable agents** whose behaviour is programmed via a fusion of natural-language prompts and code; this abstraction unifies LLM, human, and tool participants under one message-passing model. - **Mechanism:** Introduces a Python framework with `ConversableAgent`, `AssistantAgent`, `UserProxyAgent` classes; message passing drives LLM inference, human input requests, or tool/code execution; developers declaratively compose agent graphs. Case studies quantify gains over single-agent baselines. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Tool Use]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Interoperability]] - **Stance:** framework / empirical study - **Relates to:** Cited by [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] as prior art for in-framework agent coordination that protocols like [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] now aim to standardise across frameworks. Its conversation-programming abstraction is a concrete instance of the communication-centric view advocated by [[Beyond Self-Talk - Communication-Centric Survey Of LLM Multi-Agent Systems]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent-systems #framework #tool-use #conversation-programming","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"08155":1,"08155v2":1,"1":1,"2":1,"2023":1,"2308":2,"a":6,"abs":1,"abstraction":3,"across":2,"advocated":1,"agent":22,"agents":7,"aim":1,"al":1,"among":1,"an":1,"and":10,"application":1,"applications":4,"are":1,"art":1,"arxiv":2,"as":6,"authors":1,"autogen":3,"awadallah":1,"back":1,"bansal":1,"baselines":1,"behaviour":1,"best":1,"between":1,"beyond":1,"building":2,"built":1,"burger":1,"by":3,"call":1,"calls":1,"can":2,"capabilities":1,"case":1,"cases":1,"centric":2,"chat":6,"cited":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"code":4,"coding":1,"combination":1,"communication":4,"compose":2,"composition":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"configurable":1,"connections":1,"context":1,"contribution":1,"conversable":4,"conversation":6,"conversations":3,"coordination":1,"customisable":1,"decision":1,"declaratively":1,"defining":2,"demonstrate":1,"developers":2,"development":1,"diverse":1,"domains":1,"drives":1,"dynamic":2,"each":1,"effort":1,"empirical":3,"enabling":1,"end":1,"entertainment":1,"et":1,"exceed":1,"execution":3,"file":1,"first":1,"flexible":1,"for":2,"framework":6,"frameworks":1,"function":1,"fusion":1,"gains":1,"gen":1,"graphs":1,"group":2,"has":1,"hierarchical":2,"https":1,"human":4,"humans":2,"ideas":1,"in":3,"inference":1,"input":1,"instance":1,"interaction":2,"interface":1,"interoperability":3,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":3,"its":1,"jiang":1,"joint":1,"key":1,"language":2,"languages":2,"li":1,"like":1,"liu":1,"llm":9,"llms":2,"loop":2,"making":1,"math":1,"mechanism":1,"message":3,"messages":1,"microsoft":2,"model":2,"modular":1,"multi":7,"natural":2,"next":1,"not":1,"now":1,"of":5,"on":1,"one":1,"online":1,"open":1,"operations":1,"or":4,"org":1,"over":2,"paradigm":2,"participants":2,"participation":1,"passing":2,"patterns":2,"performance":2,"prior":1,"programmed":1,"programming":5,"prompts":2,"protocol":3,"protocols":3,"python":1,"qa":1,"quantify":1,"react":1,"receive":1,"reducing":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"requests":1,"research":2,"routing":2,"scripting":1,"self":1,"send":1,"showing":2,"single":2,"six":1,"source":2,"special":1,"specialised":1,"stance":1,"standardise":1,"strong":1,"studies":2,"study":1,"summary":1,"supports":1,"survey":3,"systems":4,"tags":1,"talk":1,"task":1,"tasks":1,"that":2,"the":7,"their":2,"this":1,"to":5,"tool":7,"tools":2,"topologies":2,"two":1,"under":1,"unifies":1,"uniform":1,"unifying":1,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"validation":1,"via":4,"view":1,"wang":1,"while":1,"white":1,"whose":1,"with":1,"wu":2,"yields":1,"zhang":3,"zhu":1}},{"dl":556,"n":"Attention Is All You Need","s":"papers/llm-agents/attention-is-all-you-need","secs":[{"h":"Attention Is All You Need","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* 30 (NeurIPS). arXiv:1706.03762. Source file: `vaswani_attention_is_all_you_need.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper introduces the **Transformer**, a sequence-transduction architecture that dispenses entirely with recurrence and convolution and relies solely on attention mechanisms to model dependencies between input and output tokens. An encoder stack of N=6 identical layers, each composed of a multi-head self-attention sub-layer and a position-wise feed-forward sub-layer (with residual connections and layer normalisation), encodes the source; a symmetric decoder stack augments each layer with masked self-attention and cross-attention to the encoder output. Because the architecture has no inherent notion of token order, sinusoidal **positional encodings** are added to the input embeddings. The core primitive is **scaled dot-product attention**, Attention(Q,K,V) = softmax(QKᵀ/√dₖ)V, extended to **multi-head attention** by linearly projecting Q, K, V h=8 times into lower-dimensional subspaces, running attention in parallel, and concatenating the results. The motivation is computational: self-attention has O(1) sequential operations and O(1) maximum path length between any two positions — much shorter than recurrent or convolutional alternatives — enabling far greater parallelism and better gradient flow over long distances. The Transformer achieves state-of-the-art BLEU on WMT 2014 En–De (28.4) and En–Fr (41.8) at a small fraction of prior training cost and generalises to constituency parsing. It is the architectural substrate on which virtually all subsequent large language models are built."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Pure attention architecture; no recurrence or convolution. - Scaled dot-product attention with 1/√dₖ scaling to stabilise softmax gradients. - Multi-head attention for attending to different representation subspaces. - Three uses of attention: encoder self-attention, decoder masked self-attention, encoder-decoder cross-attention. - Sinusoidal positional encodings enable extrapolation beyond training lengths. - O(1) path length supports learning of long-range dependencies. - Massive parallelism compared to RNNs; dramatic training cost reduction."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]] - [[Toolformer]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[The Bitter Lesson]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Recurrence and convolution are unnecessary for high-quality sequence transduction; an architecture built entirely from (multi-head, self-)attention and feed-forward layers outperforms prior state-of-the-art on machine translation while training in a fraction of the time. - **Mechanism:** Replace RNN hidden-state chains with an encoder-decoder stack of identical layers, each using scaled dot-product multi-head attention plus position-wise FFN with residual connections and layer norm; inject order via sinusoidal positional encodings; use masked self-attention in the decoder to preserve autoregression; exploit O(1) sequential complexity and O(1) max path length to parallelise across sequence positions and shorten gradient paths to long-range dependencies. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Transformer]], [[Self-Attention]], [[Multi-Head Attention]], [[Positional Encoding]], [[Scaled Dot-Product Attention]], [[Encoder-Decoder Attention]] - **Stance:** empirical architecture paper - **Relates to:** Architectural substrate for [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]], [[Toolformer]] and the entire [[LLM Agents]] literature; exemplifies the scaling-over-structure thesis of [[The Bitter Lesson]]; reshapes what \"agent architecture\" means relative to [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]'s 1990s taxonomy."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"llm #transformer #deep-learning #foundational #attention","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"03762":2,"1":6,"1706":2,"1990s":1,"2014":1,"2017":1,"28":1,"30":1,"4":1,"41":1,"6":1,"8":2,"a":8,"abs":1,"achieves":1,"across":1,"added":1,"advances":1,"agent":2,"agents":4,"all":2,"alternatives":1,"an":3,"and":19,"any":1,"architectural":2,"architecture":6,"are":5,"art":2,"arxiv":2,"at":1,"attending":1,"attention":25,"augments":1,"autoregression":1,"because":1,"better":1,"between":2,"beyond":1,"bitter":2,"bleu":1,"built":2,"by":1,"chains":1,"claim":1,"compared":1,"complexity":1,"composed":1,"computational":1,"concatenating":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":3,"constituency":1,"contribution":1,"convolution":3,"convolutional":1,"core":1,"cost":2,"cross":2,"de":1,"decoder":6,"deep":1,"dependencies":3,"different":1,"dimensional":1,"dispenses":1,"distances":1,"dot":4,"dramatic":1,"dₖ":2,"each":3,"embeddings":1,"empirical":1,"en":2,"enable":1,"enabling":1,"encoder":6,"encodes":1,"encoding":1,"encodings":3,"entire":1,"entirely":2,"exemplifies":1,"exploit":1,"extended":1,"extrapolation":1,"far":1,"feed":2,"few":2,"ffn":1,"file":1,"flow":1,"for":3,"forward":2,"foundational":1,"fr":1,"fraction":2,"from":1,"generalises":1,"gomez":1,"gradient":2,"gradients":1,"greater":1,"h":1,"has":2,"head":6,"hidden":1,"high":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identical":2,"in":4,"information":1,"inherent":1,"inject":1,"input":2,"intelligent":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":4,"it":1,"j":1,"jones":1,"k":2,"kaiser":1,"key":1,"l":2,"language":3,"large":1,"layer":5,"layers":3,"learners":2,"learning":2,"length":3,"lengths":1,"lesson":2,"linearly":1,"literature":1,"llm":3,"long":3,"lower":1,"machine":1,"masked":3,"massive":1,"max":1,"maximum":1,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"model":1,"models":3,"motivation":1,"much":1,"multi":6,"n":4,"need":1,"neural":1,"neurips":1,"no":2,"norm":1,"normalisation":1,"notion":1,"o":5,"of":11,"on":4,"operations":1,"or":2,"order":2,"org":1,"oriented":1,"outperforms":1,"output":2,"over":2,"paper":2,"parallel":1,"parallelise":1,"parallelism":2,"parmar":1,"parsing":1,"path":3,"paths":1,"plus":1,"polosukhin":1,"position":2,"positional":4,"positions":2,"practice":2,"preserve":1,"primitive":1,"prior":2,"processing":1,"product":4,"programming":1,"projecting":1,"pure":1,"q":2,"qkᵀ":1,"quality":1,"range":2,"recurrence":3,"recurrent":1,"reduction":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relative":1,"relies":1,"replace":1,"representation":1,"reshapes":1,"residual":2,"results":1,"rnn":1,"rnns":1,"running":1,"s":1,"scaled":4,"scaling":2,"self":8,"sequence":3,"sequential":2,"shazeer":1,"shorten":1,"shorter":1,"shot":2,"sinusoidal":3,"small":1,"softmax":2,"solely":1,"source":2,"stabilise":1,"stack":3,"stance":1,"state":3,"structure":1,"sub":2,"subsequent":1,"subspaces":2,"substrate":2,"summary":1,"supports":1,"symmetric":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":19,"theory":2,"thesis":1,"three":1,"time":1,"times":1,"to":13,"token":1,"tokens":1,"toolformer":2,"training":4,"transduction":2,"transformer":4,"translation":1,"two":1,"unnecessary":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"uszkoreit":1,"v":3,"vaswani":1,"via":1,"virtually":1,"what":1,"which":1,"while":1,"wise":2,"with":6,"wmt":1,"you":1}},{"dl":364,"n":"Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms - Survey of LLMs","s":"papers/llm-agents/multi-agent-collaboration-mechanisms---survey-of-llms","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Tran, Dao, Nguyen, Pham, O'Sullivan, Nguyen (2025). *arXiv:2501.06322*. Source file: `2501.06322.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06322)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"An extensive survey of LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MASs) focused on *collaboration mechanisms*. The authors propose an extensible framework characterising collaboration along five dimensions: **actors** (which agents), **types** (cooperation / competition / coopetition), **structures** (peer-to-peer, centralised, distributed), **strategies** (role-based vs model-based), and **coordination protocols**. They review methodologies across question answering, planning, debate, and role-play settings, and survey application domains including 5G/6G networks, Industry 5.0, and social simulation. The survey explicitly positions itself as complementing prior single-agent or architecture-centric reviews by foregrounding collaboration channels — how agents actually talk, negotiate, and align — as the design pivot for scaling toward \"artificial collective intelligence.\""},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Five-axis taxonomy of MAS collaboration: actors, types, structures, strategies, coordination protocols. - Distinction between cooperative, competitive, and coopetitive channels as interaction primitives. - Peer-to-peer vs centralised vs distributed MAS topologies map onto different coordination protocols. - Role-based vs model-based strategies for dividing labour among specialised LLM agents. - Open problems: scalability, evaluation benchmarks, cultural/social alignment of MAS behaviour."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Understanding LLM-based MAS requires a dedicated taxonomy of *collaboration mechanisms*, not just architectures or application domains; collaboration can be characterised along actors, types, structures, strategies, and protocols. - **Mechanism:** Systematically reviews ~130 MAS works, maps each onto the five-dimension framework, then compares coordination protocols (debate, voting, role-play, tool-mediated) and draws lessons about scalability and emergence. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Interoperability]], [[Agent Discovery]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Cited by [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] as prior art motivating its protocol-centric lens; offers a more behavioural counterpart to that paper's structural comparison of MCP/ACP/A2A/ANP. Converges with [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] on the need to treat protocols as ecosystems, not point-to-point specs."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent-systems #survey #collaboration","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"06322":2,"130":1,"2025":1,"2501":2,"5":1,"5g":1,"6g":1,"a":3,"a2a":1,"about":1,"abs":1,"acp":1,"across":1,"actors":3,"actually":1,"agent":15,"agents":6,"ai":2,"align":1,"alignment":1,"along":2,"among":1,"an":2,"and":9,"anp":1,"answering":1,"application":2,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"art":1,"artificial":1,"arxiv":2,"as":5,"authors":1,"axis":1,"based":6,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"behavioural":1,"benchmarks":1,"between":1,"by":2,"can":1,"centralised":2,"centric":2,"channels":2,"characterised":1,"characterising":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"collaboration":8,"collective":1,"communication":2,"compares":1,"comparison":1,"competition":1,"competitive":1,"complementing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"context":1,"contribution":1,"converges":1,"cooperation":1,"cooperative":1,"coopetition":1,"coopetitive":1,"coordination":4,"counterpart":1,"cultural":1,"dao":1,"debate":2,"dedicated":1,"design":1,"different":1,"dimension":1,"dimensions":1,"discovery":1,"distinction":1,"distributed":2,"dividing":1,"domains":2,"draws":1,"each":1,"ecosystems":1,"emergence":1,"evaluation":1,"explicitly":1,"extensible":1,"extensive":1,"file":1,"five":3,"focused":1,"for":2,"foregrounding":1,"framework":2,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"including":1,"industry":1,"intelligence":1,"interaction":1,"interoperability":3,"introduced":1,"its":1,"itself":1,"just":1,"key":1,"labour":1,"languages":2,"lens":1,"lessons":1,"llm":6,"llms":1,"map":1,"maps":1,"mas":5,"mass":1,"mcp":1,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":3,"mediated":1,"methodologies":1,"model":3,"more":1,"motivating":1,"multi":5,"need":1,"negotiate":1,"networks":1,"nguyen":2,"not":2,"o":1,"of":10,"offers":1,"on":2,"onto":2,"open":1,"or":2,"org":1,"paper":1,"peer":4,"pham":1,"pivot":1,"planning":1,"play":2,"point":2,"positions":1,"primitives":1,"prior":2,"problems":1,"propose":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":10,"question":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"requires":1,"review":1,"reviews":2,"role":4,"s":1,"scalability":2,"scaling":1,"settings":1,"simulation":1,"single":1,"social":2,"source":1,"specialised":1,"specs":1,"stance":1,"strategies":4,"structural":1,"structures":3,"sullivan":1,"summary":1,"survey":10,"systematically":1,"systems":4,"tags":1,"talk":1,"taxonomy":2,"that":1,"the":5,"then":1,"they":1,"to":7,"tool":1,"topologies":1,"toward":1,"tran":1,"treat":1,"types":3,"understanding":1,"url":1,"used":1,"voting":1,"vs":4,"which":1,"with":1,"works":1}},{"dl":331,"n":"Ripple Effect Protocol","s":"papers/llm-agents/ripple-effect-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Ripple Effect Protocol: Coordinating Agent Populations","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Chopra, Sharma, Ahmad, Muscariello, Pandey, Raskar (2025). *arXiv:2510.16572* (Project Iceberg, MIT / Cisco). Source file: `2510.16572v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16572)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"REP is a coordination protocol for populations of LLM agents that augments existing messaging (A2A, ACP, SLIM) with *sensitivity sharing*: agents broadcast not only their decisions but lightweight signals expressing how those decisions would change under counterfactual environmental shifts. Neighbours aggregate these sensitivities into shared coordination variables, letting groups converge faster and more stably than with decision-only exchange. The protocol separates cognition (local LLM policy) from coordination (aggregation + optional consensus). Experiments on the Beer Game (bullwhip reduction of 41.8%), Fishbanks (sustainability +25%), and movie-scheduling show 41-100% coordination-accuracy gains over A2A baselines and scale from 10 to 200 agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Sensitivity = textual or numeric derivative of a decision w.r.t. environment. - Four-step round: receive, decide+sensitivity, aggregate neighbors, optional median consensus. - Modality-agnostic aggregator phi (numeric gradient or LLM-synthesized textual update). - Transport-agnostic: works over SLIM, A2A, ACP. - Mitigates information cascades / bullwhip effects in open agent networks."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Agent populations coordinate faster and more stably when they share not just decisions but *sensitivities* - counterfactual derivatives of decisions w.r.t. the environment. - **Mechanism:** A transport-agnostic four-step round (receive, decide+sensitivity, aggregate, optional median consensus) layered atop [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]]/ACP/SLIM, validated on Beer Game (bullwhip -41.8%), Fishbanks, and movie scheduling up to 200 agents. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Sensitivity Sharing]], [[Coordination Variables]], [[Information Cascades]], [[Gossip Protocols]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Emergent Communication]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Realises the structured-coordination vision of [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] and instantiates an L4 Navigate-level protocol from [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]; extends aggregation intuitions from [[Gossip Protocols]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"coordination #multi-agent-systems #llm-agents #protocols","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"100":1,"16572":2,"200":2,"2025":1,"25":1,"2510":2,"41":3,"8":2,"a":3,"a2a":3,"abs":1,"accuracy":1,"acp":3,"agent":12,"agents":8,"aggregate":3,"aggregation":2,"aggregator":1,"agnostic":3,"ahmad":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":6,"arxiv":2,"atop":1,"augments":1,"baselines":1,"beer":2,"broadcast":1,"bullwhip":3,"but":2,"cascades":2,"change":1,"chopra":1,"cisco":1,"claim":1,"cognition":1,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consensus":3,"contribution":1,"converge":1,"coordinate":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":7,"counterfactual":2,"decide":2,"decision":2,"decisions":4,"derivative":1,"derivatives":1,"effect":1,"effects":1,"emergent":1,"engineering":1,"environment":2,"environmental":1,"exchange":1,"existing":1,"experiments":1,"expressing":1,"extends":1,"faster":2,"file":1,"fishbanks":2,"for":1,"four":2,"from":4,"gains":1,"game":2,"gossip":3,"gradient":1,"groups":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"iceberg":1,"ideas":1,"in":2,"information":2,"instantiates":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"intuitions":1,"is":1,"just":1,"key":1,"l4":1,"language":1,"layered":1,"letting":1,"level":1,"levels":2,"lightweight":1,"llm":6,"local":1,"mechanism":1,"median":2,"messaging":1,"mit":1,"mitigates":1,"modality":1,"more":2,"movie":2,"multi":3,"muscariello":1,"navigate":1,"neighbors":1,"neighbours":1,"networks":1,"not":2,"numeric":2,"of":7,"on":2,"only":2,"open":1,"optional":3,"or":2,"orchestration":2,"org":1,"over":2,"pandey":1,"phi":1,"policy":1,"populations":3,"project":1,"protocol":7,"protocols":4,"r":2,"raskar":1,"realises":1,"receive":2,"reduction":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"rep":1,"ripple":1,"round":2,"scale":1,"scheduling":2,"sensitivities":2,"sensitivity":5,"separates":1,"share":1,"shared":1,"sharing":2,"sharma":1,"shifts":1,"show":1,"signals":1,"slim":3,"social":2,"source":1,"stably":2,"stance":1,"step":2,"structured":1,"summary":1,"sustainability":1,"synthesized":1,"systems":3,"t":2,"tags":1,"textual":2,"than":1,"that":1,"the":4,"their":1,"these":1,"they":1,"those":1,"to":6,"transport":2,"under":1,"up":1,"update":1,"url":1,"used":1,"validated":1,"variables":2,"vision":1,"w":2,"when":1,"why":1,"with":2,"works":1,"would":1}},{"dl":577,"n":"SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI","s":"papers/llm-agents/sok-the-attack-surface-of-agentic-ai","secs":[{"h":"SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI — Tools, and Autonomy","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Ali Dehghantanha, Sajad Homayoun (2026). *arXiv:2603.22928v1 (Cyber Science Lab, University of Guelph; Aalborg University)*. Source file: `2603.22928v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22928)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A systematisation-of-knowledge paper that maps the attack surface of agentic LLM systems — those that plan, call tools, browse, run code, coordinate with other agents, and rely on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). The authors develop a reference pipeline, identify ten numbered attack surfaces (AS1–AS10) across a Trusted Computing Base (TCB) boundary separating the LLM core, planner, orchestrator, policy guards, and secrets vault from untrusted inputs (web, RAG index, tools, APIs, file I/O). From a literature-driven review of ~100 candidate papers (2023–2025) they synthesise a taxonomy of seven attack goals (G1 data exfiltration, G2 integrity subversion, G3 privilege escalation, G4 resource abuse, G5 fraud, G6 persistence/backdoor, G7 supply-chain compromise) and five multi-step attack paths (P1–P5) including direct and indirect prompt injection, RAG index poisoning, cross-tool drop, and multi-agent hops. The work maps each vector to OWASP LLM Top-10 2025 and MITRE ATLAS IDs, and proposes attacker-aware quantitative metrics (Unsafe Action Rate, Policy Adherence Rate, Privilege-Escalation Distance, Retrieval Risk Score, Time-to-Contain, Out-of-Role Action Rate, Cost-Exploit Susceptibility) for reproducible benchmarking. The central thesis is that agentic security risk is structural rather than prompt-level: compromises arise from *system composition* — tool brokering, persistent memory, and execution lifecycle — that blurs trust boundaries between the model, data, and execution environment. A defence-in-depth playbook across pre-ingestion, inference, agent logic, infrastructure, and monitoring layers is given in appendices."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Reference agentic pipeline with explicit TCB and ten numbered attack surfaces (AS1–AS10) - Taxonomy of 7 attack goals × 7 vector classes × 5 attack paths - Causal threat graph for tracing attacker influence to unsafe action - Attacker-aware metrics: UAR, PAR, PED, RRS, TTC, OORAR, CES - Mapping to OWASP GenAI LLM Top-10 2025 and MITRE ATLAS - RAG is not intrinsically safer; indirect injection is practical and hard to stamp out - Defence-in-depth across five layers (data, inference, agent logic, infra, monitoring)"},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Agent Security]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** Agentic AI security risk is a structural property of system composition (tool use, persistent memory, orchestration, supply chain) rather than a model-level prompt-safety problem; a reference TCB model plus attacker-aware metrics is needed to make defences auditable and comparable. - **Mechanism:** Define a reference pipeline with trust boundary between trusted orchestration (LLM core, planner, policy, vault) and untrusted ingress (web, RAG, sandbox, APIs). Enumerate ten attack surfaces, seven goals, five multi-step paths, map each to OWASP/MITRE, and define scenario-driven metrics (UAR, PAR, PED, RRS, TTC, OORAR, CES) computable from structured execution traces. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Agentic TCB]], [[Attack Surface Taxonomy]], [[Causal Threat Graph]], [[Indirect Prompt Injection]], [[RAG Poisoning]], [[Privilege-Escalation Distance]], [[Unsafe Action Rate]], [[OWASP LLM Top-10]], [[MITRE ATLAS]], [[Defence in Depth]] - **Stance:** survey / engineering - **Relates to:** Complements [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] and [[LangSec]] by extending structural-security thinking to agentic runtimes. Sits alongside [[Prompt Injection]] and [[Agent Security]] concept hubs, and provides the threat model that protocols like [[Model Context Protocol]] and [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] must defend against."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"agent-security #prompt-injection #llm-agents #sok #tool-use #rag","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":3,"100":1,"2023":1,"2025":3,"2026":1,"22928":1,"22928v1":1,"2603":2,"5":1,"7":2,"a":11,"aalborg":1,"abs":1,"abuse":1,"across":3,"action":4,"adherence":1,"against":1,"agent":10,"agentic":7,"agents":3,"ai":2,"ali":1,"alongside":1,"and":22,"apis":2,"appendices":1,"approach":1,"arise":1,"arxiv":2,"as1":2,"as10":2,"atlas":3,"attack":10,"attacker":4,"auditable":1,"augmented":1,"authors":1,"autonomy":1,"aware":3,"backdoor":1,"base":1,"based":1,"benchmarking":1,"between":2,"blurs":1,"boundaries":1,"boundary":2,"brokering":1,"browse":1,"by":1,"call":1,"candidate":1,"causal":2,"central":1,"ces":2,"chain":2,"claim":1,"classes":1,"code":1,"comparable":1,"complements":1,"composition":2,"compromise":1,"compromises":1,"computable":1,"computing":1,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contain":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"coordinate":1,"core":2,"cost":1,"cross":1,"cyber":1,"data":3,"ddos":1,"defence":3,"defences":1,"defend":1,"define":2,"dehghantanha":1,"depth":3,"develop":1,"direct":1,"distance":2,"distributed":1,"driven":2,"drop":1,"each":2,"engineering":1,"enumerate":1,"environment":1,"escalation":3,"execution":3,"exfiltration":1,"explicit":1,"exploit":1,"extending":1,"file":2,"five":3,"for":2,"fraud":1,"from":4,"g1":1,"g2":1,"g3":1,"g4":1,"g5":1,"g6":1,"g7":1,"genai":1,"generation":1,"given":1,"goals":3,"graph":2,"guards":1,"guelph":1,"hard":1,"homayoun":1,"hops":1,"https":1,"hubs":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"ids":1,"in":4,"including":1,"index":2,"indirect":3,"inference":2,"influence":1,"infra":1,"infrastructure":1,"ingestion":1,"ingress":1,"injection":6,"inputs":1,"integrity":1,"intrinsically":1,"introduced":1,"is":7,"key":1,"knowledge":1,"lab":1,"langsec":2,"language":1,"layers":2,"level":2,"lifecycle":1,"like":1,"literature":1,"llm":8,"logic":2,"make":1,"map":1,"mapping":1,"maps":2,"mechanism":1,"memory":2,"metrics":4,"mitre":4,"model":6,"monitoring":2,"multi":3,"must":1,"needed":1,"not":1,"numbered":2,"o":1,"of":9,"on":1,"oorar":2,"orchestration":2,"orchestrator":1,"org":1,"other":1,"out":2,"owasp":4,"p1":1,"p5":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"par":2,"paths":3,"ped":2,"persistence":1,"persistent":2,"pipeline":3,"plan":1,"planner":2,"playbook":1,"plus":1,"poisoning":2,"policy":3,"practical":1,"pre":1,"prevent":1,"privilege":3,"problem":1,"prompt":7,"property":1,"proposes":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"quantitative":1,"rag":7,"rate":4,"rather":2,"reference":5,"relates":1,"rely":1,"reproducible":1,"reputation":1,"resource":1,"retrieval":2,"review":1,"risk":3,"role":1,"rrs":2,"run":1,"runtimes":1,"safer":1,"safety":1,"sajad":1,"sandbox":1,"scenario":1,"science":1,"score":1,"secrets":1,"security":7,"separating":1,"seven":2,"sits":1,"sok":2,"source":1,"stamp":1,"stance":1,"step":2,"structural":3,"structured":1,"subversion":1,"summary":1,"supply":2,"surface":3,"surfaces":3,"survey":1,"susceptibility":1,"synthesise":1,"system":2,"systematisation":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":3,"tcb":4,"ten":3,"than":2,"that":5,"the":8,"thesis":1,"they":1,"thinking":1,"those":1,"threat":3,"time":1,"to":12,"tool":5,"tools":3,"top":3,"traces":1,"tracing":1,"trust":3,"trusted":2,"ttc":2,"uar":2,"university":2,"unsafe":3,"untrusted":2,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"vault":2,"vector":2,"web":2,"with":3,"work":1}},{"dl":421,"n":"The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents","s":"papers/llm-agents/the-rise-and-potential-of-llm-based-agents","secs":[{"h":"The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Xi, Chen, Guo, He, Ding, Hong, Zhang, Wang, Jin, Zhou, Zheng, Fan, Wang, Xiong, Zhou, Wang, Jiang, Zou, Liu, Yin, Dou, Weng, Cheng, Zhang, Qin, Zheng, Qiu, Huang, Gui (2023). *Fudan NLP Group, arXiv preprint*. Source file: `2309.07864.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07864)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A comprehensive survey of LLM-based agents organised around a three-component conceptual framework — **brain**, **perception**, **action** — that the authors propose as a general template for agent construction. The brain covers natural-language interaction, knowledge, memory, reasoning/planning, and transferability; perception covers textual, visual, auditory, and other inputs; action covers textual output, tool use, and embodied action. The survey then examines agents in practice (single-agent task/innovation/lifecycle deployments; multi-agent cooperative and adversarial interaction; human-agent instructor-executor and equal-partnership paradigms) and agent societies (personality, social behaviour, environments, society simulation, ethical/social risks). A final discussion chapter covers evaluation, adversarial robustness, trustworthiness, scaling the number of agents, and open problems — directly feeding the threat taxonomy of [[AI Agents Under Threat]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Brain/perception/action triad as a unifying architecture for LLM agents. - Single-agent vs multi-agent vs human-agent deployment axes. - Cooperative complementarity and adversarial advancement as the two poles of multi-agent interaction. - Agent society simulation (à la [[Generative Agents]]) as both a scientific instrument and a risk surface. - Dedicated treatment of adversarial robustness and trustworthiness as first-class concerns in agent design."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Agent Security]] - [[Generative Agents]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** LLM-based agents should be understood through a unified brain/perception/action framework, with deployments spanning single-agent, multi-agent, and human-agent configurations, and societies displaying emergent social phenomena that demand first-class security and trustworthiness analysis. - **Mechanism:** Literature synthesis organised around the three-component architecture, three deployment paradigms, and an agent-society lens; taxonomy of cooperative vs adversarial multi-agent interaction; catalogue of open problems in robustness, trustworthiness, and scaling. - **Concepts introduced/used:** brain/perception/action triad, instructor-executor vs equal-partnership paradigms, agent society, adversarial robustness, [[Tool Use]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]]. - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** The brain/perception/action decomposition directly informs the perception/brain/action threat axes used by [[AI Agents Under Threat]]; multi-agent cooperation analysis motivates [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] and the inter-agent risks catalogued in [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #survey #foundational #multi-agent #agent-architecture","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"07864":1,"2023":1,"2309":1,"a":9,"abs":1,"across":1,"action":8,"advancement":1,"adversarial":6,"agent":25,"agentic":1,"agents":14,"ai":4,"an":1,"analysis":2,"and":17,"architecture":3,"around":2,"arxiv":2,"as":5,"attack":1,"attacks":1,"auditory":1,"authors":1,"axes":2,"based":3,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"both":1,"brain":7,"by":1,"catalogue":1,"catalogued":1,"chapter":1,"chen":1,"cheng":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"clawworm":1,"complementarity":1,"component":2,"comprehensive":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"concerns":1,"configurations":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":1,"cooperation":1,"cooperative":3,"covers":4,"decomposition":1,"dedicated":1,"demand":1,"deployment":2,"deployments":2,"design":1,"ding":1,"directly":2,"discussion":1,"displaying":1,"dou":1,"ecosystems":1,"embodied":1,"emergent":1,"environments":1,"equal":2,"ethical":1,"evaluation":1,"examines":1,"executor":2,"fan":1,"feeding":1,"file":1,"final":1,"first":2,"for":2,"foundational":1,"framework":2,"fudan":1,"general":1,"generative":2,"group":1,"gui":1,"guo":1,"he":1,"hong":1,"https":1,"huang":1,"human":3,"ideas":1,"in":4,"informs":1,"innovation":1,"inputs":1,"instructor":2,"instrument":1,"inter":1,"interaction":4,"introduced":1,"jiang":1,"jin":1,"key":1,"knowledge":1,"la":1,"language":2,"large":1,"lens":1,"lifecycle":1,"literature":1,"liu":1,"llm":7,"mechanism":1,"memory":1,"model":1,"motivates":1,"multi":9,"natural":1,"nlp":1,"number":1,"of":9,"open":2,"org":1,"organised":2,"other":1,"output":1,"paradigms":3,"partnership":2,"perception":7,"personality":1,"phenomena":1,"planning":1,"poles":1,"potential":1,"practice":1,"preprint":1,"problems":2,"propagating":1,"propose":1,"qin":1,"qiu":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"rise":1,"risk":1,"risks":2,"robustness":4,"scaling":2,"scientific":1,"security":2,"self":1,"should":1,"simulation":2,"single":3,"social":3,"societies":2,"society":4,"sok":1,"source":1,"spanning":1,"stance":1,"summary":1,"surface":2,"survey":5,"synthesis":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"task":1,"taxonomy":2,"template":1,"textual":2,"that":2,"the":12,"then":1,"threat":5,"three":3,"through":1,"to":1,"tool":3,"transferability":1,"treatment":1,"triad":2,"trustworthiness":4,"two":1,"under":3,"understood":1,"unified":1,"unifying":1,"url":1,"use":3,"used":2,"visual":1,"vs":4,"wang":3,"weng":1,"with":1,"xi":1,"xiong":1,"yin":1,"zhang":2,"zheng":2,"zhou":2,"zou":1,"à":1}},{"dl":548,"n":"ReAct Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models","s":"papers/llm-agents/react-synergizing-reasoning-and-acting-in-language-models","secs":[{"h":"ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, Yuan Cao (2023). *ICLR 2023* (Princeton / Google Brain). arXiv:2210.03629. Source file: `react-2210.03629.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"ReAct is a prompting paradigm that interleaves verbal *reasoning traces* (thoughts) with *task-specific actions* in a single LLM generation, letting the model plan, update its plan with observations from the environment, and query external sources. Unlike chain-of-thought (reasoning only) or action-only agents (e.g. WebGPT-style), ReAct alternates Thought -> Action -> Observation steps, so the model grounds its reasoning in retrieved evidence and uses its reasoning to decide what to act on next. Evaluated on HotPotQA, Fever (Wikipedia API with search/lookup/finish actions), ALFWorld (text household tasks), and WebShop. On knowledge tasks ReAct outperforms action-only prompting and, combined with chain-of-thought self-consistency, beats CoT alone by reducing hallucination. On decision-making tasks ReAct beats imitation-learning and RL baselines by absolute 34% and 10% respectively, using only one or two in-context examples. The paper is the seminal reference for tool-using LLM agents and the thought/act/observe loop now ubiquitous in LLM agent frameworks."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Interleave reasoning (thoughts) and acting (tool/API calls) in one LLM trajectory - Augment the action space A with a free-form language space L of \"thoughts\" that do not affect the environment but update the context - External Wikipedia API (search, lookup, finish) as a minimal tool interface for QA - Back-off combination with CoT self-consistency: use ReAct when it finishes, otherwise fall back to CoT-SC, or vice versa - Human-interpretable, inspectable, and edit-able agent trajectories (\"thought editing\") - Few-shot prompts with 1-6 exemplars suffice; fine-tuning on 3k trajectories further boosts small models"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Chain-of-Thought Prompting]] - [[Toolformer]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Reasoning and acting are synergistic rather than separate capabilities; interleaving them in a single LLM generation produces agents that are more grounded, less hallucination-prone, and more robust than pure reasoning (CoT) or pure acting (WebGPT-style) baselines. - **Mechanism:** Extend the agent's action space to A' = A ∪ L where L is the free-form language of thoughts. Prompt the LLM with few-shot thought/action/observation exemplars. The model decides when to think and when to act; observations from the environment (API results, game state) re-enter the context and condition subsequent thoughts. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Thought-Act-Observation loop, tool-use prompting, interleaved reasoning/acting, grounded reasoning, hallucination reduction via external knowledge, few-shot agent prompting, thought editing, ReAct + CoT-SC back-off. - **Stance:** empirical / methods — prompting-level intervention with extensive benchmarks. - **Relates to:** Direct successor to [[Chain-of-Thought Prompting]] — CoT without actions is shown to hallucinate (14% vs ReAct's 6%). Makes tool use a first-class LLM behaviour, complementary to [[Toolformer]]'s self-taught API-call fine-tuning. Foundational for [[LLM Agents]] and a key building block in [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]]. The thought/act/observe skeleton is reused by nearly all subsequent agent papers, including [[Reflexion Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning]] (which uses ReAct as its default Actor)."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #tool-use #reasoning #prompting #chain-of-thought","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"03629":2,"1":1,"10":1,"14":1,"2023":2,"2210":2,"34":1,"3k":1,"6":2,"a":10,"able":1,"abs":1,"absolute":1,"act":5,"acting":5,"action":6,"actions":3,"actor":1,"affect":1,"agent":5,"agents":9,"al":2,"alfworld":1,"all":1,"alone":1,"alternates":1,"and":15,"api":5,"are":2,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"augment":1,"back":3,"baselines":2,"beats":2,"behaviour":1,"benchmarks":1,"block":1,"boosts":1,"brain":1,"building":1,"but":1,"by":3,"call":1,"calls":1,"cao":1,"capabilities":1,"chain":5,"claim":1,"class":1,"combination":1,"combined":1,"complementary":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"connections":1,"consistency":2,"context":3,"contribution":1,"cot":6,"decide":1,"decides":1,"decision":1,"default":1,"dian":1,"direct":1,"do":1,"du":1,"e":1,"edit":1,"editing":2,"empirical":1,"enter":1,"environment":3,"et":2,"evaluated":1,"evidence":1,"examples":1,"exemplars":2,"extend":1,"extensive":1,"external":3,"fall":1,"fever":1,"few":3,"file":1,"fine":2,"finish":2,"finishes":1,"first":1,"for":3,"form":2,"foundational":1,"framework":2,"frameworks":1,"free":2,"from":2,"further":1,"g":1,"game":1,"generation":2,"google":1,"grounded":2,"grounds":1,"hallucinate":1,"hallucination":3,"hotpotqa":1,"household":1,"https":1,"human":1,"iclr":1,"ideas":1,"imitation":1,"in":8,"including":1,"inspectable":1,"interface":1,"interleave":1,"interleaved":1,"interleaves":1,"interleaving":1,"interpretable":1,"intervention":1,"introduced":1,"is":5,"it":1,"its":4,"izhak":1,"jeffrey":1,"karthik":1,"key":2,"knowledge":2,"l":3,"language":4,"learning":2,"less":1,"letting":1,"level":1,"llm":10,"lookup":2,"loop":2,"makes":1,"making":1,"mechanism":1,"methods":1,"minimal":1,"model":3,"models":2,"more":2,"nan":1,"narasimhan":1,"nearly":1,"next":1,"not":1,"now":1,"observation":3,"observations":2,"observe":2,"of":7,"off":2,"on":5,"one":2,"only":4,"or":4,"org":1,"otherwise":1,"outperforms":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"paradigm":1,"plan":2,"princeton":1,"produces":1,"prompt":1,"prompting":8,"prompts":1,"prone":1,"pure":2,"qa":1,"query":1,"rather":1,"re":1,"react":9,"reasoning":11,"reducing":1,"reduction":1,"reference":2,"reflexion":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":1,"respectively":1,"results":1,"retrieved":1,"reused":1,"rl":1,"robust":1,"s":3,"sc":2,"search":2,"self":3,"seminal":1,"separate":1,"shafran":1,"shot":3,"shown":1,"shunyu":1,"single":2,"skeleton":1,"small":1,"so":1,"source":1,"sources":1,"space":3,"specific":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"steps":1,"style":2,"subsequent":2,"successor":1,"suffice":1,"summary":1,"synergistic":1,"synergizing":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"tasks":3,"taught":1,"text":1,"than":2,"that":3,"the":16,"them":1,"think":1,"thought":12,"thoughts":5,"to":10,"tool":7,"toolformer":2,"traces":1,"trajectories":2,"trajectory":1,"tuning":2,"two":1,"ubiquitous":1,"unlike":1,"update":2,"url":1,"use":5,"used":1,"uses":2,"using":2,"verbal":2,"versa":1,"via":1,"vice":1,"vs":1,"webgpt":2,"webshop":1,"what":1,"when":3,"where":1,"which":1,"wikipedia":2,"with":10,"without":1,"yao":1,"yu":1,"yuan":1,"zhao":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":441,"n":"A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs","s":"papers/llm-agents/a-scalable-communication-protocol-for-networks-of-llms","secs":[{"h":"A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of Large Language Models","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Samuele Marro, Emanuele La Malfa, Jesse Wright, Guohao Li, Nigel Shadbolt, Michael Wooldridge, Philip Torr (2024). *arXiv:2410.11905v1 (Oxford / Eigent AI)*. Source file: `2410.11905v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11905)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces **Agora**, a meta-protocol for inter-agent communication in large heterogeneous networks of LLM-powered agents. Agora frames the design space as the *Agent Communication Trilemma* — versatility, efficiency, portability — and argues no single format (natural language, structured APIs like REST, or semantic-web RDF) can satisfy all three simultaneously. Agora's trick is to use different formats for different traffic volumes: rare/novel messages flow as natural language handled by LLMs; frequent patterns are formalised into *Protocol Documents* (PDs) negotiated between agents and then served by cheap LLM-written routines. A 100-agent demo shows emergent self-organising protocols and ~5x cost reduction over natural-language-only communication."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Agent Communication Trilemma: versatility vs efficiency vs portability - Protocol Documents (PDs): hash-identified, agent-negotiated, machine-readable specs - Hybrid hierarchy: NL bootstrap -> PD negotiation -> LLM-written routines -> traditional protocols - Fully decentralised, hash-addressed storage (IPFS-compatible) - Emergent protocols among 100 heterogeneous LLM agents without central coordination"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Ontologies]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** No single communication format can simultaneously satisfy versatility, efficiency, and portability (the *Agent Communication Trilemma*) at scale; a *meta-protocol* that dynamically mixes natural language, structured data, and LLM-written routines can sidestep the trilemma. - **Mechanism:** Agora uses hash-identified *Protocol Documents* (PDs) — plain-text, implementation-agnostic specs — negotiated on demand between LLM agents. Frequent traffic is handled by cheap LLM-written routines implementing a PD; rare or novel traffic falls back to LLMs with natural language. Decentralised, content-addressed (IPFS-style) PD distribution; demonstrated on a 100-agent heterogeneous network showing emergent protocols and ~5× cost reduction. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Agent Communication Trilemma]], [[Protocol Documents]], [[Meta-protocol]], [[Emergent Protocols]], [[Emergent Communication]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Content-addressed Storage]], [[Negotiated Protocols]], [[Negotiation]], [[Agent Communication Languages]] - **Stance:** engineering / systems - **Relates to:** Modern successor to [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] and [[FIPA-ACL]], replacing stipulated performatives with negotiated PDs. Echoes the emergent-language findings of [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] and [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] at the protocol-document level. Overlaps the design space of [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]]. Its bottom-up spirit mirrors [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #agent-communication #protocols #emergent-protocols","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"100":3,"11905":1,"11905v1":1,"2024":1,"2410":2,"5":1,"5x":1,"a":6,"abs":1,"acl":2,"addressed":3,"agent":19,"agents":8,"agnostic":1,"agora":4,"ai":1,"al":1,"all":1,"among":1,"an":2,"and":10,"apis":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"arxiv":2,"as":4,"at":2,"back":1,"between":2,"bootstrap":1,"bottom":1,"by":3,"can":3,"central":1,"cheap":2,"claim":1,"communication":14,"compatible":1,"compositional":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":2,"context":1,"contribution":1,"cooperation":2,"coordination":1,"cost":2,"data":1,"decentralised":2,"demand":1,"demo":1,"demonstrated":1,"design":2,"different":2,"distribution":1,"document":1,"documents":4,"dynamically":1,"echoes":1,"efficiency":3,"eigent":1,"emanuele":1,"emergence":3,"emergent":7,"engineering":1,"et":1,"extensible":1,"falls":1,"file":1,"findings":1,"fipa":2,"flow":1,"for":3,"formalised":1,"format":2,"formats":1,"frames":1,"framework":1,"frequent":2,"fully":1,"graham":1,"grounded":1,"guohao":1,"handled":2,"hash":3,"heterogeneous":3,"hierarchy":1,"https":1,"hybrid":1,"ideas":1,"identified":2,"implementation":1,"implementing":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"ipfs":2,"is":2,"its":1,"jesse":1,"key":1,"kqml":3,"la":1,"language":13,"languages":2,"large":2,"level":1,"li":1,"like":1,"llm":10,"llms":2,"machine":1,"malfa":1,"marro":1,"mechanism":1,"messages":1,"meta":3,"michael":1,"mirrors":1,"mixes":1,"model":1,"models":1,"modern":1,"multi":3,"natural":7,"negotiated":5,"negotiation":2,"network":2,"networks":2,"nigel":1,"nl":1,"no":2,"novel":2,"of":7,"on":2,"only":1,"ontologies":1,"or":2,"org":1,"organising":1,"over":1,"overlaps":1,"oxford":1,"patterns":1,"pd":3,"pds":4,"performatives":1,"philip":1,"plain":1,"populations":1,"portability":3,"powered":1,"protocol":12,"protocols":8,"rare":2,"rdf":1,"readable":1,"reduction":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"replacing":1,"rest":1,"routines":4,"s":1,"samuele":1,"satisfy":2,"scalable":1,"scale":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"served":1,"shadbolt":1,"showing":1,"shows":1,"sidestep":1,"simultaneously":2,"single":2,"source":1,"space":2,"specs":2,"spirit":1,"stance":1,"stipulated":1,"storage":2,"structured":2,"style":1,"successor":1,"summary":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"text":1,"that":1,"the":10,"then":1,"three":1,"to":5,"torr":1,"traditional":1,"traffic":3,"trick":1,"trilemma":5,"up":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"versatility":3,"volumes":1,"vs":2,"web":1,"with":2,"without":1,"wooldridge":1,"wright":1,"written":4,"zhou":1}},{"dl":508,"n":"Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding","s":"papers/llm-agents/intent-formalization---a-grand-challenge-for-reliable-coding","secs":[{"h":"Intent Formalization: A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding in the Age of AI Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Shuvendu K. Lahiri (2026). *arXiv:2603.17150v1 (Microsoft Research)*. Source file: `2603.17150v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17150)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Agentic AI can now write whole systems from brief prompts — \"vibe coding\" — but the *intent gap* between what a user means and what a program does has exploded accordingly. Lahiri argues that the central reliability bottleneck is no longer code generation but **intent formalization**: the automatic translation of informal user intent into checkable formal specifications. Lightweight tests, runtime contracts, logical contracts (Dafny, F*, Verus), and domain-specific languages lie on a single tradeoff spectrum — all formal, all checkable, differing only in coverage and cost. The paper reframes the question of \"can AI write the code?\" as \"can AI help us specify what the code should do, and then verify it does?\". Early research (GPT-4 generating Defects4J-catching postconditions; ClassInvGen; AutoVerus) already shows LLMs can produce meaningful, non-syntactic specifications. The key open bottleneck is **validating specifications**: since only the user knows their intent, there is no oracle — soundness/completeness must be estimated via semi-automated proxies (mutation testing, test-derived metrics). Research agenda: scaling beyond benchmarks, compositionality under change, richer logics, and human-AI specification interaction."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Intent gap** = semantic distance between informal NL requirements and operational code; agentic AI amplifies it at scale - AI-generated code is *plausible by construction*, not *correct by construction* - **Intent formalization spectrum:** tests → code contracts (assertions, pre/post/invariants) → logical contracts (Dafny/F*/Verus) → DSLs with verified synthesis - **Soundness/completeness** of specifications w.r.t. tests, without requiring a code-side oracle - Complementary to spec-driven development tools (GitHub Spec Kit) — closes their informality gap - Not *autoformalization*: cheap, targeted spec fragments beat full NL→logic translation"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Operational Semantics]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Agents of Chaos]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":31,"t":"- **Claim:** The reliability bottleneck for agentic coding is not code generation but *intent formalization* — LLMs can and should produce formal, checkable specifications of what code must satisfy, along a cost/coverage spectrum from tests to DSLs. - **Mechanism:** Survey empirical results (GPT-4 postcondition generation, ClassInvGen class invariants, AutoVerus/VeriStruct module-level verification) showing LLMs can lift NL intent to Dafny/Verus contracts; propose test-based soundness/completeness measurement for specs. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Intent Gap]], [[Intent Formalization]], [[Code Contracts]], [[Logical Contracts]], [[Verified Synthesis]], [[Specification Validation]], [[Specification Soundness]], [[Specification Completeness]], [[Vibe Coding]], [[Dafny]], [[Verus]], [[F*]] - **Stance:** foundational / research-agenda - **Relates to:** Sister paper to [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] — where MAST identifies specification/coordination/verification as the dominant failure modes, this paper prescribes *how* to close the specification leg. Puts Floyd-Hoare program semantics ([[Assigning Meanings to Programs]], [[Hoare Logic]]) at the centre of LLM tooling. Shares the \"semantic gap between intent and runtime\" diagnosis with [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":38,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #formal-verification #specification #intent-formalization #vibe-coding","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"17150":1,"17150v1":1,"2026":1,"2603":2,"4":2,"a":6,"abs":1,"accordingly":1,"age":1,"agenda":2,"agent":2,"agentic":3,"agents":4,"ai":7,"all":2,"along":1,"already":1,"amplifies":1,"and":8,"argues":1,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"assertions":1,"assigning":2,"at":2,"autoformalization":1,"automated":1,"automatic":1,"autoverus":2,"based":1,"be":1,"beat":1,"benchmarks":1,"between":3,"beyond":1,"bottleneck":3,"brief":1,"but":3,"by":2,"can":6,"catching":1,"central":1,"centre":1,"challenge":1,"change":1,"chaos":1,"cheap":1,"checkable":3,"claim":1,"class":1,"classinvgen":2,"close":1,"closes":1,"code":10,"coding":5,"complementary":1,"completeness":4,"compositionality":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"construction":2,"contracts":9,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"correct":1,"cost":2,"coverage":2,"dafny":4,"defects4j":1,"derived":1,"development":1,"diagnosis":1,"differing":1,"distance":1,"do":3,"does":2,"domain":2,"dominant":1,"driven":1,"dsls":2,"early":1,"empirical":1,"estimated":1,"exploded":1,"f":3,"fail":2,"failure":1,"file":1,"floyd":1,"for":3,"formal":5,"formalization":6,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"fragments":1,"from":2,"full":1,"gap":5,"generated":1,"generating":1,"generation":3,"github":1,"gpt":2,"grand":1,"has":1,"help":1,"hoare":3,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"in":2,"informal":2,"informality":1,"intent":13,"interaction":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"invariants":2,"is":5,"it":2,"k":1,"key":2,"kit":1,"knows":1,"lahiri":2,"languages":2,"leg":1,"level":1,"lie":1,"lift":1,"lightweight":1,"llm":5,"llms":3,"lloyd":1,"logic":4,"logical":3,"logics":1,"longer":1,"making":2,"mast":2,"meaningful":1,"meanings":2,"means":1,"measurement":1,"mechanism":1,"metrics":1,"microsoft":1,"modes":1,"module":1,"multi":2,"must":2,"mutation":1,"nl":3,"no":2,"non":1,"not":3,"now":1,"of":8,"on":1,"only":2,"open":1,"operational":2,"oracle":2,"org":1,"paper":3,"plausible":1,"post":1,"postcondition":1,"postconditions":1,"pre":1,"prescribes":1,"produce":2,"program":2,"programming":1,"programs":2,"prompts":1,"propose":1,"proxies":1,"puts":1,"question":1,"r":1,"reference":1,"reframes":1,"relates":1,"reliability":2,"reliable":1,"requirements":1,"requiring":1,"research":4,"results":1,"richer":1,"runtime":2,"satisfy":1,"scale":1,"scaling":1,"semantic":2,"semantics":2,"semi":1,"shares":1,"should":2,"showing":1,"shows":1,"shuvendu":1,"side":1,"since":1,"single":1,"sister":1,"smart":2,"smarter":2,"soundness":4,"source":1,"spec":3,"specific":2,"specification":7,"specifications":5,"specify":1,"specs":1,"spectrum":3,"stance":1,"summary":1,"survey":1,"syntactic":1,"synthesis":2,"systems":3,"t":1,"tags":1,"targeted":1,"taxonomy":1,"test":2,"testing":1,"tests":4,"that":1,"the":15,"their":2,"then":1,"there":1,"this":1,"to":8,"tooling":1,"tools":1,"tradeoff":1,"translation":2,"under":1,"url":1,"us":1,"used":1,"user":3,"validating":1,"validation":1,"verification":4,"verified":2,"verify":1,"veristruct":1,"verus":4,"via":1,"vibe":3,"w":1,"what":4,"where":1,"whole":1,"why":2,"with":2,"without":1,"write":2}},{"dl":371,"n":"Beyond Self-Talk - Communication-Centric Survey Of LLM Multi-Agent Systems","s":"papers/llm-agents/beyond-self-talk---communication-centric-survey-of-llm-multi-agent-systems","secs":[{"h":"Beyond Self-Talk: A Communication-Centric Survey of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Yan, Zhou, Zhang, Zhang, Zhou, Miao, Li, Li, Zhang (2025). *arXiv:2502.14321*. Source file: `2502.14321.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14321)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This review argues that prior surveys of LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) over-emphasise application domains and agent architectures while neglecting the *communication layer* that actually enables collaboration. The authors propose a two-level analytical framework separating **system-level communication** (architecture, goals, and protocols — how agents are organised) from **system-internal communication** (strategies, paradigms, objects, and content — what messages carry and how they are interpreted). Drawing on classical communication theory's source/channel split, they decompose LLM-MAS workflows into speaker/listener, message format, negotiation paradigm, and coordination protocol, then survey representative works under each cell. The review highlights communication efficiency, security vulnerabilities, and benchmark inadequacy as primary open problems."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Communication as the missing analytical layer in LLM-MAS surveys. - Two-level framework: system-level (architecture, goal, protocol) vs system-internal (strategy, paradigm, object, content) communication. - Adoption of Shannon-style source/channel abstractions to describe LLM agent exchanges. - Brain / Perception / Action model of LLM agents as the atomic communication node. - Open issues: scalability, security of inter-agent channels, multimodal message formats, benchmarking."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms - Survey of LLMs]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** The analytical primitive for understanding LLM-MAS is *communication*, not architecture; a two-level framework (system-level vs system-internal) captures how message protocol choices shape emergent collective behaviour. - **Mechanism:** Repurposes classical communication-theory distinctions (source/channel, architecture/content) as a taxonomy, then classifies and compares LLM-MAS workflows under each axis, exposing gaps in current designs. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Interoperability]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Complements [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] by analysing communication patterns inside MAS, whereas that survey focuses on inter-agent wire protocols. Shares the communication-first lens with [[KQML Language And Protocol]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] but reframed for LLM agents."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent-systems #survey #communication #agent-protocols","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"14321":2,"2025":1,"2502":2,"a":4,"abs":1,"abstractions":1,"acl":1,"action":1,"actually":1,"adoption":1,"agent":18,"agents":6,"ai":1,"analysing":1,"analytical":3,"and":9,"application":1,"architecture":4,"architectures":1,"are":2,"argues":1,"arxiv":2,"as":4,"atomic":1,"authors":1,"axis":1,"based":2,"behaviour":1,"benchmark":1,"benchmarking":1,"beyond":1,"brain":1,"but":1,"by":1,"captures":1,"carry":1,"cell":1,"centric":1,"channel":3,"channels":1,"choices":1,"claim":1,"classical":2,"classifies":1,"collaboration":2,"collective":1,"communication":16,"compares":1,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":3,"context":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"current":1,"decompose":1,"describe":1,"designs":1,"distinctions":1,"domains":1,"drawing":1,"each":2,"efficiency":1,"emergent":1,"emphasise":1,"enables":1,"exchanges":1,"exposing":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"first":1,"focuses":1,"for":2,"format":1,"formats":1,"framework":3,"from":1,"gaps":1,"goal":1,"goals":1,"highlights":1,"how":3,"https":1,"ideas":1,"in":2,"inadequacy":1,"inside":1,"inter":2,"internal":3,"interoperability":3,"interpreted":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"issues":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"layer":2,"lens":1,"level":6,"li":2,"listener":1,"llm":13,"llms":1,"mas":6,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"message":3,"messages":1,"miao":1,"missing":1,"model":2,"multi":5,"multimodal":1,"neglecting":1,"negotiation":1,"network":1,"node":1,"not":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"of":9,"on":2,"open":2,"org":1,"organised":1,"over":1,"paradigm":2,"paradigms":1,"patterns":1,"perception":1,"primary":1,"primitive":1,"prior":1,"problems":1,"propose":1,"protocol":7,"protocols":6,"reference":1,"reframed":1,"relates":1,"representative":1,"repurposes":1,"review":2,"s":1,"scalability":1,"security":2,"self":1,"separating":1,"shannon":1,"shape":1,"shares":1,"source":4,"speaker":1,"split":1,"stance":1,"strategies":1,"strategy":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"survey":9,"surveys":2,"system":6,"systems":4,"tags":1,"talk":1,"taxonomy":1,"that":3,"the":7,"then":2,"theory":2,"they":2,"this":1,"to":3,"two":3,"under":2,"understanding":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vs":2,"vulnerabilities":1,"what":1,"whereas":1,"while":1,"wire":1,"with":1,"workflows":2,"works":1,"yan":1,"zhang":3,"zhou":2}},{"dl":465,"n":"Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail","s":"papers/llm-agents/why-do-multi-agent-llm-systems-fail","secs":[{"h":"Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Mert Cemri, Melissa Z. Pan, Shuyi Yang, Lakshya A. Agrawal, Bhavya Chopra, Rishabh Tiwari, Kurt Keutzer, Aditya Parameswaran, Dan Klein, Kannan Ramchandran, Matei Zaharia, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica (2025). *arXiv:2503.13657v2 (UC Berkeley)*. Source file: `2503.13657v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13657)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"First empirically grounded taxonomy of failure modes in Multi-Agent LLM Systems (MAS). The authors analyse 200+ execution traces from seven popular MAS frameworks (MetaGPT, ChatDev, HyperAgent, AppWorld, AG2, Magentic-One, OpenManus), annotated by six human experts via grounded theory and reaching Cohen's κ ≈ 0.88, and distil 14 fine-grained failure modes grouped into three categories: **Specification Issues** (42%), **Inter-Agent Misalignment** (37%), and **Task Verification** (21%). They release MAST (Multi-Agent System failure Taxonomy), a validated LLM-as-judge pipeline for automated failure diagnosis, and two intervention case studies showing that architectural/prompt fixes inspired by MAST improve success rates modestly — demonstrating that MAS failures are system-design problems, not merely model-capability problems."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three failure categories: specification, inter-agent misalignment, verification - 14 fine-grained failure modes including step repetition, information withholding, task derailment - Grounded-theory methodology with rigorous inter-annotator agreement (κ=0.88) - LLM-as-judge pipeline (MAST) achieves κ=0.77 vs humans for scalable evaluation - Insight: better specifications and verification beat bigger models"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Multi-Agent LLM System (MAS) failures are predominantly *system-design* problems — specification, coordination, and verification — rather than base-model capability problems; and these failures have an empirically discoverable, reproducible taxonomy. - **Mechanism:** Grounded-theory analysis of 200+ execution traces across seven MAS frameworks (MetaGPT, ChatDev, HyperAgent, AppWorld, AG2, Magentic-One, OpenManus) with six human expert annotators; iterative refinement to Cohen's κ≈0.88; yield the 14-mode **MAST** taxonomy grouped into Specification Issues (42%), Inter-Agent Misalignment (37%), Task Verification (21%); validate an LLM-as-judge annotator (κ≈0.77); intervention case studies showing prompt/architecture fixes provide only modest gains, motivating deeper redesign. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[MAST Taxonomy]], [[Grounded Theory]], [[Inter-Agent Misalignment]], [[LLM-as-judge]], [[Specification Issues]], [[Task Verification]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Cohen's Kappa]], [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]] - **Stance:** empirical / evaluative - **Relates to:** Supplies empirical grounding for the design-quality concerns in [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] (SOPs attempt to mitigate FC1 specification issues) and [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]. Inter-agent misalignment mirrors the formal pathologies in [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]. Motivates richer communication protocols like [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] and commitment-style ACLs ([[ACL Rethinking Principles]])."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent #failure-analysis #taxonomy #evaluation","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":5,"13657":1,"13657v2":1,"14":3,"200":2,"2025":1,"21":2,"2503":2,"37":2,"42":2,"77":2,"88":3,"a":4,"abs":1,"achieves":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"across":1,"aditya":1,"ag2":2,"agent":14,"agents":5,"agrawal":1,"agreement":1,"ai":2,"al":2,"an":2,"analyse":1,"analysis":2,"and":9,"annotated":1,"annotator":2,"annotators":1,"appworld":2,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":3,"arxiv":2,"as":4,"attempt":1,"authors":1,"automated":1,"base":1,"beat":1,"berkeley":1,"better":1,"bhavya":1,"bigger":1,"by":2,"capability":2,"case":2,"categories":2,"cemri":1,"chatdev":2,"chopra":1,"claim":1,"cohen":3,"collaboration":2,"commitment":1,"communication":4,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"dan":1,"deeper":1,"demonstrating":1,"derailment":1,"design":3,"diagnosis":1,"discoverable":1,"distil":1,"do":1,"e":1,"empirical":2,"empirically":2,"et":2,"evaluation":2,"evaluative":1,"execution":2,"expert":1,"experts":1,"fail":1,"failure":7,"failures":4,"fc1":1,"file":1,"fine":2,"first":1,"fixes":2,"for":5,"formal":1,"framework":2,"frameworks":2,"from":1,"gains":1,"gonzalez":1,"grained":2,"grounded":5,"grounding":1,"grouped":2,"have":1,"https":1,"human":2,"humans":1,"hyperagent":2,"ideas":1,"improve":1,"in":5,"including":1,"information":1,"insight":1,"inspired":1,"inter":6,"intervention":2,"into":2,"introduced":1,"ion":1,"issues":4,"iterative":1,"joseph":1,"judge":4,"kannan":1,"kappa":1,"keutzer":1,"key":1,"klein":1,"kurt":1,"lakshya":1,"like":1,"llm":10,"llms":2,"magentic":2,"mas":5,"mast":5,"matei":1,"mechanism":1,"melissa":1,"merely":1,"mert":1,"metagpt":2,"methodology":1,"mirrors":1,"misalignment":5,"mitigate":1,"mode":1,"model":2,"models":1,"modes":3,"modest":1,"modestly":1,"motivates":1,"motivating":1,"multi":9,"multiagent":1,"networks":2,"not":1,"of":4,"one":2,"only":1,"openmanus":2,"operating":1,"org":1,"pan":1,"parameswaran":1,"pathologies":1,"pipeline":2,"popular":1,"predominantly":1,"principles":1,"problems":4,"procedures":1,"prompt":2,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"provide":1,"quality":1,"ramchandran":1,"rates":1,"rather":1,"reaching":1,"redesign":1,"reference":1,"refinement":1,"relates":1,"release":1,"repetition":1,"reproducible":1,"resilient":1,"rethinking":1,"richer":1,"rigorous":1,"rishabh":1,"s":3,"scalable":3,"seven":2,"showing":2,"shuyi":1,"six":2,"sops":2,"source":1,"specification":6,"specifications":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"step":1,"stoica":1,"studies":2,"style":1,"success":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"system":4,"systems":5,"tags":1,"task":4,"taxonomy":6,"than":1,"that":2,"the":4,"theory":4,"these":1,"they":1,"three":2,"tiwari":1,"to":4,"traces":2,"tunkel":2,"two":1,"uc":1,"url":1,"used":1,"validate":1,"validated":1,"verification":6,"via":1,"vs":1,"wasif":2,"why":1,"with":2,"withholding":1,"yang":1,"yield":1,"z":1,"zaharia":1,"zhou":2,"κ":5}},{"dl":346,"n":"Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols","s":"papers/llm-agents/survey-of-agent-interoperability-protocols","secs":[{"h":"A Survey of Agent Interoperability Protocols: MCP, ACP, A2A, and ANP","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Ehtesham, Singh, Gupta, Kumar (2025). *arXiv:2505.02279*. Source file: `2505.02279v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02279)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This survey examines four emerging agent communication protocols targeting different interoperability tiers: the Model Context Protocol (MCP) for JSON-RPC tool invocation and context delivery; the Agent Communication Protocol (ACP) for REST-native multi-part performative messaging; the Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A) for peer-to-peer Agent-Card-based task outsourcing; and the Agent Network Protocol (ANP) for decentralized discovery using DIDs and JSON-LD. The authors contrast architectures, discovery mechanisms, security models, and communication patterns, then recommend a phased adoption roadmap (MCP for tool access, then ACP for messaging, A2A for collaborative execution, ANP for open marketplaces). A timeline traces ancestry from KQML (1993) and FIPA-ACL (2000) through RAG, ReAct, function-calling up to modern agent protocols."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Phased adoption roadmap: MCP -> ACP -> A2A -> ANP. - MCP core primitives: Tools, Resources, Prompts, Sampling under JSON-RPC 2.0. - A2A introduces Agent Cards, Tasks, Artifacts for enterprise-scale delegation. - ANP uses DIDs and JSON-LD for decentralized, internet-scale agent discovery. - Security threats tabulated across creation/operation/update lifecycle phases."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[LLM Agents]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Modern agent interoperability is best understood as a four-tier stack (MCP for tools, ACP for messaging, A2A for delegation, ANP for open discovery) and should be adopted in that phased order. - **Mechanism:** Structured comparison of architectures, discovery, security, and message patterns; historical timeline rooting each protocol in [[KQML]]/[[FIPA-ACL]] ancestry; lifecycle threat table. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]], Agent Communication Protocol, [[KQML]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Agent Cards]], [[Decentralized Identifiers]], [[JSON-RPC]], [[Tool Use]], [[LLM Agents]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Complements the broader [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] with a narrower, adoption-oriented roadmap. Its security-threat lifecycle connects directly to [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"agent-protocols #interoperability #llm-agents #survey","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"02279":2,"1993":1,"2":1,"2000":1,"2025":1,"2505":2,"a":5,"a2a":6,"abs":1,"access":1,"acl":4,"acp":5,"across":1,"adopted":1,"adoption":3,"agent":21,"agents":4,"ai":2,"ancestry":2,"and":10,"anp":6,"architectures":2,"artifacts":1,"arxiv":2,"as":1,"attacks":1,"authors":1,"based":1,"be":1,"best":1,"broader":1,"calling":1,"card":1,"cards":2,"claim":1,"collaborative":1,"communication":4,"comparison":1,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"connects":1,"context":4,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"creation":1,"decentralized":3,"delegation":2,"delivery":1,"dids":2,"different":1,"directly":1,"discovery":5,"each":1,"ehtesham":1,"emerging":1,"enterprise":1,"examines":1,"execution":1,"file":1,"fipa":4,"for":14,"four":2,"from":1,"function":1,"gupta":1,"historical":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifiers":1,"in":2,"internet":1,"interoperability":4,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"invocation":1,"is":1,"its":1,"json":5,"key":1,"kqml":4,"kumar":1,"ld":2,"lifecycle":3,"llm":3,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"marketplaces":1,"mcp":6,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"message":1,"messaging":3,"model":3,"models":1,"modern":2,"multi":1,"narrower":1,"native":1,"network":3,"of":3,"open":2,"operation":1,"order":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"outsourcing":1,"part":1,"patterns":2,"peer":2,"performative":1,"phased":3,"phases":1,"primitives":1,"prompts":1,"protocol":12,"protocols":5,"rag":1,"react":1,"recommend":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"resources":1,"rest":1,"roadmap":3,"rooting":1,"rpc":3,"sampling":1,"scale":2,"security":4,"should":1,"singh":1,"source":1,"stack":1,"stance":1,"structured":1,"summary":1,"survey":5,"table":1,"tabulated":1,"tags":1,"targeting":1,"task":1,"tasks":1,"that":1,"the":6,"then":2,"this":1,"threat":3,"threats":1,"through":1,"tier":1,"tiers":1,"timeline":2,"to":7,"tool":4,"tools":2,"traces":1,"under":2,"understood":1,"up":1,"update":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"with":1}},{"dl":392,"n":"Language Models are Few-Shot Learners","s":"papers/llm-agents/language-models-are-few-shot-learners","secs":[{"h":"Language Models are Few-Shot Learners","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Brown, Mann, Ryder, Subbiah, Kaplan, Dhariwal, Neelakantan, Shyam, Sastry, Askell et al. (2020). *NeurIPS 2020*. Source file: `2005.14165.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces GPT-3, a 175-billion-parameter autoregressive Transformer language model, and shows that scaling up enables task-agnostic few-shot learning purely through in-context demonstrations — no gradient updates or fine-tuning required. The paper establishes the empirical basis for the \"prompt as interface\" paradigm that underpins modern [[LLM Agents]]. GPT-3 is evaluated across dozens of NLP benchmarks (translation, QA, cloze, Winograd, arithmetic, word unscrambling, SuperGLUE, NLI) in zero-, one-, and few-shot regimes, often matching or exceeding state-of-the-art fine-tuned systems. The authors also examine broader impacts: misuse potential, bias, fairness, and energy cost — topics that later crystallise into the threat surfaces surveyed in [[AI Agents Under Threat]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Scaling laws: performance on downstream tasks improves smoothly with model size, compute, and data. - In-context learning: a \"meta-learning\" inner loop where the model adapts to a task from examples in its prompt window, without weight updates. - Few-shot prompting as a general interface: the prompt becomes the programmable surface for LLM behaviour — the same surface later exploited by [[Prompt Injection]] and [[Jailbreak]] attacks. - Emergent capabilities (arithmetic, novel-word use) appearing only at scale. - Early catalogue of misuse risks (disinformation, generated news indistinguishable from human-written) foreshadowing agent-era threats."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[Jailbreak]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Hallucination]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Sufficiently large autoregressive language models become few-shot learners, performing new tasks from prompt demonstrations alone — establishing the prompt as the universal programming surface for LLM systems. - **Mechanism:** Train a 175B-parameter Transformer on ~300B tokens of filtered Common Crawl, WebText2, Books, and Wikipedia; evaluate on 40+ benchmarks in zero/one/few-shot settings without gradient updates. - **Concepts introduced/used:** in-context learning, few-shot prompting, scaling laws, emergent capabilities, prompt-as-interface — all prerequisites for [[LLM Agents]], [[Tool Use]], [[Prompt Injection]], and the threat taxonomy of [[AI Agents Under Threat]]. - **Stance:** empirical/position - **Relates to:** Foundational substrate cited throughout [[AI Agents Under Threat]]; the prompt interface it popularises is the attack surface studied in [[Prompt Injection]], [[Jailbreak]], and [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"llm #foundational #few-shot-learning #scaling #in-context-learning","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"14165":1,"175":1,"175b":1,"2005":1,"2020":2,"3":2,"300b":1,"40":1,"a":5,"abs":1,"across":2,"adapts":1,"agent":2,"agents":7,"agnostic":1,"ai":4,"al":1,"all":1,"alone":1,"also":1,"and":8,"appearing":1,"are":1,"arithmetic":2,"art":1,"arxiv":1,"as":4,"askell":1,"at":1,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"authors":1,"autoregressive":2,"basis":1,"become":1,"becomes":1,"behaviour":1,"benchmarks":2,"bias":1,"billion":1,"books":1,"broader":1,"brown":1,"by":1,"capabilities":2,"catalogue":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"clawworm":1,"cloze":1,"common":1,"compute":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"context":4,"contribution":1,"cost":1,"crawl":1,"crystallise":1,"data":1,"demonstrations":2,"dhariwal":1,"disinformation":1,"downstream":1,"dozens":1,"early":1,"ecosystems":1,"emergent":2,"empirical":2,"enables":1,"energy":1,"era":1,"establishes":1,"establishing":1,"et":1,"evaluate":1,"evaluated":1,"examine":1,"examples":1,"exceeding":1,"exploited":1,"fairness":1,"few":8,"file":1,"filtered":1,"fine":2,"for":4,"foreshadowing":1,"foundational":2,"from":3,"general":1,"generated":1,"gpt":2,"gradient":2,"hallucination":1,"https":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"impacts":1,"improves":1,"in":9,"indistinguishable":1,"injection":4,"inner":1,"interface":4,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":2,"it":1,"its":1,"jailbreak":3,"kaplan":1,"key":1,"language":3,"large":1,"later":2,"laws":2,"learners":2,"learning":6,"llm":7,"loop":1,"mann":1,"matching":1,"mechanism":1,"meta":1,"misuse":2,"model":3,"models":2,"modern":1,"neelakantan":1,"neurips":1,"new":1,"news":1,"nli":1,"nlp":1,"no":1,"novel":1,"of":5,"often":1,"on":3,"one":2,"only":1,"or":2,"org":1,"paper":1,"paradigm":1,"parameter":2,"performance":1,"performing":1,"popularises":1,"position":1,"potential":1,"prerequisites":1,"programmable":1,"programming":1,"prompt":11,"prompting":2,"propagating":1,"purely":1,"qa":1,"reference":1,"regimes":1,"relates":1,"required":1,"risks":1,"ryder":1,"same":1,"sastry":1,"scale":1,"scaling":4,"self":1,"settings":1,"shot":8,"shows":1,"shyam":1,"size":1,"smoothly":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"studied":1,"subbiah":1,"substrate":1,"sufficiently":1,"summary":1,"superglue":1,"surface":4,"surfaces":1,"surveyed":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"task":2,"tasks":2,"taxonomy":1,"that":3,"the":15,"threat":6,"threats":1,"through":1,"throughout":1,"to":2,"tokens":1,"tool":2,"topics":1,"train":1,"transformer":2,"translation":1,"tuned":1,"tuning":1,"under":4,"underpins":1,"universal":1,"unscrambling":1,"up":1,"updates":3,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"webtext2":1,"weight":1,"where":1,"wikipedia":1,"window":1,"winograd":1,"with":1,"without":2,"word":2,"written":1,"zero":2}},{"dl":423,"n":"Toolformer","s":"papers/llm-agents/toolformer","secs":[{"h":"Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Schick, Dwivedi-Yu, Dessì, Raileanu, Lomeli, Zettlemoyer, Cancedda, Scialom (2024). *NeurIPS 2023*. Source file: `2302.04761.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04761)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Toolformer shows that a language model can teach itself, in a self-supervised way, to decide *when* to call an external API, *which* API to call, *what* arguments to pass, and *how* to incorporate the returned result into subsequent token prediction. Starting from a handful of human-written demonstrations per tool, the model annotates a large corpus with candidate API calls, executes them, and keeps only the calls whose results reduce the cross-entropy loss on the surrounding tokens. The filtered, API-augmented corpus is then used to finetune the model. The approach is demonstrated on a calculator, Q&A system, Wikipedia search, machine translation, and calendar. A 6.7B Toolformer (GPT-J-based) outperforms a much larger GPT-3 on several zero-shot downstream tasks without sacrificing core language modelling. The paper is a foundational reference for [[Tool Use]] in [[LLM Agents]] and therefore for the tool-layer attack surface catalogued in [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Self-supervised tool learning via loss-reduction filtering — no task-specific supervision. - API calls are represented as interleaved special tokens (`<API> name(args) -> result </API>`) directly inside the token stream. - A single model learns heterogeneous tools rather than one tool per specialist. - Tools compensate for LLM weaknesses (arithmetic, factual recall, freshness, low-resource translation). - Establishes the architectural template — model emits tool-call tokens, external executor returns results, tokens resume — that later MCP/A2A-style protocols generalise."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Tool Use]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Skill Supply Chain Attack]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Language models can learn to use external tools in a self-supervised fashion by keeping only API calls whose responses reduce next-token loss, bootstrapping tool competence from a handful of demonstrations. - **Mechanism:** Sample candidate API-call positions and arguments via in-context prompting; execute calls; filter by weighted cross-entropy reduction (L_i^- − L_i^+ ≥ τ_f); finetune on the filtered, API-interleaved corpus. - **Concepts introduced/used:** self-supervised tool learning, API-call tokens, loss-based filtering, [[Tool Use]], [[LLM Agents]] — the direct antecedent of [[Model Context Protocol]] style tool-calling interfaces. - **Stance:** constructive - **Relates to:** Supplies the tool-invocation substrate whose abuses are studied in [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]], [[Skill Supply Chain Attack]], and the action-layer threats in [[AI Agents Under Threat]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"llm #tool-use #foundational #self-supervised #agents","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"04761":1,"2023":1,"2024":1,"2302":1,"3":1,"6":1,"7b":1,"a":12,"a2a":1,"abs":1,"abuses":1,"action":1,"agents":7,"ai":3,"an":1,"and":7,"annotates":1,"antecedent":1,"api":9,"approach":1,"architectural":1,"are":2,"arguments":2,"arithmetic":1,"arxiv":1,"as":1,"attack":3,"attacks":3,"augmented":1,"based":2,"bootstrapping":1,"by":2,"calculator":1,"calendar":1,"call":5,"calling":1,"calls":5,"can":3,"cancedda":1,"candidate":2,"catalogued":1,"chain":2,"claim":1,"compensate":1,"competence":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constructive":1,"context":3,"contribution":1,"core":1,"corpus":3,"cross":2,"decide":1,"demonstrated":1,"demonstrations":2,"dessì":1,"direct":1,"directly":1,"downstream":1,"dwivedi":1,"emits":1,"entropy":2,"establishes":1,"execute":1,"executes":1,"executor":1,"external":3,"f":1,"factual":1,"fashion":1,"file":1,"filter":1,"filtered":2,"filtering":2,"finetune":2,"for":3,"foundational":2,"freshness":1,"from":2,"generalise":1,"gpt":2,"handful":2,"heterogeneous":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"i":2,"ideas":1,"in":7,"incorporate":1,"inside":1,"interfaces":1,"interleaved":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"invocation":1,"is":3,"itself":1,"j":1,"keeping":1,"keeps":1,"key":1,"l":2,"language":4,"large":1,"larger":1,"later":1,"layer":2,"learn":1,"learning":2,"learns":1,"llm":5,"lomeli":1,"loss":4,"low":1,"machine":1,"malicious":3,"maltool":3,"mcp":1,"mechanism":1,"model":7,"modelling":1,"models":2,"much":1,"neurips":1,"next":1,"no":1,"of":3,"on":4,"one":1,"only":2,"org":1,"outperforms":1,"paper":1,"pass":1,"per":2,"positions":1,"prediction":1,"prompting":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"q":1,"raileanu":1,"rather":1,"recall":1,"reduce":2,"reduction":2,"reference":2,"relates":1,"represented":1,"resource":1,"responses":1,"result":1,"results":2,"resume":1,"returned":1,"returns":1,"sacrificing":1,"sample":1,"schick":1,"scialom":1,"search":1,"self":5,"several":1,"shot":1,"shows":1,"single":1,"skill":2,"source":1,"special":1,"specialist":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"starting":1,"stream":1,"studied":1,"style":2,"subsequent":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"supervised":5,"supervision":1,"supplies":1,"supply":2,"surface":1,"surrounding":1,"system":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"tasks":1,"teach":2,"template":1,"than":1,"that":2,"the":16,"them":1,"themselves":1,"then":1,"therefore":1,"threat":3,"threats":1,"to":9,"token":3,"tokens":5,"tool":16,"toolformer":3,"tools":4,"translation":2,"under":3,"url":1,"use":6,"used":2,"via":2,"way":1,"weaknesses":1,"weighted":1,"what":1,"when":1,"which":1,"whose":3,"wikipedia":1,"with":1,"without":1,"written":1,"yu":1,"zero":1,"zettlemoyer":1,"τ":1}},{"dl":362,"n":"Survey Of AI Agent Protocols","s":"papers/llm-agents/survey-of-ai-agent-protocols","secs":[{"h":"A Survey of AI Agent Protocols","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Yang, Chai, Song, Qi, Wen, Li, Liao, Hu, Lin, Chang, Liu, Wen, Yu, Zhang (2025). *arXiv:2504.16736*. Source file: `2504.16736v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16736)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This survey offers the first comprehensive classification and analysis of emerging AI agent protocols for LLM-based agents. The authors propose a two-dimensional taxonomy: (object orientation) context-oriented vs inter-agent protocols, and (application scenario) general-purpose vs domain-specific, covering MCP, A2A, ANP, ACP, Agora, LMOS, agents.json, LOKA, PXP, CrowdES, and others. The paper then evaluates these protocols across efficiency, scalability, security, reliability, extensibility, operability, and interoperability, and sketches a forward-looking agenda: protocols should evolve from static to adaptive, from rules to ecosystems, and from mere communication to collective intelligence infrastructure."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Two-dimensional taxonomy of agent protocols (object orientation x application scenario). - MCP as a universal context-oriented protocol with Host/Client/Server/Resource roles. - Inter-agent layer splits into general-purpose (A2A, ANP, AITP, ACP, Agora) and domain-specific (robot, human-computer, system). - Evaluation across 7 axes; case studies of MCP, A2A, ANP, Agora. - Next-generation protocols need adaptability, privacy preservation, group interaction."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[LLM Agents]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** The zoo of emerging [[LLM Agents]] protocols can be organised along two orthogonal axes (context-oriented vs inter-agent; general-purpose vs domain-specific), and evaluated on a shared seven-axis rubric. - **Mechanism:** Builds a taxonomy, then systematically compares [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]], ACP, Agora, LMOS, agents.json, LOKA, PXP, CrowdES against efficiency, scalability, security, reliability, extensibility, operability, interoperability, with case studies. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Interoperability]], [[Agent Discovery]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Shares its subject with [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] but takes a broader taxonomic view; its forward-looking \"protocols as ecosystems\" framing converges with [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] and motivates coordination layers like [[Ripple Effect Protocol]]. Historical continuity with [[KQML]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] is implicit."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"agent-protocols #llm-agents #survey #interoperability","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"16736":2,"2025":1,"2504":2,"7":1,"a":7,"a2a":3,"abs":1,"acl":1,"acp":3,"across":2,"adaptability":1,"adaptive":1,"against":1,"agenda":1,"agent":21,"agents":7,"agora":4,"ai":2,"aitp":1,"along":1,"analysis":1,"and":10,"anp":3,"application":2,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"authors":1,"axes":2,"axis":1,"based":1,"be":1,"broader":1,"builds":1,"but":1,"can":1,"case":2,"chai":1,"chang":1,"claim":1,"classification":1,"client":1,"collective":1,"communication":3,"compares":1,"comprehensive":1,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"context":6,"continuity":1,"contribution":1,"converges":1,"coordination":1,"covering":1,"crowdes":2,"dimensional":2,"discovery":1,"domain":3,"ecosystems":2,"effect":1,"efficiency":2,"emerging":2,"evaluated":1,"evaluates":1,"evaluation":1,"evolve":1,"extensibility":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"first":1,"for":1,"forward":2,"framing":1,"from":3,"general":3,"generation":1,"group":1,"historical":1,"host":1,"https":1,"hu":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"implicit":1,"infrastructure":1,"intelligence":1,"inter":3,"interaction":1,"interoperability":5,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"its":2,"json":2,"key":1,"kqml":1,"languages":2,"layer":1,"layers":1,"levels":1,"li":1,"liao":1,"like":1,"lin":1,"liu":1,"llm":5,"lmos":2,"loka":2,"looking":2,"mcp":3,"mechanism":1,"mere":1,"model":3,"motivates":1,"multi":1,"need":1,"network":3,"next":1,"object":2,"of":7,"offers":1,"on":1,"operability":2,"orchestration":1,"org":1,"organised":1,"orientation":2,"oriented":3,"orthogonal":1,"others":1,"paper":1,"preservation":1,"privacy":1,"propose":1,"protocol":11,"protocols":11,"purpose":3,"pxp":2,"qi":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliability":2,"resource":1,"ripple":1,"robot":1,"roles":1,"rubric":1,"rules":1,"scalability":2,"scenario":2,"security":2,"server":1,"seven":1,"shared":1,"shares":1,"should":1,"sketches":1,"social":1,"song":1,"source":1,"specific":3,"splits":1,"stance":1,"static":1,"studies":2,"subject":1,"summary":1,"survey":5,"system":1,"systematically":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"takes":1,"taxonomic":1,"taxonomy":3,"the":4,"then":2,"these":1,"this":1,"to":7,"two":3,"universal":1,"url":1,"used":1,"view":1,"vs":4,"wen":2,"with":5,"x":1,"yang":1,"yu":1,"zhang":1,"zoo":1}},{"dl":374,"n":"Augmented Language Models - A Survey","s":"papers/llm-agents/augmented-language-models---a-survey","secs":[{"h":"Augmented Language Models: A Survey","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Mialon, Dessi, Lomeli, Nalmpantis, Pasunuru, Raileanu, Rozière, Schick, Dwivedi-Yu, Celikyilmaz, Grave, LeCun, Scialom (2023). *arXiv:2302.07842*. Source file: `2302.07842.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07842)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This Meta AI survey introduces the term **Augmented Language Models (ALMs)**: LMs extended with *reasoning* skills (decomposing a task into subtasks) and *tool use* (calling external modules like search engines, code interpreters, or other models). The authors argue that while ALMs retain the standard next-token prediction objective, their ability to delegate computation to non-parametric external modules lets them overcome classical LM limitations in interpretability, factuality, and scalability. The survey organises the landscape around three axes: eliciting reasoning (prompting, recursive prompting, explicit training), using tools and acting (calling models, information retrieval, symbolic computation, embodied actuation), and learning to do so (supervision vs reinforcement learning). It closes with a discussion of limitations and frames ALMs as a natural stepping stone toward autonomous tool-using agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Definition of Augmented Language Models (ALMs) = reasoning + tool use under the standard missing-token objective. - Taxonomy of reasoning techniques: prompting, recursive/iterated prompting, training-time supervision. - Tools surveyed: model-calls, retrieval/RAG, search engines, web navigation, code/symbolic modules, physical actuation. - Learning strategies: hard-coded heuristics, imitation/supervision, and RL from task reward. - ALMs as precursors to agentic systems — the conceptual bridge to later MCP-style tool protocols."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Retrieval-Augmented Generation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Language models equipped with reasoning decomposition and external tool calls — \"augmented\" LMs — constitute a distinct research paradigm that can address hallucination, staleness, and interpretability defects of pure parametric LMs without abandoning the language-modelling objective. - **Mechanism:** Collates and categorises ~200 works into a reasoning/acting/learning triad, showing how each technique (CoT, RAG, toolformer, code execution, embodied action) plugs into the same missing-token framework. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Tool Use]], [[Retrieval-Augmented Generation]], [[Interoperability]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Foundational conceptual antecedent to [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] — the ALM framing underpins why LLMs need a protocol like [[Model Context Protocol]] at all; motivates tool-mediated agency that later matures into A2A/ANP-style inter-agent layers."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #survey #tool-use #augmented-lms","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"07842":2,"200":1,"2023":1,"2302":2,"a":7,"a2a":1,"abandoning":1,"ability":1,"abs":1,"acting":2,"action":1,"actuation":2,"address":1,"agency":1,"agent":3,"agentic":1,"agents":4,"ai":1,"all":1,"alm":1,"alms":5,"and":9,"anp":1,"antecedent":1,"argue":1,"around":1,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"at":1,"augmented":7,"authors":1,"autonomous":1,"axes":1,"bridge":1,"calling":2,"calls":2,"can":1,"categorises":1,"celikyilmaz":1,"claim":1,"classical":1,"closes":1,"code":3,"coded":1,"collates":1,"computation":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":3,"connections":1,"constitute":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"cot":1,"decomposing":1,"decomposition":1,"defects":1,"definition":1,"delegate":1,"dessi":1,"discussion":1,"distinct":1,"do":1,"dwivedi":1,"each":1,"eliciting":1,"embodied":2,"engines":2,"equipped":1,"execution":1,"explicit":1,"extended":1,"external":3,"factuality":1,"file":1,"foundational":1,"frames":1,"framework":1,"framing":1,"from":1,"generation":2,"grave":1,"hallucination":1,"hard":1,"heuristics":1,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"imitation":1,"in":1,"information":1,"inter":1,"interoperability":3,"interpretability":2,"interpreters":1,"into":4,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"it":1,"iterated":1,"key":1,"landscape":1,"language":5,"later":2,"layers":1,"learning":4,"lecun":1,"lets":1,"like":2,"limitations":2,"llm":3,"llms":1,"lm":1,"lms":4,"lomeli":1,"matures":1,"mcp":1,"mechanism":1,"mediated":1,"meta":1,"mialon":1,"missing":2,"model":3,"modelling":1,"models":6,"modules":3,"motivates":1,"nalmpantis":1,"natural":1,"navigation":1,"need":1,"next":1,"non":1,"objective":3,"of":6,"or":1,"org":1,"organises":1,"other":1,"overcome":1,"paradigm":1,"parametric":2,"pasunuru":1,"physical":1,"plugs":1,"precursors":1,"prediction":1,"prompting":4,"protocol":3,"protocols":3,"pure":1,"rag":2,"raileanu":1,"reasoning":6,"recursive":2,"reference":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":1,"research":1,"retain":1,"retrieval":4,"reward":1,"rl":1,"rozière":1,"same":1,"scalability":1,"schick":1,"scialom":1,"search":2,"showing":1,"skills":1,"so":1,"source":1,"staleness":1,"stance":1,"standard":2,"stepping":1,"stone":1,"strategies":1,"style":2,"subtasks":1,"summary":1,"supervision":3,"survey":7,"surveyed":1,"symbolic":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"task":2,"taxonomy":1,"technique":1,"techniques":1,"term":1,"that":3,"the":10,"their":1,"them":1,"this":1,"three":1,"time":1,"to":7,"token":3,"tool":9,"toolformer":1,"tools":2,"toward":1,"training":2,"triad":1,"under":1,"underpins":1,"url":1,"use":5,"used":1,"using":2,"vs":1,"web":1,"while":1,"why":1,"with":3,"without":1,"works":1,"yu":1}},{"dl":700,"n":"ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems","s":"papers/llm-agents/clawworm-self-propagating-attacks-across-llm-agent-ecosystems","secs":[{"h":"ClawWorm: Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Yihao Zhang, Zeming Wei, Xiaokun Luan, Chengcan Wu, Zhixin Zhang, Jiangrong Wu, Haolin Wu, Huanran Chen, Jun Sun, Meng Sun (2026). *arXiv:2603.15727v2 (Peking University; Sun Yat-sen; Wuhan; Tsinghua; SMU)*. Source file: `2603.15727v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15727)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Presents ClawWorm, the first demonstrated self-replicating, worm-style attack on a production-scale autonomous LLM-agent ecosystem. The target is OpenClaw, an open-source personal AI-agent framework with over 40,000 active instances, a persistent Markdown workspace (SOUL.md, AGENTS.md, SKILL.md), tool-execution privileges, and cross-platform messaging (Telegram, Discord, WhatsApp, Slack, Signal, Moltbook). A single crafted message triggers the victim to write a malicious payload into its highest-privilege configuration file, which then auto-fires at every session restart and autonomously propagates to every newly encountered peer — all without further attacker intervention. The worm implements a *dual-anchor persistence* mechanism: one anchor injects the payload into the Session Startup section of AGENTS.md (guaranteeing execution on reboot), the other injects a global interaction rule (guaranteeing propagation during routine replies). Three attack vectors are studied (A: web injection, B: skill-supply-chain via ClawHub, C: direct fenced-code replication with word-by-word handshake) and three payloads (P1 recon, P2 resource exhaustion, P3 command-and-control via URL retrieval). Across 1,800 trials on four frontier LLM backends (Minimax-M2.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, GLM-5, Kimi-K2.5) the aggregate attack success rate is 64.5%, with Vector B (skill supply chain) reaching 81% and sustained multi-hop propagation up to 5 hops. An epidemiological projection with basic reproduction number R0 = k × ASR shows inevitable ecosystem-wide saturation even for security-conscious models. The root cause is identified as the *flat context trust model*: the LLM cannot distinguish instructions from its owner, the system layer, or an arbitrary channel participant, so architectural patterns (unconditional workspace loading, LLM-mediated tool authorisation, unreviewed skill packages) amount to structural — not idiosyncratic — vulnerabilities shared by any agent ecosystem of similar design."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Single-message, fully autonomous worm against a production agent framework - Dual-anchor persistence: Session Startup + global interaction rule - Three attack vectors (web URL, skill supply chain, direct instruction replication) - Multi-turn autonomous-retry social engineering boosts ASR by up to +24 pp - Epidemiological SI model with R0 = k × ASR predicts ecosystem saturation - Execution-layer guardrails alone cannot halt propagation (dormant payloads persist) - Flat context trust model as structural root cause"},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Agent Security]] - [[Prompt Injection]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] — foundational ancestor of self-replicating computation - [[Agents of Chaos]] — empirical companion on agent-ecosystem failures - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] — the tool/skill-supply-chain attack surface - [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] — systematic context - [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] — why flat trust is brittle"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":36,"t":"- **Claim:** Production-scale autonomous LLM-agent ecosystems are vulnerable to single-message, self-replicating worms whose root cause is architectural (flat context trust, unconditional config loading, unreviewed skill supply chains), not model-specific. - **Mechanism:** Empirical red-team against unmodified OpenClaw v2026.3.12 across four LLM backends, three vectors, three payloads (1,800 trials). A dual-anchor persistence pattern writes the payload to AGENTS.md and installs a global propagation rule; session-restart loading re-injects the payload into the system prompt; routine replies carry the payload to peers. Evaluated with per-phase metrics (persistence, execution, propagation) and a mean-field R0 epidemiological projection. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Self-Replicating Agent]], [[Dual-Anchor Persistence]], [[Flat Context Trust Model]], [[Skill Supply Chain Attack]], [[Indirect Prompt Injection]], [[Agent Worm]], [[Configuration Integrity]], [[Multi-Turn Social Engineering]], [[Epidemiological Projection R0]] - **Stance:** empirical / critique - **Relates to:** Concrete multi-agent instantiation of the threat surface catalogued in [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]]. The flat-trust critique complements the trust-model taxonomy in [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] and the safety failures observed in [[Agents of Chaos]]. Motivates verifiable specifications of the kind proposed in [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":43,"t":""},{"h":"agent-security #prompt-injection #llm-agents #multi-agent #worm #self-replicating","l":44,"t":""}],"tf":{"000":1,"1":2,"12":1,"15727":1,"15727v2":1,"2":1,"2026":1,"24":1,"2603":2,"3":1,"40":1,"5":5,"64":1,"800":2,"81":1,"a":14,"abs":1,"across":3,"active":1,"against":2,"agent":16,"agentic":2,"agents":7,"aggregate":1,"ai":3,"all":1,"alone":1,"amount":1,"an":3,"ancestor":1,"anchor":5,"and":9,"any":1,"arbitrary":1,"architectural":2,"are":2,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"asr":3,"at":1,"attack":8,"attacker":1,"attacks":2,"authorisation":1,"auto":1,"automata":1,"autonomous":4,"autonomously":1,"b":2,"backends":2,"basic":1,"boosts":1,"brittle":1,"by":3,"c":1,"cannot":2,"carry":1,"catalogued":1,"cause":3,"chain":5,"chains":1,"challenge":1,"channel":1,"chaos":2,"chen":1,"chengcan":1,"claim":1,"clawhub":1,"clawworm":2,"code":1,"coding":1,"command":1,"companion":1,"comparative":2,"complements":1,"computation":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"config":1,"configuration":2,"connections":1,"conscious":1,"context":6,"contribution":1,"control":1,"crafted":1,"critique":2,"cross":1,"deepseek":1,"demonstrated":1,"design":1,"direct":2,"discord":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":1,"dormant":1,"dual":4,"during":1,"ecosystem":5,"ecosystems":2,"empirical":3,"encountered":1,"engineering":2,"epidemiological":4,"evaluated":1,"even":1,"every":2,"execution":4,"exhaustion":1,"failures":2,"fenced":1,"field":1,"file":2,"fires":1,"first":1,"flat":6,"for":2,"formalization":1,"foundational":1,"four":2,"framework":2,"from":1,"frontier":1,"fully":1,"further":1,"glm":1,"global":3,"gossip":1,"grand":1,"guaranteeing":2,"guardrails":1,"halt":1,"handshake":1,"haolin":1,"highest":1,"hop":1,"hops":1,"https":1,"huanran":1,"ideas":1,"identified":1,"idiosyncratic":1,"implements":1,"in":4,"indirect":1,"inevitable":1,"injection":4,"injects":3,"installs":1,"instances":1,"instantiation":1,"instruction":1,"instructions":1,"integrity":1,"intent":1,"inter":2,"interaction":2,"intervention":1,"into":3,"introduced":1,"is":5,"its":2,"jiangrong":1,"jun":1,"k":2,"k2":1,"key":1,"kimi":1,"kind":1,"layer":2,"llm":9,"loading":3,"luan":1,"m2":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":1,"markdown":1,"md":5,"mean":1,"mechanism":2,"mediated":1,"meng":1,"message":3,"messaging":1,"metrics":1,"minimax":1,"model":7,"models":3,"moltbook":1,"motivates":1,"multi":6,"newly":1,"not":2,"number":1,"observed":1,"of":10,"on":4,"one":1,"open":1,"openclaw":2,"or":1,"org":1,"other":1,"over":1,"owner":1,"p1":1,"p2":1,"p3":1,"packages":1,"participant":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"payload":5,"payloads":3,"peer":1,"peers":1,"peking":1,"per":1,"persist":1,"persistence":5,"persistent":1,"personal":1,"phase":1,"platform":1,"pp":1,"predicts":1,"presents":1,"privilege":1,"privileges":1,"production":3,"projection":3,"prompt":4,"propagates":1,"propagating":1,"propagation":5,"proposed":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"r0":4,"rate":1,"re":1,"reaching":1,"reboot":1,"recon":1,"red":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliable":1,"replicating":5,"replication":2,"replies":2,"reproducing":1,"reproduction":1,"reputation":1,"resource":1,"restart":2,"retrieval":1,"retry":1,"root":3,"routine":2,"rule":3,"safety":1,"saturation":2,"scale":2,"section":1,"security":4,"self":7,"sen":1,"session":4,"shared":1,"shows":1,"si":1,"signal":1,"similar":1,"single":3,"skill":8,"slack":1,"smu":1,"so":1,"social":2,"sok":2,"soul":1,"source":2,"specific":1,"specifications":1,"stance":1,"startup":2,"structural":2,"studied":1,"study":2,"style":1,"success":1,"summary":1,"sun":3,"supply":6,"surface":4,"sustained":1,"system":2,"systematic":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"target":1,"taxonomy":1,"team":1,"telegram":1,"the":24,"then":1,"theory":1,"threat":1,"three":5,"to":9,"tool":4,"trials":2,"triggers":1,"trust":10,"tsinghua":1,"turn":2,"unconditional":2,"university":1,"unmodified":1,"unreviewed":2,"up":2,"url":3,"used":1,"v2026":1,"v3":1,"vector":1,"vectors":3,"verifiable":1,"via":2,"victim":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"vulnerable":1,"web":2,"wei":1,"whatsapp":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"why":1,"wide":1,"with":6,"without":1,"word":2,"workspace":2,"worm":5,"worms":1,"write":1,"writes":1,"wu":3,"wuhan":1,"xiaokun":1,"yat":1,"yihao":1,"zeming":1,"zhang":2,"zhixin":1}},{"dl":403,"n":"Generative Agents","s":"papers/llm-agents/generative-agents","secs":[{"h":"Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Park, O'Brien, Cai, Morris, Liang, Bernstein (2023). *UIST '23*. Source file: `2304.03442.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces *generative agents*: LLM-powered simulacra that populate a Sims-like sandbox with 25 characters who wake, plan their day, converse, form opinions, remember past events, reflect, and coordinate group activities (e.g., autonomously spreading invitations to a Valentine's Day party). The agent architecture extends an LLM with three components: a **memory stream** (natural-language log of experiences with recency/importance/relevance retrieval), **reflection** (higher-level inferences synthesised from memories), and **planning** (recursive decomposition of daily goals into action sequences), with reflections and plans fed back into the memory stream. The paper is a widely-cited foundational reference for agent memory and social simulation, and is invoked throughout [[AI Agents Under Threat]] as the canonical multi-agent LLM society whose emergent behaviours define the attack surface for [[Memory Poisoning]] and inter-agent risks."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Memory stream as a long-term, natural-language, retrieval-indexed experience log. - Retrieval scoring combines recency, importance, and semantic relevance. - Reflection: periodic self-prompted synthesis of memories into higher-level beliefs, propositions, and abstractions. - Planning: top-down decomposition of daily goals into hierarchical schedules that feed back into memory. - Believable individual and emergent group behaviour (information diffusion, relationship formation, coordination) arising without scripted dialogue trees."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Memory Poisoning]] - [[Retrieval-Augmented Generation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Believable long-horizon human-like behaviour in LLM agents can be produced by augmenting the model with an architectural trio — memory stream, reflection, planning — that together let the agent retrieve, generalise, and act over long time horizons. - **Mechanism:** Natural-language memory stream with recency+importance+relevance retrieval; periodic reflection that distils memories into higher-level beliefs; recursive top-down planning that writes plans back into memory; all components implemented as LLM prompts over ChatGPT. - **Concepts introduced/used:** memory stream, reflection, recursive planning, believable simulacra, emergent social dynamics — the substrate for [[Memory Poisoning]] and inter-agent cascade attacks in [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]]. - **Stance:** constructive/empirical - **Relates to:** Establishes the memory+reflection+planning template whose failure modes are analysed in [[AI Agents Under Threat]] (brain/memory threats) and whose emergent multi-agent phenomena motivate [[Multi-Agent Systems]] security work."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #memory #planning #reflection #foundational #multi-agent","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"03442":1,"2023":1,"23":1,"2304":1,"25":1,"a":5,"abs":1,"abstractions":1,"across":1,"act":1,"action":1,"activities":1,"agent":11,"agents":9,"ai":4,"all":1,"an":2,"analysed":1,"and":13,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":1,"arising":1,"arxiv":1,"as":3,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"augmented":1,"augmenting":1,"autonomously":1,"back":3,"be":1,"behavior":1,"behaviour":2,"behaviours":1,"beliefs":2,"believable":3,"bernstein":1,"brain":1,"brien":1,"by":1,"cai":1,"can":1,"canonical":1,"cascade":1,"characters":1,"chatgpt":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"clawworm":1,"combines":1,"components":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constructive":1,"contribution":1,"converse":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":1,"daily":2,"day":2,"decomposition":2,"define":1,"dialogue":1,"diffusion":1,"distils":1,"down":2,"dynamics":1,"e":1,"ecosystems":1,"emergent":4,"empirical":1,"establishes":1,"events":1,"experience":1,"experiences":1,"extends":1,"failure":1,"fed":1,"feed":1,"file":1,"for":3,"form":1,"formation":1,"foundational":2,"from":1,"g":1,"generalise":1,"generation":1,"generative":2,"goals":2,"group":2,"hierarchical":1,"higher":3,"horizon":1,"horizons":1,"https":1,"human":2,"ideas":1,"implemented":1,"importance":3,"in":3,"indexed":1,"individual":1,"inferences":1,"information":1,"inter":2,"interactive":1,"into":7,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"invitations":1,"invoked":1,"is":2,"key":1,"language":3,"let":1,"level":3,"liang":1,"like":2,"llm":8,"log":2,"long":3,"mechanism":1,"memories":3,"memory":15,"model":1,"modes":1,"morris":1,"motivate":1,"multi":5,"natural":3,"o":1,"of":5,"opinions":1,"org":1,"over":2,"paper":1,"park":1,"party":1,"past":1,"periodic":2,"phenomena":1,"plan":1,"planning":7,"plans":2,"poisoning":3,"populate":1,"powered":1,"produced":1,"prompted":1,"prompts":1,"propagating":1,"propositions":1,"recency":3,"recursive":3,"reference":2,"reflect":1,"reflection":7,"reflections":1,"relates":1,"relationship":1,"relevance":3,"remember":1,"retrieval":5,"retrieve":1,"risks":1,"s":1,"sandbox":1,"schedules":1,"scoring":1,"scripted":1,"security":1,"self":2,"semantic":1,"sequences":1,"sims":1,"simulacra":3,"simulation":1,"social":2,"society":1,"source":1,"spreading":1,"stance":1,"stream":6,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"surface":1,"synthesis":1,"synthesised":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"template":1,"term":1,"that":5,"the":9,"their":1,"threat":4,"threats":1,"three":1,"throughout":1,"time":1,"to":2,"together":1,"top":2,"trees":1,"trio":1,"uist":1,"under":4,"url":1,"used":1,"valentine":1,"wake":1,"who":1,"whose":3,"widely":1,"with":6,"without":1,"work":1,"writes":1}},{"dl":542,"n":"Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment","s":"papers/distributed/knowledge-and-common-knowledge-in-a-distributed-environment","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1990). \"Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment.\" *Journal of the ACM*, 37(3), 549-587. [URL](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern/papers/common_knowledge.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Halpern and Moses recast distributed protocol design as *knowledge transformation*: sending a message changes the knowledge state of the system, and correctness specifications can be stated in terms of what individual processes, groups, or \"the system\" know at various points. The paper develops a formal epistemic logic for distributed systems with operators K_i (agent i knows), E (everyone knows), and C (common knowledge — everyone knows that everyone knows, to infinite depth). The central technical result is striking: in a truly asynchronous distributed system, **common knowledge is unattainable**. The classical \"coordinated attack\" problem (two generals must attack simultaneously but communicate only via lossy messengers) is unsolvable because simultaneous action requires common knowledge of the time to attack, and no finite message chain ever reaches the fixpoint. The muddy children puzzle — a beloved epistemic set piece walked through in the opening — shows how a public announcement can create common knowledge that sequential private reasoning cannot, illuminating why synchronous broadcast matters. Because strict common knowledge is unattainable, the paper introduces and characterises weaker variants: eventual common knowledge, ε-common knowledge (bounded delay), timestamped common knowledge, and concurrent common knowledge. Each corresponds to a different system model (synchronous, partially synchronous, etc.) and a different class of solvable coordination tasks. This framework turned \"what does a protocol achieve?\" into a precise epistemic question and seeded the entire field of **Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK)**."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Epistemic hierarchy**: distributed knowledge ⊑ someone knows ⊑ everyone knows (E) ⊑ common knowledge (C). - **Common knowledge (C)**: fixpoint E^ω — needed for any *simultaneous* coordinated action. - **Coordinated attack / muddy children**: canonical illustrations of how public announcements create C. - **Impossibility**: in async or even synchronous-with-uncertain-delivery systems, C cannot be attained by message exchange. - **Weakenings**: ε-C (bounded-time C), eventual C, timestamped C, concurrent C — each aligned with a synchrony assumption. - **Protocols as knowledge transformers**: specifications are claims about K_i, E, C; message sends are knowledge updates. - **Runs-and-systems semantics**: each global history is a \"run\"; agent's knowledge is the set of runs it cannot distinguish from the actual one."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[Epistemic S5]] - [[Knowing What vs Knowing That]] - [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] — Rosenschein-Kaelbling operationalise this framework. - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] — the \"local history\" underpinning indistinguishable runs is Lamport's past-cone. - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] — consensus impossibility has an epistemic reading: common knowledge of a decision cannot be attained. - [[CAP Theorem]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"> Distributed coordination is the attainment of particular epistemic states among agents, and different coordination problems require different levels on the hierarchy K_i → E → C. Strict common knowledge is impossible in asynchronous systems; practical protocols deliver weaker, explicitly characterized approximations. This epistemic lens turns distributed systems design into a *logical engineering* problem: match the required knowledge state to what the communication medium can deliver."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #epistemic-logic #common-knowledge #halpern-moses #foundational #knowledge-representation #coordination #muddy-children","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"1990":1,"3":1,"37":1,"549":1,"587":1,"a":16,"about":2,"achieve":1,"acm":1,"action":2,"actual":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"aligned":1,"among":1,"an":1,"and":13,"announcement":1,"announcements":1,"any":1,"approximations":1,"are":2,"as":2,"aspects":1,"assumption":1,"async":1,"asynchronous":2,"at":1,"attack":4,"attained":2,"attainment":1,"be":3,"because":2,"beloved":1,"bounded":2,"broadcast":1,"but":1,"by":1,"c":12,"can":3,"cannot":4,"canonical":1,"cap":1,"central":1,"chain":1,"changes":1,"characterises":1,"characterized":1,"children":3,"claims":1,"class":1,"classical":1,"clocks":1,"common":17,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrent":2,"cone":1,"connections":1,"consensus":2,"contribution":1,"coordinated":3,"coordination":4,"cornell":1,"correctness":1,"corresponds":1,"create":2,"cs":1,"decision":1,"delay":1,"deliver":2,"delivery":1,"depth":1,"design":2,"develops":1,"different":4,"digital":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":11,"does":1,"e":5,"each":3,"edu":1,"engineering":1,"entire":1,"environment":2,"epistemic":11,"etc":1,"even":1,"events":1,"eventual":2,"ever":1,"everyone":4,"exchange":1,"explicitly":1,"faulty":1,"field":1,"finite":1,"fixpoint":2,"for":2,"formal":1,"foundational":1,"framework":2,"from":1,"generals":1,"global":1,"groups":1,"halpern":4,"has":1,"hierarchy":2,"history":2,"home":1,"how":2,"https":1,"i":4,"ideas":1,"illuminating":1,"illustrations":1,"impossibility":3,"impossible":1,"in":8,"indistinguishable":1,"individual":1,"infinite":1,"into":2,"introduces":1,"is":9,"it":1,"j":1,"journal":1,"k":3,"kaelbling":1,"key":1,"know":1,"knowing":2,"knowledge":28,"knows":6,"lamport":1,"lens":1,"levels":1,"local":1,"logic":3,"logical":1,"lossy":1,"machines":1,"match":1,"matters":1,"medium":1,"message":4,"messengers":1,"model":1,"moses":3,"muddy":3,"must":1,"needed":1,"no":1,"of":14,"on":1,"one":2,"only":1,"opening":1,"operationalise":1,"operators":1,"or":2,"ordering":1,"paper":2,"papers":1,"partially":1,"particular":1,"past":1,"pdf":1,"piece":1,"points":1,"practical":1,"precise":1,"private":1,"problem":2,"problems":1,"process":1,"processes":1,"properties":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":2,"provable":1,"public":2,"puzzle":1,"question":1,"reaches":1,"reading":1,"reasoning":2,"recast":1,"reference":1,"representation":1,"require":1,"required":1,"requires":1,"result":1,"rosenschein":1,"run":1,"runs":3,"s":2,"s5":1,"seeded":1,"semantics":1,"sending":1,"sends":1,"sequential":1,"set":2,"shows":1,"simultaneous":2,"simultaneously":1,"solvable":1,"someone":1,"specifications":2,"state":2,"stated":1,"states":1,"strict":2,"striking":1,"summary":1,"synchronous":4,"synchrony":1,"synthesis":1,"system":5,"systems":6,"tags":1,"tark":1,"tasks":1,"technical":1,"terms":1,"that":3,"the":22,"theorem":1,"theoretical":1,"this":3,"through":1,"time":3,"timestamped":2,"to":4,"transformation":1,"transformers":1,"truly":1,"turned":1,"turns":1,"two":1,"unattainable":2,"uncertain":1,"underpinning":1,"unsolvable":1,"updates":1,"url":1,"variants":1,"various":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"walked":1,"weakenings":1,"weaker":2,"what":4,"why":1,"with":5,"www":1,"y":2,"ε":2,"ω":1}},{"dl":592,"n":"Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy","s":"papers/distributed/keeping-calm---when-distributed-consistency-is-easy","secs":[{"h":"Keeping CALM: When Distributed Consistency is Easy","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Joseph M. Hellerstein & Peter Alvaro (2019). *arXiv:1901.01930v2*. Source file: `../1901.01930v2.pdf` (in parent directory). [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01930)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"An accessible, updated statement of the **CALM Theorem** — *Consistency As Logical Monotonicity*: a program has a consistent, coordination-free distributed implementation **if and only if** it is *monotonic* in a formal logical sense. Monotonic programs are \"safe\" under missing information and can proceed without waiting: once something has been concluded, it stays concluded. Non-monotonic programs (\"change their mind\" in the face of new inputs) are necessarily *order-sensitive* and therefore require coordination to produce a single deterministic outcome. CALM is a *positive* counterpart to the negative results of the **[[CAP Theorem]]** and the FLP impossibility. Where CAP says \"you can't always have it all\", CALM *delineates the class of programs that can in fact satisfy all of C, A, and P simultaneously*: exactly the monotonic ones. The theorem shifts attention away from storage consistency (linearizability, serializability) toward **program consistency** — **[[Confluence]]**: deterministic outcomes despite non-deterministic message delivery and ordering. The paper traces the theorem's implications for **[[Bloom Language]]**, **[[Dedalus]]**, **[[CRDTs]]**, coordination-free design patterns (monotonic accumulation, tombstones, immutable data), distributed garbage collection, and Amazon's shopping-cart example. It closes with open questions: expressiveness of monotonic languages, program synthesis targeting monotonicity, repair of non-monotonic code, and a possible **[[Stochastic CALM]]** for near-optimum stochastic algorithms."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Monotonicity ⇔ coordination-freeness ⇔ consistency** (CALM) - Program consistency = **confluence**: same outputs regardless of message order / batching - Non-monotonic operations *retract* earlier conclusions, hence must wait for \"all the news\" — requiring **[[Coordination Avoidance]]** logic to know when - Formalisation via **[[Relational Transducer]]** networks (Ameloot, Neven, Van den Bussche) - CAP is a special case: linearizable storage is one non-monotonic operation; CALM asks the question across *all* programs - Practical playbook: immutable data structures, tombstones, set-monotonic accumulation, CRDTs as object-oriented monotonic types - Bloom gives syntactic monotonicity checking — a programmer writing monotonic Bloom is guaranteed coordination-free correctness"},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[CALM Theorem]] - [[CAP Theorem]] - [[Confluence]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[Bloom Language]] - [[Dedalus]] - [[CRDTs]] - [[Relational Transducer]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":38,"t":"- **Claim:** A distributed program is consistent and coordination-free iff it is expressible in monotonic logic — a tight, provable characterisation that converts \"distributed consistency is hard\" into a precise question about a program's logical shape. - **Mechanism:** Formalise programs as networks of **[[Relational Transducer]]s** (Ameloot et al.); define **[[Confluence]]** as program-level determinism under non-deterministic delivery; prove biconditional between confluence and monotonic-logic expressibility. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Monotonic Logic]], [[Confluence]], [[Coordination Avoidance]], [[Relational Transducer]], [[Bloom Language]], [[Dedalus]], [[CRDTs]], [[CAP Theorem]], [[Immutable Data Structures]], [[Tombstones]], [[Stochastic CALM]] - **Stance:** foundational / survey - **Relates to:** Provides the theoretical companion to the [[Gossip Protocols]] cluster ([[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]], [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]]) — gossip aggregation with mass conservation is exactly a monotonic accumulation, hence coordination-free. Frames why [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] must reach for stored-procedure coordination precisely where programs are non-monotonic. Contrasts with [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]: that paper shows *game-theoretic* MAS are brittle under message loss — CALM identifies the *logical* class of programs immune to such loss. The monotonic/non-monotonic split echoes [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]]'s distinction between Horn-clause logic and [[Negation as Failure]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":45,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #consistency #monotonic-logic #coordination-avoidance #foundations #bloom #crdts","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"01930":1,"01930v2":1,"1901":2,"2019":1,"a":14,"about":1,"abs":1,"accessible":1,"accumulation":3,"across":1,"aggregate":2,"aggregation":3,"al":1,"algorithms":1,"all":4,"alvaro":1,"always":1,"amazon":1,"ameloot":2,"an":1,"and":11,"are":6,"arxiv":2,"as":5,"asks":1,"attention":1,"avoidance":4,"away":1,"based":4,"batching":1,"been":1,"between":2,"biconditional":1,"bloom":6,"brittle":1,"bussche":1,"c":1,"calm":10,"can":3,"cap":5,"cart":1,"case":1,"change":1,"characterisation":1,"checking":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"clause":1,"closes":1,"cluster":1,"code":1,"collection":1,"communication":2,"companion":1,"computation":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concluded":2,"conclusions":1,"confluence":6,"connections":1,"conservation":1,"consistency":8,"consistent":2,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"converts":1,"coordination":14,"correctness":1,"counterpart":1,"crdts":5,"data":3,"dedalus":3,"define":1,"delineates":1,"delivery":2,"den":1,"design":1,"despite":1,"determinism":1,"deterministic":4,"directory":1,"distinction":1,"distributed":8,"dynamic":2,"earlier":1,"easy":1,"echoes":1,"et":1,"exactly":2,"example":1,"expressibility":1,"expressible":1,"expressiveness":1,"extensible":2,"face":1,"fact":1,"failure":1,"failures":2,"file":1,"flp":1,"for":4,"formal":1,"formalisation":1,"formalise":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":3,"frames":1,"free":5,"freeness":1,"from":1,"game":1,"garbage":1,"gives":1,"gossip":6,"guaranteed":1,"hard":1,"has":2,"have":1,"hellerstein":1,"hence":2,"horn":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"if":2,"iff":1,"immune":1,"immutable":3,"implementation":1,"implications":1,"impossibility":1,"in":7,"information":3,"inputs":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":10,"it":5,"joseph":1,"keeping":1,"key":1,"know":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"large":2,"level":1,"linearizability":1,"linearizable":1,"lloyd":2,"logic":9,"logical":4,"loss":2,"m":1,"mas":1,"mass":1,"mechanism":1,"message":3,"mind":1,"missing":1,"monotonic":22,"monotonicity":4,"multiagent":2,"must":2,"near":1,"necessarily":1,"negation":1,"negative":1,"networks":4,"neven":1,"new":1,"news":1,"non":9,"object":1,"of":14,"once":1,"one":1,"ones":1,"only":1,"open":1,"operation":1,"operations":1,"optimum":1,"order":2,"ordering":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"outcome":1,"outcomes":1,"outputs":1,"p":1,"paper":2,"parent":1,"patterns":1,"peter":1,"playbook":1,"positive":1,"possible":1,"practical":1,"precise":1,"precisely":1,"procedure":1,"proceed":1,"produce":1,"program":7,"programmer":1,"programming":2,"programs":7,"protocols":1,"provable":1,"prove":1,"provides":1,"question":2,"questions":1,"reach":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"regardless":1,"relates":1,"relational":4,"repair":1,"require":1,"requiring":1,"resilient":2,"results":1,"retract":1,"s":5,"safe":1,"same":1,"satisfy":1,"says":1,"sense":1,"sensitive":1,"serializability":1,"set":1,"shape":1,"shifts":1,"shopping":1,"shows":1,"simultaneously":1,"single":1,"something":1,"source":1,"special":1,"split":1,"stance":1,"statement":1,"stays":1,"stochastic":3,"storage":2,"stored":1,"structures":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"survey":1,"syntactic":1,"synthesis":1,"systems":3,"t":1,"tags":1,"targeting":1,"that":3,"the":16,"their":1,"theorem":7,"theoretic":1,"theoretical":1,"therefore":1,"tight":1,"to":8,"tombstones":3,"toward":1,"traces":1,"transducer":4,"types":1,"under":3,"updated":1,"url":1,"used":1,"van":1,"via":1,"wait":1,"waiting":1,"when":2,"where":2,"why":1,"with":3,"without":1,"writing":1,"you":1}},{"dl":500,"n":"Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System","s":"papers/distributed/time-clocks-and-the-ordering-of-events-in-a-distributed-system","secs":[{"h":"Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Lamport, L. (1978). \"Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System.\" *Communications of the ACM*, 21(7), 558-565. [URL](http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/time-clocks.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Lamport's seminal paper reframes time in distributed systems. Rather than depending on physical clocks that cannot be perfectly synchronized, he defines a *partial order* on events — the \"happened-before\" relation (→) — using only causality derived from local process order and message exchange. Two events are concurrent iff neither happened before the other. This reorientation showed that a distributed system's truth about \"when\" is inherently relational, not absolute, mirroring the space-time view of special relativity. Lamport then introduces **logical clocks** — counters per process that assign numbers to events such that a → b implies C(a) < C(b). A simple algorithm (increment on local events; piggyback timestamps on messages; bump local clock on receipt) provides this. Extending the partial order to a *total* order via tiebreaking by process ID enables the classic distributed mutual exclusion algorithm that uses only message passing without a central coordinator. The final portion generalises to physical clocks, deriving synchronization bounds that tolerate clock drift and message delay. The paper is foundational: it underlies vector clocks, causal broadcast, state-machine replication, Paxos, version vectors in Dynamo/Riak, CRDT causality tracking, and distributed snapshotting."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Happened-before (→)**: irreflexive partial order capturing causal precedence. - **Concurrency**: a ∦ b when neither a → b nor b → a; cannot be eliminated in a distributed system. - **Logical clocks**: monotone counters satisfying the Clock Condition; do not measure real time but respect causality. - **Total ordering**: arbitrary tie-break on process IDs yields a global total order usable for coordination. - **Distributed mutual exclusion**: a worked example of using total ordering of timestamped requests to implement a resource without a central arbiter. - **Space-time diagrams**: process lines + message arrows — a durable visual vocabulary for distributed reasoning. - **Physical clock synchronization**: bounded drift + bounded message delay yield clock-sync with provable error."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[CAP Theorem]] — partitions and concurrent writes are grounded in Lamport's concurrent events. - [[CALM Theorem]] — monotonic computation avoids the coordination that Lamport's algorithms provide. - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] — when → does not need to be totally ordered. - [[Gossip Protocols]] — epidemic dissemination implicitly maintains a causal partial order. - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] — FLP shows limits of coordination Lamport makes feasible in fault-free settings. - [[Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment]] — epistemic reading of causal pasts."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"> Time in a distributed system is a partial order induced by causality, not a universal totally-ordered clock. Coordination becomes *logical* rather than *temporal*: algorithms may be programmed against the happened-before relation and made oblivious to physical clocks, drift, and bounded but unknown delays. Any total order over distributed events is a *choice*, not a fact — a design lever with coordination cost."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #clocks #causality #concurrency #lamport #foundational #consensus #coordination","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"1978":1,"21":1,"558":1,"565":1,"7":1,"a":26,"about":1,"absolute":1,"acm":1,"against":1,"algorithm":2,"algorithms":2,"and":9,"any":1,"arbiter":1,"arbitrary":1,"are":2,"arrows":1,"assign":1,"avoidance":1,"avoids":1,"azurewebsites":1,"b":5,"be":4,"becomes":1,"before":4,"bounded":3,"bounds":1,"break":1,"broadcast":1,"bump":1,"but":2,"by":2,"c":2,"calm":2,"cannot":2,"cap":1,"capturing":1,"causal":4,"causality":5,"central":2,"choice":1,"classic":1,"clock":6,"clocks":10,"common":1,"communications":1,"computation":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrency":2,"concurrent":3,"condition":1,"connections":1,"consensus":2,"consistency":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":7,"coordinator":1,"cost":1,"counters":2,"crdt":1,"defines":1,"delay":2,"delays":1,"depending":1,"derived":1,"deriving":1,"design":1,"diagrams":1,"dissemination":1,"distributed":15,"do":1,"does":1,"drift":3,"durable":1,"dynamo":1,"easy":1,"eliminated":1,"enables":1,"environment":1,"epidemic":1,"epistemic":1,"error":1,"events":8,"example":1,"exchange":1,"exclusion":2,"extending":1,"fact":1,"fault":1,"faulty":1,"feasible":1,"final":1,"flp":1,"for":2,"foundational":2,"free":1,"from":1,"generalises":1,"global":1,"gossip":1,"grounded":1,"happened":4,"he":1,"http":1,"id":1,"ideas":1,"ids":1,"iff":1,"implement":1,"implicitly":1,"implies":1,"impossibility":1,"in":9,"increment":1,"induced":1,"inherently":1,"introduces":1,"irreflexive":1,"is":5,"it":1,"keeping":1,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"l":1,"lamport":8,"lever":1,"limits":1,"lines":1,"local":3,"logical":3,"machine":1,"made":1,"maintains":1,"makes":1,"may":1,"measure":1,"message":5,"messages":1,"mirroring":1,"monotone":1,"monotonic":1,"mutual":2,"need":1,"neither":2,"net":1,"nor":1,"not":5,"numbers":1,"oblivious":1,"of":9,"on":6,"one":1,"only":2,"order":9,"ordered":2,"ordering":4,"other":1,"over":1,"paper":2,"partial":5,"partitions":1,"passing":1,"pasts":1,"paxos":1,"pdf":1,"per":1,"perfectly":1,"physical":4,"piggyback":1,"portion":1,"precedence":1,"process":6,"programmed":1,"protocols":1,"provable":1,"provide":1,"provides":1,"pubs":1,"rather":2,"reading":1,"real":1,"reasoning":1,"receipt":1,"reference":1,"reframes":1,"relation":2,"relational":1,"relativity":1,"reorientation":1,"replication":1,"requests":1,"resource":1,"respect":1,"riak":1,"s":4,"satisfying":1,"seminal":1,"settings":1,"showed":1,"shows":1,"simple":1,"snapshotting":1,"space":2,"special":1,"state":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"sync":1,"synchronization":2,"synchronized":1,"system":5,"systems":2,"tags":1,"temporal":1,"than":2,"that":7,"the":13,"then":1,"theorem":2,"this":2,"tie":1,"tiebreaking":1,"time":8,"timestamped":1,"timestamps":1,"to":6,"tolerate":1,"total":5,"totally":2,"tracking":1,"truth":1,"two":1,"underlies":1,"universal":1,"unknown":1,"url":1,"usable":1,"uses":1,"using":2,"vector":1,"vectors":1,"version":1,"via":1,"view":1,"visual":1,"vocabulary":1,"when":4,"with":3,"without":2,"worked":1,"writes":1,"yield":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":521,"n":"Distributed Snapshots Determining Global States of Distributed Systems","s":"papers/distributed/distributed-snapshots-determining-global-states-of-distributed-systems","secs":[{"h":"Distributed Snapshots: Determining Global States of Distributed Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** K. Mani Chandy, Leslie Lamport (1985). *ACM Transactions on Computer Systems*, 3(1):63-75. Source file: `chandy-lamport-1985.pdf`. [URL](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/chandy.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces the Chandy-Lamport distributed-snapshot algorithm: a decentralised procedure by which processes in an asynchronous message-passing system can jointly record a consistent global state without halting the underlying computation and without any shared clock. The recorded state may never have existed at a single instant, but it is *reachable* from the initial state and can *reach* the final state; in particular, it correctly detects any stable property (deadlock, termination, token loss, etc.). The algorithm works on a strongly connected graph of FIFO channels: the initiator records its local state and sends a special *marker* on every outgoing channel; upon first receipt of a marker on an incoming channel, a process records its own state, records the incoming channel as empty, and propagates markers on its outgoing channels; subsequent markers terminate channel recording. The paper's \"photographers of migrating birds\" metaphor became canonical for the problem. The snapshot defines a consistent cut in the happens-before order and is the foundation for distributed debugging, checkpointing, and stable-property detection."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Global state = set of process states plus set of channel (message-in-transit) states - Marker messages as in-band synchronization tokens on FIFO channels - A recorded snapshot is reachable from the pre-snapshot state and reaches the post-snapshot state, even though it may never have held simultaneously - Stable properties (termination, deadlock, lost tokens) can be decided on any recorded snapshot - No shared clock, no halting of the underlying computation, fully decentralised initiation - Requires FIFO channels and eventual delivery; channel state = messages sent before marker but received after"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** A consistent global state of an asynchronous distributed system can be recorded by a fully local algorithm using in-band marker messages, without stopping the computation and without shared clocks. - **Mechanism:** An initiator records its state and floods markers. Each process, on first marker arrival on channel c, records its own state and treats the pre-marker messages on c as empty; for subsequent incoming channels it records the messages received after its own state-recording and before the marker as the channel's recorded state. FIFO channels guarantee consistency of the resulting cut. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Consistent cut, global state, stable property, marker protocol, in-band control, distributed termination detection, distributed deadlock detection, checkpointing. - **Stance:** formal / algorithmic. - **Relates to:** Builds directly on the happens-before relation and logical clocks of [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] — a snapshot is a consistent antichain in that partial order. Complements [[CALM Theorem]], which characterises computations whose results are insensitive to message ordering and therefore need no snapshot for correctness. The flooding of markers over a connected topology is a structural cousin of [[Gossip Protocols]], though snapshot markers carry exact-once semantics rather than probabilistic diffusion."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #snapshots #global-state #stable-properties #checkpointing","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1985":1,"3":1,"63":1,"75":1,"a":17,"acm":1,"after":2,"algorithm":3,"algorithmic":1,"an":4,"and":16,"antichain":1,"any":3,"are":1,"arrival":1,"as":4,"asynchronous":2,"at":1,"azurewebsites":1,"band":3,"be":2,"became":1,"before":4,"birds":1,"builds":1,"but":2,"by":2,"c":2,"calm":2,"can":4,"canonical":1,"carry":1,"chandy":3,"channel":8,"channels":6,"characterises":1,"checkpointing":3,"claim":1,"clock":2,"clocks":4,"complements":1,"computation":3,"computations":1,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connected":2,"connections":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":5,"contribution":1,"control":1,"correctly":1,"correctness":1,"cousin":1,"cut":3,"deadlock":3,"debugging":1,"decentralised":2,"decided":1,"defines":1,"delivery":1,"detection":3,"detects":1,"determining":1,"diffusion":1,"directly":1,"distributed":10,"each":1,"empty":2,"etc":1,"even":1,"events":2,"eventual":1,"every":1,"exact":1,"existed":1,"fifo":4,"file":1,"final":1,"first":2,"flooding":1,"floods":1,"for":4,"formal":1,"foundation":1,"from":2,"fully":2,"global":6,"gossip":2,"graph":1,"guarantee":1,"halting":2,"happens":2,"have":2,"held":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"in":10,"incoming":3,"initial":1,"initiation":1,"initiator":2,"insensitive":1,"instant":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":5,"it":4,"its":6,"jointly":1,"k":1,"key":1,"lamport":3,"leslie":1,"local":2,"logical":1,"loss":1,"lost":1,"mani":1,"marker":9,"markers":5,"may":2,"mechanism":1,"message":3,"messages":5,"metaphor":1,"migrating":1,"need":1,"net":1,"never":2,"no":3,"of":14,"on":11,"once":1,"order":2,"ordering":3,"outgoing":2,"over":1,"own":3,"paper":1,"partial":1,"particular":1,"passing":1,"pdf":1,"photographers":1,"plus":1,"post":1,"pre":2,"probabilistic":1,"problem":1,"procedure":1,"process":3,"processes":1,"propagates":1,"properties":2,"property":3,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"pubs":1,"rather":1,"reach":1,"reachable":2,"reaches":1,"receipt":1,"received":2,"record":1,"recorded":5,"recording":2,"records":6,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relation":1,"requires":1,"resulting":1,"results":1,"s":2,"semantics":1,"sends":1,"sent":1,"set":2,"shared":3,"simultaneously":1,"single":1,"snapshot":9,"snapshots":2,"source":1,"special":1,"stable":5,"stance":1,"state":17,"states":3,"stopping":1,"strongly":1,"structural":1,"subsequent":2,"summary":1,"synchronization":1,"system":4,"systems":3,"tags":1,"terminate":1,"termination":3,"than":1,"that":1,"the":26,"theorem":2,"therefore":1,"though":2,"time":2,"to":2,"token":1,"tokens":2,"topology":1,"transactions":1,"transit":1,"treats":1,"underlying":2,"upon":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"without":4,"works":1}},{"dl":514,"n":"The Part-Time Parliament","s":"papers/distributed/the-part-time-parliament","secs":[{"h":"The Part-Time Parliament","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Leslie Lamport (1998). *ACM Transactions on Computer Systems*, 16(2):133-169 (minor corrections 2000). Source file: `lamport-paxos.pdf`. [URL](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/lamport-paxos.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The original exposition of the Paxos consensus algorithm, framed as an archaeological account of the part-time parliament of the (fictional) ancient Greek island of Paxos. Legislators drift in and out of the Chamber and messengers may lose, duplicate, or delay messages; nevertheless the parliament maintains a consistent ledger of decrees. Translated to distributed computing, this is the canonical solution to asynchronous fault-tolerant state-machine replication: a majority quorum protocol that guarantees safety (no two ledgers ever disagree on a decree) and makes progress whenever a majority of processes and their messages are eventually responsive. The paper develops the *single-decree Synod* protocol first — choosing one value — using a ballot structure with three conditions (unique ballot numbers, pairwise-intersecting quorums, and a rule forcing a ballot's decree to equal the latest decree of any earlier ballot whose quorum overlaps). It then generalises to multi-decree Parliament (multi-Paxos). The prose style (Greek-parable framing, archaeological footnotes) famously delayed the paper's publication and shaped the oral tradition of the algorithm."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Asynchronous consensus under crash failures and unreliable messaging via majority quorums - Two-phase protocol: prepare (collect promises / latest earlier votes) then accept (commit a value) - Ballot numbers totally ordered; any two quorums intersect; late ballots adopt an earlier committed value - Safety is unconditional; liveness depends on eventual synchrony plus a distinguished proposer - Multi-Paxos: amortise phase 1 across a sequence of decrees under a stable leader - State-machine replication as the canonical application"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[CAP Theorem]] - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] - [[CALM Theorem]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Fault-tolerant consensus is achievable in an asynchronous message-passing system with crash failures as long as a majority of processes is eventually live and can communicate, by requiring every decision-making quorum to intersect every other. - **Mechanism:** Ballots with unique, totally ordered numbers; each ballot has a quorum; a ballot succeeds iff its quorum all vote. Condition B3 — a ballot's decree must match the decree of the latest earlier ballot in which any quorum member voted — propagates any already-committed value forward, preserving safety across leader changes. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Paxos, Synod protocol, ballots, quorums, proposer/acceptor/learner roles (implicit), state-machine replication, safety vs. liveness, leader election, eventual synchrony. - **Stance:** formal / algorithmic — an algorithm with a correctness proof disguised as archaeology. - **Relates to:** Paxos sidesteps [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] (FLP) by relaxing liveness under worst-case asynchrony. It operationalises the happens-before order of [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] (another Lamport paper) at the agreement level. Sits firmly in the CP corner of the [[CAP Theorem]], trading availability during partitions for consistency. Contrasts with [[CALM Theorem]], which identifies classes of computations that need no coordination at all."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #consensus #paxos #fault-tolerance #replication","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"133":1,"16":1,"169":1,"1998":1,"2":1,"2000":1,"a":18,"accept":1,"acceptor":1,"account":1,"achievable":1,"acm":1,"across":2,"adopt":1,"agreement":1,"algorithm":3,"algorithmic":1,"all":2,"already":1,"amortise":1,"an":4,"ancient":1,"and":10,"another":1,"any":4,"application":1,"archaeological":2,"archaeology":1,"are":1,"as":5,"asynchronous":3,"asynchrony":1,"at":2,"availability":1,"azurewebsites":1,"b3":1,"ballot":9,"ballots":3,"before":1,"by":2,"calm":2,"can":1,"canonical":2,"cap":2,"case":1,"chamber":1,"changes":1,"choosing":1,"claim":1,"classes":1,"clocks":2,"collect":1,"commit":1,"committed":2,"communicate":1,"computations":1,"computer":1,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"consensus":6,"consistency":1,"consistent":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"corner":1,"corrections":1,"correctness":1,"cp":1,"crash":2,"decision":1,"decree":7,"decrees":2,"delay":1,"delayed":1,"depends":1,"develops":1,"disagree":1,"disguised":1,"distinguished":1,"distributed":6,"drift":1,"duplicate":1,"during":1,"each":1,"earlier":4,"election":1,"equal":1,"events":2,"eventual":2,"eventually":2,"ever":1,"every":2,"exposition":1,"failures":2,"famously":1,"fault":3,"faulty":2,"fictional":1,"file":1,"firmly":1,"first":1,"flp":1,"footnotes":1,"for":1,"forcing":1,"formal":1,"forward":1,"framed":1,"framing":1,"generalises":1,"greek":2,"guarantees":1,"happens":1,"has":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"iff":1,"implicit":1,"impossibility":2,"in":6,"intersect":2,"intersecting":1,"introduced":1,"is":4,"island":1,"it":2,"its":1,"key":1,"lamport":4,"late":1,"latest":3,"leader":3,"learner":1,"ledger":1,"ledgers":1,"legislators":1,"leslie":1,"level":1,"live":1,"liveness":3,"long":1,"lose":1,"machine":3,"maintains":1,"majority":4,"makes":1,"making":1,"match":1,"may":1,"mechanism":1,"member":1,"message":1,"messages":2,"messaging":1,"messengers":1,"minor":1,"multi":3,"must":1,"need":1,"net":1,"nevertheless":1,"no":2,"numbers":3,"of":19,"on":3,"one":3,"operationalises":1,"or":1,"oral":1,"order":1,"ordered":2,"ordering":2,"original":1,"other":1,"out":1,"overlaps":1,"pairwise":1,"paper":3,"parable":1,"parliament":4,"part":2,"partitions":1,"passing":1,"paxos":8,"pdf":1,"phase":2,"plus":1,"prepare":1,"preserving":1,"process":2,"processes":2,"progress":1,"promises":1,"proof":1,"propagates":1,"proposer":2,"prose":1,"protocol":4,"publication":1,"pubs":1,"quorum":6,"quorums":4,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relaxing":1,"replication":4,"requiring":1,"responsive":1,"roles":1,"rule":1,"s":3,"safety":4,"sequence":1,"shaped":1,"sidesteps":1,"single":1,"sits":1,"solution":1,"source":1,"stable":1,"stance":1,"state":3,"structure":1,"style":1,"succeeds":1,"summary":1,"synchrony":2,"synod":2,"system":3,"systems":2,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":24,"their":1,"then":2,"theorem":4,"this":1,"three":1,"time":4,"to":6,"tolerance":1,"tolerant":2,"totally":2,"trading":1,"tradition":1,"transactions":1,"translated":1,"two":3,"unconditional":1,"under":3,"unique":2,"unreliable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"value":4,"via":1,"vote":1,"voted":1,"votes":1,"vs":1,"whenever":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"with":7,"worst":1}},{"dl":507,"n":"Brewers Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent Available Partition-Tolerant Web Services","s":"papers/distributed/brewers-conjecture-and-the-feasibility-of-consistent-available-partition-tolerant-web-services","secs":[{"h":"Brewer's Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent, Available, Partition-Tolerant Web Services","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Gilbert, S., & Lynch, N. (2002, revisited 2012). \"Perspectives on the CAP Theorem.\" MIT / National University of Singapore. [URL](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Gilbert/Brewer2.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"This paper is the formal proof and later retrospective of Brewer's CAP conjecture: in a distributed system subject to communication failures, no web service can simultaneously guarantee **Consistency** (atomic read/write), **Availability** (every request receives a response), and **Partition-tolerance** (the system continues to operate when messages are lost between nodes). The proof is elegantly short: partition the servers into two groups; a write on one side and a read on the other must answer, but the read cannot know of the write, so either consistency or availability must fail. The authors situate CAP within the deeper trade-off between **safety** and **liveness** properties in unreliable systems — the very trade-off FLP formalized for consensus. Consistency is a safety property (\"nothing bad happens\"), availability is a liveness property (\"something good eventually happens\"), and the unreliability axis includes partitions, crashes, and Byzantine faults. CAP is then one specific instance of the general fact that safety + liveness are jointly unattainable in sufficiently unreliable systems. The paper distinguishes practical regimes (always-consistent with best-effort availability; always-available with weak/eventual consistency; hybrid tactics) and connects to partial synchrony results (Dwork, Lynch, Stockmeyer) that quantify exactly how much timing reliability is needed. CAP has become a rallying slogan and a misused one — the paper explicitly warns it is a theorem about *adversarial* partitions, not a license to abandon consistency whenever convenient."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **CAP theorem**: pick at most two of consistency, availability, partition-tolerance in an unreliable network. - **Asynchronous impossibility**: even without actual partitions, async delays force the same trade-off — you cannot distinguish a slow network from a partitioned one. - **Safety vs. liveness lens**: CAP is a concrete instance of a broader unreliability theorem. - **Weak consistency models**: eventual, causal, sequential — engineered escapes from strict CAP. - **Synchrony continuum**: fully synchronous → partially synchronous → fully asynchronous; feasibility varies along it. - **Practical taxonomy**: CP, AP, and CA-only-without-partitions system designs. - **Not a license**: the theorem is often cited to justify weaker-than-needed guarantees; read carefully."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[CAP Theorem]] - [[CALM Theorem]] — identifies the programs for which consistency *does not* require coordination. - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] — eventual consistency in the AP regime. - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] — FLP is CAP's consensus cousin. - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"> You cannot have atomic consistency and full availability in the presence of arbitrary network partitions. This is not an engineering failure but a theorem; it forces every distributed system architect to declare — per operation, not per system — which axis they sacrifice when the network misbehaves, and to design explicit strategies for detecting, tolerating, and recovering from the chosen sacrifice."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #CAP #consistency #availability #partition-tolerance #gilbert-lynch #foundational #safety-liveness","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"2002":1,"2012":1,"a":17,"abandon":1,"about":1,"actual":1,"adversarial":1,"along":1,"always":2,"an":2,"and":14,"answer":1,"ap":2,"arbitrary":1,"architect":1,"are":2,"async":1,"asynchronous":2,"at":1,"atomic":2,"authors":1,"availability":7,"available":2,"avoidance":1,"axis":2,"bad":1,"become":1,"best":1,"between":2,"brewer":2,"brewer2":1,"broader":1,"but":2,"byzantine":1,"ca":1,"calm":2,"can":1,"cannot":3,"cap":11,"carefully":1,"causal":1,"chosen":1,"cited":1,"clocks":1,"communication":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conjecture":2,"connections":1,"connects":1,"consensus":3,"consistency":12,"consistent":2,"continues":1,"continuum":1,"contribution":1,"convenient":1,"coordination":2,"cousin":1,"cp":1,"crashes":1,"csail":1,"declare":1,"deeper":1,"delays":1,"design":1,"designs":1,"detecting":1,"distinguish":1,"distinguishes":1,"distributed":6,"does":1,"dwork":1,"easy":1,"edu":1,"effort":1,"either":1,"elegantly":1,"engineered":1,"engineering":1,"escapes":1,"even":1,"events":1,"eventual":3,"eventually":1,"every":2,"exactly":1,"explicit":1,"explicitly":1,"fact":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"failures":1,"faults":1,"faulty":1,"feasibility":2,"flp":2,"for":3,"force":1,"forces":1,"formal":1,"formalized":1,"foundational":1,"from":3,"full":1,"fully":2,"general":1,"gilbert":3,"good":1,"gossip":1,"groups":2,"guarantee":1,"guarantees":1,"happens":2,"has":1,"have":1,"how":1,"http":1,"hybrid":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"impossibility":2,"in":7,"includes":1,"instance":2,"into":1,"is":12,"it":3,"jointly":1,"justify":1,"keeping":1,"key":1,"know":1,"later":1,"lens":1,"license":2,"liveness":5,"lost":1,"lynch":3,"messages":1,"misbehaves":1,"misused":1,"mit":2,"models":1,"most":1,"much":1,"must":2,"n":1,"national":1,"needed":2,"network":4,"no":1,"nodes":1,"not":5,"nothing":1,"of":10,"off":3,"often":1,"on":3,"one":5,"only":1,"operate":1,"operation":1,"or":1,"ordering":1,"other":1,"paper":3,"papers":1,"partial":1,"partially":1,"partition":5,"partitioned":1,"partitions":5,"pdf":1,"per":2,"perspectives":1,"pick":1,"practical":2,"presence":1,"process":1,"programs":1,"proof":2,"properties":1,"property":2,"protocols":1,"quantify":1,"rallying":1,"read":4,"receives":1,"recovering":1,"reference":1,"regime":1,"regimes":1,"reliability":1,"request":1,"require":1,"response":1,"results":1,"retrospective":1,"revisited":1,"s":4,"sacrifice":2,"safety":5,"same":1,"sequential":1,"servers":1,"service":1,"services":1,"short":1,"side":1,"simultaneously":1,"singapore":1,"situate":1,"slogan":1,"slow":1,"so":1,"something":1,"specific":1,"stockmeyer":1,"strategies":1,"strict":1,"subject":1,"sufficiently":1,"summary":1,"synchronous":2,"synchrony":2,"system":6,"systems":3,"tactics":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"tds":1,"than":1,"that":2,"the":24,"then":1,"theorem":8,"they":1,"this":2,"time":1,"timing":1,"to":7,"tolerance":3,"tolerant":1,"tolerating":1,"trade":3,"two":2,"unattainable":1,"university":1,"unreliability":2,"unreliable":3,"url":1,"varies":1,"very":1,"vs":1,"warns":1,"weak":2,"weaker":1,"web":2,"when":3,"whenever":1,"which":2,"with":3,"within":1,"without":2,"write":3,"you":2}},{"dl":528,"n":"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process","s":"papers/distributed/impossibility-of-distributed-consensus-with-one-faulty-process","secs":[{"h":"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., & Paterson, M. S. (1985). \"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process.\" *Journal of the ACM*, 32(2), 374-382. [URL](https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"The FLP result is the canonical impossibility theorem of asynchronous distributed computing. Its statement is sharp: no deterministic consensus protocol can guarantee termination in an asynchronous message-passing system if even a single process may crash. Unlike earlier results that required Byzantine faults or lossy networks, FLP assumes reliable messaging and only one benign crash failure — yet still derives impossibility. The proof proceeds by showing that every consensus protocol admits an *initial bivalent configuration* (one from which either decision value is still reachable), and that from any bivalent configuration an adversary scheduler can always delay one message to force the system into another bivalent configuration. Thus an admissible run exists in which no process ever decides. The core technical tool is the commutativity of disjoint process steps (Lemma 1) and a careful analysis of \"critical\" configurations where a specific process's next step is decision-forcing. The result cleaves distributed computing into what is possible under various synchrony assumptions. Real-world protocols respond by weakening one axis: Paxos and Raft adopt *partial synchrony* and accept that liveness can only be guaranteed \"eventually\"; randomized consensus (Ben-Or, Rabin) achieves termination with probability 1; failure detectors (Chandra-Toueg ◊S) encapsulate the synchrony needed. FLP remains the bedrock boundary against which all consensus engineering is measured."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Consensus problem**: N processes, binary inputs; non-faulty processes must all decide the same value; some initial configuration must admit each decision. - **Asynchronous model**: unbounded message delays; no clocks; no timeouts. - **One crash failure**: the weakest possible fault assumption that still breaks consensus. - **Bivalent configurations**: states from which both 0 and 1 outcomes are still reachable. - **Adversary scheduler**: by reordering message deliveries, keeps the system in a bivalent configuration forever. - **Safety vs. liveness**: FLP shows safety + liveness + fault-tolerance cannot coexist in pure async. - **Escape hatches**: partial synchrony, randomization, failure detectors, or accepting non-termination in corner cases."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[CAP Theorem]] — CAP is a direct relative: in partition-prone systems, atomic read/write also unattainable. - [[CALM Theorem]] — monotonic logic sidesteps consensus by avoiding it. - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] — the design pattern motivated by FLP. - [[Gossip Protocols]] — probabilistic convergence as an alternative to deterministic agreement. - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] — Lamport's logical time underlies the proof's commutation arguments. - [[Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment]] — common knowledge likewise unattainable in async systems."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"> In an asynchronous system where even a single process may fail silently, there is no deterministic protocol that guarantees every non-faulty process eventually decides — not because of cleverness gaps, but because a single slow process is indistinguishable from a crashed one, and that indistinguishability is weaponizable by the scheduler. Consensus requires *timing assumptions, randomness, or failure oracles*; these are not optional design choices but mathematical necessities."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"distributed-systems #consensus #impossibility #FLP #asynchronous #fault-tolerance #foundational #safety-liveness","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1":3,"1985":1,"2":1,"32":1,"374":1,"382":1,"a":11,"accept":1,"accepting":1,"achieves":1,"acm":1,"admissible":1,"admit":1,"admits":1,"adopt":1,"adversary":2,"against":1,"agreement":1,"all":2,"also":1,"alternative":1,"always":1,"an":6,"analysis":1,"and":9,"another":1,"any":1,"are":2,"arguments":1,"as":1,"assumes":1,"assumption":1,"assumptions":2,"async":2,"asynchronous":5,"atomic":1,"avoidance":1,"avoiding":1,"axis":1,"be":1,"because":2,"bedrock":1,"ben":1,"benign":1,"binary":1,"bivalent":5,"both":1,"boundary":1,"breaks":1,"but":2,"by":6,"byzantine":1,"calm":2,"can":3,"cannot":1,"canonical":1,"cap":2,"careful":1,"cases":1,"chandra":1,"choices":1,"cleaves":1,"cleverness":1,"clocks":2,"coexist":1,"common":2,"commutation":1,"commutativity":1,"computing":2,"conceptual":1,"configuration":5,"configurations":2,"connections":1,"consensus":11,"consistency":1,"contribution":1,"convergence":1,"coordination":1,"core":1,"corner":1,"crash":3,"crashed":1,"critical":1,"csail":1,"decide":1,"decides":2,"decision":3,"delay":1,"delays":1,"deliveries":1,"derives":1,"design":2,"detectors":2,"deterministic":3,"direct":1,"disjoint":1,"distributed":8,"each":1,"earlier":1,"easy":1,"edu":1,"either":1,"encapsulate":1,"engineering":1,"environment":1,"escape":1,"even":2,"events":1,"eventually":2,"ever":1,"every":2,"exists":1,"fail":1,"failure":5,"fault":3,"faults":1,"faulty":4,"fischer":1,"flp":6,"force":1,"forcing":1,"forever":1,"foundational":1,"from":4,"gaps":1,"gossip":1,"groups":1,"guarantee":1,"guaranteed":1,"guarantees":1,"hatches":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"impossibility":5,"in":10,"indistinguishability":1,"indistinguishable":1,"initial":2,"inputs":1,"into":2,"is":12,"it":1,"its":1,"j":1,"jacm85":1,"journal":1,"keeping":1,"keeps":1,"key":1,"knowledge":3,"lamport":1,"lemma":1,"likewise":1,"liveness":4,"logic":1,"logical":1,"lossy":1,"lynch":2,"m":2,"mathematical":1,"may":2,"measured":1,"message":4,"messaging":1,"mit":1,"model":1,"monotonic":1,"motivated":1,"must":2,"n":2,"necessities":1,"needed":1,"networks":1,"next":1,"no":5,"non":3,"not":2,"of":8,"one":8,"only":2,"optional":1,"or":4,"oracles":1,"ordering":1,"outcomes":1,"papers":1,"partial":2,"partition":1,"passing":1,"paterson":1,"pattern":1,"paxos":1,"pdf":1,"possible":2,"probabilistic":1,"probability":1,"problem":1,"proceeds":1,"process":9,"processes":2,"prone":1,"proof":2,"protocol":3,"protocols":2,"pure":1,"rabin":1,"raft":1,"randomization":1,"randomized":1,"randomness":1,"reachable":2,"read":1,"real":1,"reference":1,"relative":1,"reliable":1,"remains":1,"reordering":1,"required":1,"requires":1,"respond":1,"result":2,"results":1,"run":1,"s":5,"safety":3,"same":1,"scheduler":3,"sharp":1,"showing":1,"shows":1,"sidesteps":1,"silently":1,"single":3,"slow":1,"some":1,"specific":1,"statement":1,"states":1,"step":1,"steps":1,"still":4,"summary":1,"synchrony":4,"system":5,"systems":3,"tags":1,"tds":1,"technical":1,"termination":3,"that":7,"the":17,"theorem":3,"there":1,"these":1,"thus":1,"time":2,"timeouts":1,"timing":1,"to":2,"tolerance":2,"tool":1,"toueg":1,"unattainable":2,"unbounded":1,"under":1,"underlies":1,"unlike":1,"url":1,"value":2,"various":1,"vs":1,"weakening":1,"weakest":1,"weaponizable":1,"what":1,"when":1,"where":2,"which":4,"with":3,"world":1,"write":1,"yet":1}},{"dl":580,"n":"End-to-End Arguments in System Design","s":"papers/distributed/end-to-end-arguments-in-system-design","secs":[{"h":"End-to-End Arguments in System Design","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). \"End-to-End Arguments in System Design.\" *ACM Transactions on Computer Systems*, 2(4), 277-288. [URL](https://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Saltzer, Reed, and Clark articulate a design principle for layered distributed systems that had long been used but rarely stated explicitly: functions requiring knowledge and action at the **endpoints** of a communication — such as reliable delivery, integrity checking, encryption, duplicate suppression — cannot be fully and correctly implemented at lower layers. Lower-layer implementations are at best performance optimizations; the end-to-end argument says they cannot substitute for the end-level check. The canonical example is careful file transfer between two hosts. Even if the communication network offers reliable delivery, threats remain — disk errors at either host, memory corruption during buffering, software bugs in the file-transfer program itself. No amount of reliability layered into the network can defend against these; only an end-to-end checksum computed from the file on disk at host A and verified against the file on disk at host B closes the loop. The paper then iterates the argument through encryption (only the endpoints know the plaintext), duplicate suppression (only the application knows what \"duplicate\" means at the transaction level), delivery acknowledgements, and crash recovery. The principle is a design heuristic, not an absolute rule: performance sometimes justifies redundant lower-layer mechanisms (e.g., per-hop error correction in a very noisy link). But it inverts the naïve \"make the network as reliable as possible\" instinct, provides the intellectual backbone for the Internet's **dumb-network / smart-edges** architecture, and underwrites TCP's placement in the hosts rather than the routers. Its influence extends to REST's principled avoidance of server-side session state, to security architectures that refuse to trust intermediaries, and to the \"fate-sharing\" style of protocol design."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **End-to-end argument**: a function that must be correct at endpoints cannot be completely implemented below the endpoints. - **Lower layers as optimization**: partial lower-level help is only a performance enhancement, never a correctness substitute. - **Careful file transfer**: the worked example — only an end-to-end checksum protects against all failure modes. - **Dumb core, smart edges**: Internet architecture as the principle's canonical application. - **Encryption placement**: true confidentiality requires endpoint encryption; network-level encryption is not enough. - **Acknowledgements**: application-meaningful acks (e.g., \"request served\") require endpoint involvement. - **Cost-benefit nuance**: redundancy below is justified when error rate or cost of retry makes it worthwhile."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] — Fielding's REST thesis formalizes many end-to-end commitments. - [[REST]] - [[LangSec]] — input parsing at the application boundary is itself an end-to-end verification. - [[Actor Model]] — supervisor-style recovery relies on end-to-end state ownership. - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] — endpoints cannot delegate liveness to lower layers either."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"> Correctness of a distributed function is a property of the *application endpoints*, not the communication substrate. Pushing reliability, security, or ordering into lower layers gives only a performance benefit, never a correctness guarantee — because only the endpoint knows what the application counts as \"correct\". This flipped the instinct to make networks ever-more-reliable and gave the Internet its architectural shape: minimal common-denominator transport, with application-specific guarantees layered above."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"systems-design #end-to-end #layering #internet-architecture #saltzer-reed-clark #foundational #reliability #modularity","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"1984":1,"2":1,"277":1,"288":1,"4":1,"a":12,"above":1,"absolute":1,"acknowledgements":2,"acks":1,"acm":1,"action":1,"actor":1,"against":3,"all":1,"amount":1,"an":4,"and":8,"application":7,"architectural":1,"architecture":4,"architectures":1,"are":1,"argument":3,"arguments":2,"articulate":1,"as":6,"at":9,"avoidance":1,"b":1,"backbone":1,"be":3,"because":1,"been":1,"below":2,"benefit":2,"best":1,"between":1,"boundary":1,"buffering":1,"bugs":1,"but":2,"can":1,"cannot":4,"canonical":2,"careful":2,"check":1,"checking":1,"checksum":2,"clark":3,"closes":1,"commitments":1,"common":1,"communication":3,"completely":1,"computed":1,"computer":1,"conceptual":1,"confidentiality":1,"connections":1,"consensus":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"correct":2,"correction":1,"correctly":1,"correctness":3,"corruption":1,"cost":2,"counts":1,"crash":1,"d":3,"defend":1,"delegate":1,"delivery":3,"denominator":1,"design":7,"disk":3,"distributed":3,"dumb":2,"duplicate":3,"during":1,"e":2,"edges":2,"edu":1,"either":2,"encryption":5,"end":21,"endpoint":3,"endpoints":6,"endtoend":2,"enhancement":1,"enough":1,"error":2,"errors":1,"even":1,"ever":1,"example":2,"explicitly":1,"extends":1,"failure":1,"fate":1,"faulty":1,"fielding":1,"file":5,"flipped":1,"for":3,"formalizes":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"fully":1,"function":2,"functions":1,"g":2,"gave":1,"gives":1,"guarantee":1,"guarantees":1,"h":1,"had":1,"help":1,"heuristic":1,"hop":1,"host":3,"hosts":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"implementations":1,"implemented":2,"impossibility":1,"in":5,"influence":1,"input":1,"instinct":2,"integrity":1,"intellectual":1,"intermediaries":1,"internet":4,"into":2,"inverts":1,"involvement":1,"is":7,"it":2,"iterates":1,"its":2,"itself":2,"j":1,"justified":1,"justifies":1,"key":1,"know":1,"knowledge":1,"knows":2,"langsec":1,"layer":2,"layered":3,"layering":1,"layers":4,"level":4,"link":1,"liveness":1,"long":1,"loop":1,"lower":7,"make":2,"makes":1,"many":1,"meaningful":1,"means":1,"mechanisms":1,"memory":1,"minimal":1,"mit":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"modes":1,"modularity":1,"more":1,"must":1,"naïve":1,"network":5,"networks":1,"never":2,"no":1,"noisy":1,"not":3,"nuance":1,"of":9,"offers":1,"on":4,"one":1,"only":7,"optimization":1,"optimizations":1,"or":2,"ordering":1,"ownership":1,"p":1,"paper":1,"parsing":1,"partial":1,"pdf":1,"per":1,"performance":4,"placement":2,"plaintext":1,"possible":1,"principle":3,"principled":2,"process":1,"program":1,"property":1,"protects":1,"protocol":1,"provides":1,"publications":1,"pushing":1,"rarely":1,"rate":1,"rather":1,"recovery":2,"redundancy":1,"redundant":1,"reed":3,"reference":1,"refuse":1,"reliability":3,"reliable":4,"relies":1,"remain":1,"request":1,"require":1,"requires":1,"requiring":1,"rest":3,"retry":1,"routers":1,"rule":1,"s":5,"saltzer":4,"says":1,"security":2,"served":1,"server":1,"session":1,"shape":1,"sharing":1,"side":1,"smart":2,"software":1,"sometimes":1,"specific":1,"state":2,"stated":1,"style":2,"substitute":2,"substrate":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"supervisor":1,"suppression":2,"system":2,"systems":3,"tags":1,"tcp":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":35,"then":1,"these":1,"thesis":1,"they":1,"this":1,"threats":1,"through":1,"to":16,"transaction":1,"transactions":1,"transfer":3,"transport":1,"true":1,"trust":1,"two":1,"underwrites":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verification":1,"verified":1,"very":1,"web":2,"what":2,"when":1,"with":2,"worked":1,"worthwhile":1,"www":1}},{"dl":398,"n":"MCP Landscape Security Threats And Future Research Directions","s":"papers/security/mcp-landscape-security-threats-and-future-research-directions","secs":[{"h":"Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Hou, Zhao, Wang, Wang (2025). Huazhong University of Science and Technology. *arXiv:2503.23278*. Source file: `2503.23278.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23278)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The first in-depth academic analysis of the **Model Context Protocol (MCP)** ecosystem. The authors trace the evolution from manual API wiring through OpenAI plugins and framework-specific tool abstractions (LangChain, LlamaIndex) to Anthropic's MCP, which they characterise as a **protocol-level standard** that decouples tool implementation from usage, enabling dynamic discovery, bi-directional channels, and schema negotiation. Beyond the ecosystem survey, the paper contributes a **systematic threat taxonomy**: four attacker archetypes (malicious developers, external attackers, malicious users, security flaws) and 16 concrete threat scenarios spanning creation, deployment, operation, and maintenance of MCP servers. Real-world case studies validate the threat model against current servers, and the authors outline governance and scalability directions for MCP's sustainable growth."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- MCP as the first post-function-calling *protocol* standard for LLM tool access (vs platform-specific plugins). - Lifecycle model for MCP servers: creation, deployment, operation, update, termination. - Four attacker archetypes: malicious developers, external attackers, malicious users, security flaws. - 16 threat scenarios including tool poisoning, installer spoofing, unauthorized access. - Bi-directional communication channels distinguish MCP from one-way plugin interfaces. - Remaining gaps: security, tool discoverability, remote deployment, governance."},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Agent Security]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** MCP represents a qualitative shift from hardcoded, per-application tool bindings to a composable, discoverable ecosystem of AI-native web services — but its rapid adoption has outrun academic analysis of its architecture, lifecycle, and security posture. - **Mechanism:** Combines an architectural decomposition (host/client/server) and a five-phase server lifecycle with a threat-modelling exercise across 16 scenarios and 4 attacker archetypes, grounded in real MCP servers surveyed in the wild. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Tool Use]], [[Agent Security]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Interoperability]], [[Agent Discovery]] - **Stance:** survey / threat analysis - **Relates to:** Deepens the MCP security discussion sketched in [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] and [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]]; its threat taxonomy complements [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] and [[AI Agents Under Threat]] by focusing specifically on the MCP protocol surface rather than individual tools."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"mcp #agent-protocols #security #llm-agents #survey","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"16":3,"2025":1,"23278":2,"2503":2,"4":1,"a":6,"abs":1,"abstractions":1,"academic":2,"access":2,"across":1,"adoption":1,"against":1,"agent":8,"agents":5,"ai":5,"an":1,"analysis":3,"and":13,"anthropic":1,"api":1,"application":1,"archetypes":3,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"attacker":3,"attackers":2,"attacks":2,"authors":2,"beyond":1,"bi":2,"bindings":1,"but":1,"by":1,"calling":1,"case":1,"channels":2,"characterise":1,"claim":1,"client":1,"combines":1,"communication":1,"complements":1,"composable":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"context":4,"contributes":1,"contribution":1,"creation":2,"current":1,"decomposition":1,"decouples":1,"deepens":1,"deployment":3,"depth":1,"developers":2,"directional":2,"directions":2,"discoverability":1,"discoverable":1,"discovery":2,"discussion":1,"distinguish":1,"dynamic":1,"ecosystem":3,"enabling":1,"evolution":1,"exercise":1,"external":2,"file":1,"first":2,"five":1,"flaws":2,"focusing":1,"for":3,"four":2,"framework":1,"from":4,"function":1,"future":1,"gaps":1,"governance":2,"grounded":1,"growth":1,"hardcoded":1,"has":1,"host":1,"hou":1,"https":1,"huazhong":1,"ideas":1,"implementation":1,"in":4,"including":1,"individual":1,"installer":1,"interfaces":1,"interoperability":3,"introduced":1,"its":3,"key":1,"landscape":1,"langchain":1,"level":1,"lifecycle":3,"llamaindex":1,"llm":4,"maintenance":1,"malicious":6,"maltool":2,"manual":1,"mcp":13,"mechanism":1,"model":6,"modelling":1,"native":1,"negotiation":1,"of":9,"on":1,"one":1,"openai":1,"operation":2,"org":1,"outline":1,"outrun":1,"paper":1,"per":1,"phase":1,"platform":1,"plugin":1,"plugins":2,"poisoning":1,"post":1,"posture":1,"protocol":7,"protocols":5,"qualitative":1,"rapid":1,"rather":1,"real":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"remaining":1,"remote":1,"represents":1,"research":1,"s":2,"scalability":1,"scenarios":3,"schema":1,"science":1,"security":9,"server":2,"servers":4,"services":1,"shift":1,"sketched":1,"source":1,"spanning":1,"specific":2,"specifically":1,"spoofing":1,"stance":1,"standard":2,"studies":1,"summary":1,"surface":1,"survey":7,"surveyed":1,"sustainable":1,"systematic":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":2,"technology":1,"termination":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":12,"they":1,"threat":9,"threats":1,"through":1,"to":3,"tool":10,"tools":1,"trace":1,"unauthorized":1,"under":2,"university":1,"update":1,"url":1,"usage":1,"use":2,"used":1,"users":2,"validate":1,"vs":1,"wang":2,"way":1,"web":1,"which":1,"wild":1,"wiring":1,"with":1,"world":1,"zhao":1}},{"dl":418,"n":"Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL","s":"papers/security/architectural-patterns-for-dependable-software-systems---sol","secs":[{"h":"Specification, Analysis and Implementation of Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Yau, S. S., Mukhopadhyay, S., Bharadwaj, R. (2005). *Proc. 10th IEEE Intl. Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems (WORDS'05)*. Source file: `WORD2005-2.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1109/WORDS.2005.50)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper presents the Secure Operations Language (SOL) and the agent-based SINS middleware for specifying, analyzing, and deploying architectural patterns that realize non-functional requirements (security, fault tolerance, real-time) of distributed dependable systems. SOL is a synchronous specification language with a precise formal semantics supporting automated analysis (theorem proving, model checking); SINS runs SOL agents on virtual machines distributed over hosts, with encrypted inter-agent messaging via a Secure Agent Control Protocol. The authors illustrate SOL by formalizing a stack safety policy (a `safestack` module that constrains illegal pushes/pops) and the Hot Standby and Majority Vote fault-tolerance patterns as SOL modules with observable `fail` events. They extend SOL with module imports, an implicit `fail` variable, and middleware notification of module failures — enabling compositional dependability reasoning across heterogeneous deployments."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- SOL: synchronous language for agent specification with formal semantics. - SINS middleware runs SOL agents across encrypted VMs. - Patterns (HotStandby, MajorityVote) as reusable SOL modules. - Safety policies enforced at the language level. - Compositional analysis of dependability requirements."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Capability Security]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Dependability (security, fault tolerance, real-time) in distributed systems is best achieved by specifying architectural patterns as formal modules in a synchronous agent language and deploying them on a middleware that enforces the same semantics at runtime. - **Mechanism:** SOL is a synchronous language with precise formal semantics amenable to theorem proving and model checking; programs are agents running on SINS virtual machines across hosts, communicating over the Secure Agent Control Protocol. The authors extend SOL with module imports, an implicit `fail` variable, and middleware fault notifications, then encode stack-safety, Hot Standby and Majority Vote as reusable SOL modules whose composition preserves dependability guarantees. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Secure Operations Language]], [[SINS Middleware]], [[Synchronous Language]], [[Architectural Pattern]], [[Hot Standby]], [[Majority Vote]], [[Safestack]], [[Secure Agent Control Protocol]], [[Compositional Dependability]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** A concrete agent-middleware realisation of the security calculus in [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]; its formal-specification stance meets the language-workbench pragmatics of [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]]; pattern reuse echoes dependability concerns in [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] and [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"dependability #fault-tolerance #agents #formal-methods","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"05":1,"10":1,"10th":1,"1109":1,"2005":2,"50":1,"a":9,"achieved":1,"across":3,"adaptive":1,"agent":10,"agents":4,"amenable":1,"an":2,"analysis":3,"analyzing":1,"and":11,"architectural":4,"are":2,"as":4,"at":2,"authors":2,"automata":1,"automated":1,"based":1,"best":1,"bharadwaj":1,"by":2,"calculus":1,"capability":1,"checking":2,"claim":1,"communicating":1,"communication":1,"communications":1,"composition":1,"compositional":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"constrains":1,"contribution":1,"control":3,"dependability":7,"dependable":3,"deploying":2,"deployments":1,"distributed":5,"doi":1,"echoes":1,"enabling":1,"encode":1,"encrypted":2,"enforced":1,"enforces":1,"engineering":1,"events":1,"extend":2,"failures":2,"fault":5,"file":1,"for":4,"formal":6,"formalizing":1,"functional":1,"guarantees":1,"heterogeneous":1,"hosts":2,"hot":3,"hotstandby":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"illegal":1,"illustrate":1,"implementation":1,"implicit":2,"imports":2,"in":4,"inter":1,"intl":1,"introduced":1,"is":3,"its":1,"key":1,"language":11,"languages":1,"level":1,"machines":2,"majority":3,"majorityvote":1,"mechanism":1,"meets":1,"messaging":1,"methods":1,"middleware":7,"model":2,"module":4,"modules":4,"mukhopadhyay":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"non":1,"notification":1,"notifications":1,"object":1,"observable":1,"of":7,"on":4,"operations":2,"org":1,"oriented":2,"over":2,"paper":1,"pattern":2,"patterns":5,"policies":1,"policy":1,"pops":1,"pragmatics":1,"precise":2,"presents":1,"preserves":1,"proc":1,"processing":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"protocol":3,"proving":2,"pushes":1,"r":1,"real":3,"realisation":1,"realize":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reproducing":1,"requirements":2,"resilient":1,"reusable":2,"reuse":1,"running":1,"runs":2,"runtime":1,"s":3,"safestack":1,"safety":3,"same":1,"secure":6,"security":5,"self":2,"semantics":4,"sins":5,"software":1,"sol":12,"source":1,"specification":4,"specifying":2,"spoofax":1,"stack":2,"stance":2,"standby":3,"summary":1,"supporting":1,"synchronous":5,"systems":7,"tags":1,"that":3,"the":12,"them":1,"then":1,"theorem":2,"theory":1,"they":1,"time":3,"to":3,"tolerance":4,"url":1,"used":1,"variable":2,"via":1,"virtual":2,"vms":1,"vote":3,"whose":1,"with":7,"words":2,"workbench":2,"workbenches":1,"workshop":1,"yau":1}},{"dl":356,"n":"A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS","s":"papers/security/a-language-based-approach-to-prevent-ddos","secs":[{"h":"A Language-Based Approach to Prevent DDoS Attacks in Distributed Financial Agent Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Fazeldehkordi, Owe, Ramezanifarkhani (2018). *University of Oslo*. Source file: `A language-based approach to prevent DDoS attacks in distributed financial agent systems.pdf`. [URL](https://www.mn.uio.no/ifi/english/people/emeriti/olaf/papers/ddosesoricsfinsec19.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors propose adding a language-based layer of defense against DoS/DDoS to distributed financial agent systems built on the actor model with asynchronous method calls and futures (in the style of Creol/ABS). Because such languages make it cheap to launch non-blocking floods, they adapt a static analysis for detecting call-flooding cycles to the many-to-one DDoS setting. The analysis builds per-method control-flow graphs, identifies cycles, and classifies nodes as strongly- or weakly-reachable to detect unbounded method-call generation at compile time. They distinguish one-to-one, many-to-one, and one-to-many flooding, and illustrate with a publish/subscribe newsletter example where future-based optimization accidentally enables a DoS against subscribers."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Static detection of call-based flooding in actor-model languages with futures. - Classification: one-to-one, many-to-one, one-to-many flooding. - Strong vs weak reachability in control-flow cycles. - Instantiation flooding (unbounded object creation) as a resource-exhaustion vector. - Application to financial service subscriber systems."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Actor-based agent languages with asynchronous futures make DoS/DDoS cheap to launch inadvertently, and static analysis of call-flow cycles can prevent it at compile time. - **Mechanism:** Builds per-method control-flow graphs, detects strongly/weakly-reachable cycles that generate unbounded calls; extends from one-to-one to many-to-one and one-to-many flooding; illustrated on a Creol/ABS publish/subscribe newsletter. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Static Analysis]], [[Actor Model]], [[Futures]], [[DDoS]], [[Control-Flow Graph]], [[Distributed Security]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Shares the language-level-security stance of [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] and [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]]; addresses a threat class complementary to the tool-level attacks of [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] and the broad landscape of [[AI Agents Under Threat]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"security #static-analysis #ddos #actor-model","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"2018":1,"a":8,"abs":2,"accidentally":1,"actor":5,"adapt":1,"adding":1,"addresses":1,"against":2,"agent":5,"agents":1,"ai":1,"analysis":5,"and":8,"application":1,"approach":1,"as":2,"asynchronous":2,"at":2,"attacks":3,"authors":1,"babel":2,"based":5,"because":1,"blocking":1,"broad":1,"builds":2,"built":1,"calculus":2,"call":4,"calls":2,"can":1,"cheap":2,"claim":1,"class":1,"classification":1,"classifies":1,"compile":2,"complementary":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"control":4,"creation":1,"creol":2,"cycles":5,"ddos":6,"ddosesoricsfinsec19":1,"defense":1,"detect":1,"detecting":1,"detection":1,"detects":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":3,"dos":3,"emeriti":1,"enables":1,"engineering":1,"english":1,"example":1,"exhaustion":1,"extends":1,"fazeldehkordi":1,"file":1,"financial":3,"flooding":6,"floods":1,"flow":5,"for":1,"from":1,"future":1,"futures":4,"generate":1,"generation":1,"graph":1,"graphs":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"ifi":1,"illustrate":1,"illustrated":1,"in":4,"inadvertently":1,"instantiation":1,"introduced":1,"it":2,"kernel":2,"key":1,"lambda":2,"landscape":1,"language":3,"languages":3,"launch":2,"layer":1,"level":2,"make":2,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"many":7,"mechanism":1,"method":4,"mn":1,"model":4,"multi":2,"newsletter":2,"no":1,"nodes":1,"non":1,"object":1,"of":10,"olaf":1,"on":2,"one":13,"optimization":1,"or":1,"oslo":1,"owe":1,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"people":1,"per":2,"prevent":2,"propose":1,"publish":2,"ramezanifarkhani":1,"reachability":1,"reachable":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"resource":1,"security":5,"service":1,"setting":1,"seven":2,"shares":1,"source":1,"stance":2,"static":5,"strong":1,"strongly":2,"style":1,"subscribe":2,"subscriber":1,"subscribers":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":8,"they":2,"threat":2,"time":2,"to":20,"tool":2,"turrets":2,"uio":1,"unbounded":3,"under":1,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vector":1,"vs":1,"weak":1,"weakly":2,"where":1,"with":4,"www":1}},{"dl":515,"n":"The Protection of Information in Computer Systems","s":"papers/security/the-protection-of-information-in-computer-systems","secs":[{"h":"The Protection of Information in Computer Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Jerome H. Saltzer, Michael D. Schroeder (1975). *Proceedings of the IEEE*, 63(9):1278-1308. Source file: `saltzer-schroeder-1975.pdf`. [URL](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1011/R01/75-protection.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The foundational tutorial on information protection in computer systems, concentrating on the architectural structures (hardware and software) necessary to support protection. Organised as three sections: (I) basic principles, functions and elementary protection/authentication mechanisms; (II) descriptor-based protection architectures and the relation between capability systems and access-control-list systems; (III) state of the art and research projects. The paper is most remembered for its eight design principles (economy of mechanism, fail-safe defaults, complete mediation, open design, separation of privilege, least privilege, least common mechanism, psychological acceptability). It gives precise definitions for *principal*, *capability* (\"an unforgeable ticket\"), *access control list*, *domain*, *protected subsystem*, *confinement*, and distinguishes *discretionary* from *nondiscretionary* controls. Saltzer and Schroeder frame the tension between capability-oriented (ticket-oriented) and list-oriented systems that still shapes modern access control."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three categories of violation: unauthorized information release, unauthorized modification, unauthorized denial of use - Eight design principles for protection mechanisms (least privilege, fail-safe defaults, complete mediation, etc.) - Functional taxonomy: unprotected / all-or-nothing / controlled sharing / user-programmed sharing - Capability (\"ticket-oriented\") vs. access-control-list (\"list-oriented\") as dual descriptor structures - Protected subsystems as encapsulated domains with controlled entry points - Authentication vs. authorization distinction; the notion of principal as the unit of accountability - Confinement problem: preventing a borrowed program from leaking the data it accesses"},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Object Capability Security]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - [[Confused Deputy]] - [[End-to-End Arguments in System Design]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[LangSec]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Protection is not a bag of techniques but an architectural discipline; a small set of design principles (especially least privilege, fail-safe defaults, complete mediation, economy of mechanism) together with the capability/ACL descriptor abstraction is sufficient to organise the design space of secure systems. - **Mechanism:** Descriptor-based protection: every access to a protected object passes through a descriptor (capability or ACL entry) managed by a reference monitor. Protected subsystems encapsulate data with domain-specific procedures callable only at designated entry points. Principals are authenticated once; authorization is then mediated per access. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Principle of Least Authority]] (least privilege), [[Capability Security]], [[Object Capability Security]], [[Ambient Authority]] (as an antipattern), [[Confused Deputy]] (implicit in the delegation discussion), access control list, protected subsystem, confinement, complete mediation, fail-safe defaults, separation of privilege, economy of mechanism, psychological acceptability. - **Stance:** engineering / systems — normative architectural guidance grounded in Multics experience. - **Relates to:** Provides the vocabulary used by [[Object Capability Security]] and [[Capability Security]] work (Dennis & Van Horn, Hydra, KeyKOS, EROS, Capsicum). Its least-privilege principle underlies [[Principle of Least Authority]], and its critique of pervasive authority is the ancestor of [[Ambient Authority]] and [[Confused Deputy]] analyses. The architectural posture prefigures [[End-to-End Arguments in System Design]] (Saltzer again) and is philosophically aligned with [[LangSec]]'s call for narrow, verifiable interfaces. Fundamental to [[Distributed Security]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"security #capabilities #access-control #design-principles #systems","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1011":1,"1278":1,"1308":1,"1975":1,"63":1,"75":1,"9":1,"a":6,"abstraction":1,"ac":1,"acceptability":2,"access":8,"accesses":1,"accountability":1,"acl":2,"again":1,"aligned":1,"all":1,"ambient":3,"an":3,"analyses":1,"ancestor":1,"and":12,"antipattern":1,"architectural":4,"architectures":1,"are":1,"arguments":2,"art":1,"as":5,"at":1,"authenticated":1,"authentication":2,"authority":7,"authorization":2,"bag":1,"based":2,"basic":1,"between":2,"borrowed":1,"but":1,"by":2,"call":1,"callable":1,"cam":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":12,"capsicum":1,"categories":1,"cl":1,"claim":1,"common":1,"complete":4,"computer":2,"concentrating":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"confinement":3,"confused":3,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"control":6,"controlled":2,"controls":1,"critique":1,"d":1,"data":2,"defaults":4,"definitions":1,"delegation":1,"denial":1,"dennis":1,"deputy":3,"descriptor":5,"design":8,"designated":1,"discipline":1,"discretionary":1,"discussion":1,"distinction":1,"distinguishes":1,"distributed":2,"domain":2,"domains":1,"dual":1,"economy":3,"eight":2,"elementary":1,"encapsulate":1,"encapsulated":1,"end":4,"engineering":1,"entry":3,"eros":1,"especially":1,"etc":1,"every":1,"experience":1,"fail":4,"file":1,"for":4,"foundational":1,"frame":1,"from":2,"functional":1,"functions":1,"fundamental":1,"gives":1,"grounded":1,"guidance":1,"h":1,"hardware":1,"horn":1,"https":1,"hydra":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"implicit":1,"in":6,"information":3,"interfaces":1,"introduced":1,"is":6,"it":2,"its":3,"jerome":1,"key":1,"keykos":1,"langsec":2,"leaking":1,"least":9,"list":6,"managed":1,"mechanism":5,"mechanisms":2,"mediated":1,"mediation":4,"michael":1,"modern":1,"modification":1,"monitor":1,"most":1,"multics":1,"narrow":1,"necessary":1,"nondiscretionary":1,"normative":1,"not":1,"nothing":1,"notion":1,"object":4,"of":20,"on":2,"once":1,"only":1,"open":1,"or":2,"organise":1,"organised":1,"oriented":5,"paper":1,"passes":1,"pdf":1,"per":1,"pervasive":1,"philosophically":1,"points":2,"posture":1,"precise":1,"prefigures":1,"preventing":1,"principal":2,"principals":1,"principle":4,"principles":5,"privilege":7,"problem":1,"procedures":1,"proceedings":1,"program":1,"programmed":1,"projects":1,"protected":5,"protection":9,"provides":1,"psychological":2,"r01":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"relation":1,"release":1,"remembered":1,"research":1,"s":1,"safe":4,"saltzer":3,"schroeder":2,"sections":1,"secure":1,"security":9,"separation":2,"set":1,"shapes":1,"sharing":2,"small":1,"software":1,"source":1,"space":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"still":1,"structures":2,"subsystem":2,"subsystems":2,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"system":2,"systems":8,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"teaching":1,"techniques":1,"tension":1,"that":1,"the":17,"then":1,"three":2,"through":1,"ticket":3,"to":7,"together":1,"tutorial":1,"uk":1,"unauthorized":3,"underlies":1,"unforgeable":1,"unit":1,"unprotected":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":2,"user":1,"van":1,"verifiable":1,"violation":1,"vocabulary":1,"vs":2,"with":4,"work":1,"www":1}},{"dl":403,"n":"Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents","s":"papers/security/agent-tcl-flexible-secure-mobile-agents","secs":[{"h":"Agent Tcl: A Flexible and Secure Mobile-Agent System","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Robert S. Gray (1996). *Proceedings of the 1996 USENIX Tcl/Tk Workshop*, pp. 9-23. Source file: `gray-security.pdf`. [URL](https://www.usenix.org/conference/fourth-annual-usenix-tcltk-workshop/agent-tcl-flexible-and-secure-mobile-agent-system)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Gray introduces Agent Tcl, a mobile-agent system built on the Tcl scripting language plus Safe Tcl that supports migration with a single `agent_jump` instruction, transparent inter-agent communication, and pluggable transport mechanisms. The paper argues that Tcl's simplicity and ease of embedding make it more accessible than Telescript's object-oriented language while the Safe Tcl extension provides the sandboxing needed for secure execution — a better balance than the ARA, Tacoma, or SodaBot alternatives. The architecture has four layers (transport, server, interpreter, agents) and supports PGP-signed agents, resource-manager-based authorization, direct-connection and message-passing communication, and a flat namespace of named agents. Gray details how the Tcl core was modified to capture complete interpreter state (stack, procedure frames, variables) for transparent migration at arbitrary points, and outlines a plan to add Java and Scheme as additional agent languages."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Single-instruction migration (`agent_jump`) that transparently captures/restores state. - Safe Tcl for sandboxed execution with policy decoupled from mechanism. - Layered architecture supporting multiple languages and transports. - Security approach: PGP-signed code + resource managers + Safe Tcl. - Explicit interpreter stack rewrite to enable mid-execution migration."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Distributed Security]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[LangSec]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** A mobile-agent system can be both simple and secure by building on an interpreted scripting language (Tcl) augmented with Safe Tcl sandboxing, exposing migration as a single instruction that transparently captures/restores complete interpreter state. - **Mechanism:** Modifies the Tcl core to use an explicit command stack (replacing recursive Tcl_Eval) so full execution state is capturable; primitives agent_begin/submit/jump/send/receive/meet/accept provide uniform mobility and messaging; security via PGP-signed agents + per-identity resource managers + Safe Tcl trusted/untrusted dual interpreters with link substitution. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Mobile Agent]], [[agent_jump]], [[State Capture]], [[Safe Tcl]], [[Sandboxing]], [[Explicit Command Stack]], [[Flat Namespace]], [[Resource Managers]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Precursor to [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] which formalises the security model; contemporary alternative to Telescript/ARA/Tacoma (discussed in the D'Agents chapter); shares interpreter-level security philosophy with [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"mobile-agents #tcl #sandboxing #migration","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"1996":2,"23":1,"9":1,"a":8,"accept":1,"accessible":1,"add":1,"additional":1,"agent":14,"agents":7,"alternative":1,"alternatives":1,"an":2,"and":12,"annual":1,"approach":1,"ara":2,"arbitrary":1,"architecture":2,"argues":1,"as":2,"at":1,"augmented":1,"authorization":1,"balance":1,"based":1,"be":1,"begin":1,"better":1,"book":1,"both":1,"building":1,"built":1,"by":1,"can":1,"capability":1,"capturable":1,"capture":2,"captures":2,"chapter":2,"claim":1,"code":1,"command":2,"communication":2,"complete":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"connection":1,"connections":1,"contemporary":1,"contribution":1,"core":2,"d":1,"dagents":1,"data":1,"decoupled":1,"details":1,"direct":1,"discussed":1,"distributed":1,"driven":1,"dual":1,"ease":1,"embedding":1,"enable":1,"engineering":1,"eval":1,"execution":4,"explicit":3,"exposing":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"flat":2,"flexible":2,"for":3,"formalises":1,"four":1,"fourth":1,"frames":1,"from":1,"full":1,"gray":3,"has":1,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identity":1,"in":2,"instruction":3,"inter":1,"interaction":1,"interpreted":1,"interpreter":5,"interpreters":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":1,"it":1,"java":1,"jump":2,"key":1,"langsec":1,"language":3,"languages":3,"layered":1,"layers":1,"level":1,"link":1,"make":1,"manager":1,"managers":3,"mechanism":2,"mechanisms":1,"meet":1,"message":1,"messaging":1,"mid":1,"migration":6,"mobile":6,"mobility":1,"model":1,"modified":1,"modifies":1,"more":1,"multi":1,"multiple":1,"named":1,"namespace":2,"needed":1,"object":1,"of":3,"on":2,"or":1,"org":1,"oriented":2,"outlines":1,"paper":1,"passing":1,"per":1,"pgp":3,"philosophy":1,"plan":1,"pluggable":1,"plus":1,"points":1,"policy":1,"pp":1,"precursor":1,"primitives":1,"procedure":1,"proceedings":1,"programming":1,"provide":1,"provides":1,"receive":1,"recursive":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"replacing":1,"resource":4,"restores":2,"rewrite":1,"robert":1,"s":3,"safe":7,"sandboxed":1,"sandboxing":4,"scheme":1,"scripting":2,"secure":5,"security":7,"send":1,"server":1,"shares":1,"signed":3,"simple":1,"simplicity":1,"single":3,"so":1,"sodabot":1,"source":1,"stack":4,"stance":1,"state":5,"submit":1,"substitution":1,"summary":1,"supporting":1,"supports":2,"system":4,"systems":1,"tacoma":2,"tags":1,"tcl":18,"tcltk":1,"telescript":2,"than":2,"that":4,"the":11,"tk":1,"to":7,"transparent":2,"transparently":2,"transport":2,"transports":1,"trusted":1,"uniform":1,"untrusted":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"usenix":3,"variables":1,"via":1,"was":1,"which":1,"while":1,"with":5,"workshop":2,"www":1}},{"dl":417,"n":"DAgents Security Book Chapter","s":"papers/security/dagents-security-book-chapter","secs":[{"h":"D'Agents: Security in a Multiple-Language, Mobile-Agent System","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Robert S. Gray, David Kotz, George Cybenko, Daniela Rus (1998). *Mobile Agents and Security* (G. Vigna, ed.), Springer LNCS. Source file: `gray-security-book.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68671-1_9)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This chapter describes the security architecture of D'Agents (formerly Agent Tcl), a mobile-agent system whose agents can be written in Tcl, Java, or Scheme. The authors frame mobile-agent security as four interrelated problems: protecting the host machine from malicious agents, protecting agents from each other, protecting an agent from a malicious machine, and limiting aggregate resource consumption across groups of machines. For machine and inter-agent protection, D'Agents relies on PGP-based cryptographic authentication of owners, identity-based resource managers that enforce access-control policies, and secure execution environments (Safe Tcl, Java security managers, Scheme 48 modules) separated cleanly from policy. For group-of-machine protection they plan an electronic-cash market approach; for agent-from-host attacks they survey partial techniques (detection via audit trails, encrypted computation, trusted reference machines) since full prevention requires hardware support they do not assume."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Four interrelated mobile-agent security problems. - Separation of enforcement mechanism from policy. - Multi-language support with a uniform C/C++ server library. - Cryptographic authentication + per-identity resource managers. - Open problem: protecting agents from malicious hosts without trusted hardware."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Distributed Security]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[LangSec]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Mobile-agent security comprises four distinct but interrelated problems (protecting machine, protecting other agents, protecting agent from host, protecting group of machines); solving them requires layered mechanisms that cleanly separate enforcement from policy and span multiple execution languages. - **Mechanism:** Architectural description of D'Agents' four-level stack (transport, server, interpreter, agents); PGP-based owner authentication; language-specific enforcement modules (Safe Tcl, Java security manager, Scheme 48) routed through a language-independent resource manager; planned e-cash market approach for aggregate-resource protection; survey of partial techniques (audit trails, encrypted computation) for the agent-from-host problem. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Mobile Agent]], [[Four Security Problems]], [[Mechanism vs Policy]], [[Safe Tcl]], [[Resource Manager Agent]], [[PGP Authentication]], [[Audit Trail]], [[Encrypted Computation]] - **Stance:** engineering / survey - **Relates to:** Extends the earlier [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] with a mature security story; shares threat concerns with [[AI Agents Under Threat]] and [[Distributed Security]]; policy/mechanism separation echoes the sandboxing principles of [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] and [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"mobile-agents #security #dagents #tcl","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"10":1,"1007":1,"1998":1,"3":1,"48":2,"540":1,"68671":1,"9":1,"a":6,"access":1,"across":1,"agent":16,"agents":15,"aggregate":2,"ai":1,"an":2,"and":7,"approach":2,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"as":1,"assume":1,"attacks":1,"audit":3,"authentication":4,"authors":1,"based":3,"be":1,"but":1,"c":2,"can":1,"capability":1,"cash":2,"chapter":1,"claim":1,"cleanly":2,"comprises":1,"computation":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connections":1,"consumption":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"coordination":1,"cryptographic":2,"cybenko":1,"d":4,"dagents":1,"daniela":1,"data":1,"david":1,"describes":1,"description":1,"detection":1,"distinct":1,"distributed":3,"do":1,"doi":1,"driven":1,"e":1,"each":1,"earlier":1,"echoes":1,"ed":1,"electronic":1,"encrypted":3,"enforce":1,"enforcement":3,"engineering":1,"environments":1,"execution":2,"extends":1,"extensible":1,"file":1,"flexible":1,"for":5,"formerly":1,"four":5,"frame":1,"from":10,"full":1,"g":1,"george":1,"gray":1,"group":2,"groups":1,"hardware":2,"host":4,"hosts":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identity":2,"in":3,"independent":1,"inter":1,"interaction":1,"interpreter":1,"interrelated":3,"introduced":1,"java":3,"key":1,"kotz":1,"langsec":1,"language":4,"languages":2,"layered":1,"level":1,"library":1,"limiting":1,"lncs":1,"machine":5,"machines":3,"malicious":3,"manager":3,"managers":3,"market":2,"mature":1,"mechanism":4,"mechanisms":1,"mobile":9,"modules":2,"multi":2,"multiple":2,"not":1,"of":9,"on":1,"open":1,"or":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"other":2,"owner":1,"owners":1,"partial":2,"per":1,"pgp":3,"plan":1,"planned":1,"policies":1,"policy":5,"prevention":1,"principles":1,"problem":2,"problems":4,"programming":1,"protecting":8,"protection":3,"reference":2,"relates":1,"relies":1,"requires":2,"resource":6,"robert":1,"routed":1,"rus":1,"s":1,"safe":3,"sandboxing":1,"scheme":3,"secure":3,"security":14,"separate":1,"separated":1,"separation":2,"server":2,"shares":1,"since":1,"solving":1,"source":1,"span":1,"specific":1,"springer":1,"stack":1,"stance":1,"story":1,"summary":1,"support":2,"survey":3,"system":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tcl":7,"techniques":2,"that":2,"the":6,"them":1,"they":3,"this":1,"threat":2,"through":1,"to":1,"trail":1,"trails":2,"transport":1,"trusted":2,"under":1,"uniform":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":1,"vigna":1,"vs":1,"whose":1,"with":3,"without":1,"written":1}},{"dl":359,"n":"Extensible Distributed Coordination","s":"papers/security/extensible-distributed-coordination","secs":[{"h":"Extensible Distributed Coordination","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Tobias Distler, Christopher Bahn, Alysson Bessani, Frank Fischer, Flavio Junqueira (2015). *EuroSys '15*. Source file: `eurosys15-edc.pdf`. [URL](https://www4.cs.fau.de/Publications/2015/distler_15_eurosys.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper argues that coordination services such as ZooKeeper and DepSpace, which centralize primitives like locks, leader election, and queues for datacenter services, suffer because their fixed limited interfaces force multi-RPC workarounds that are slow and race-prone. The authors propose *extensibility*: clients can dynamically install small server-side \"recipes\" that execute atomically on the coordination kernel's state, turning multi-step RPC patterns into single efficient operations. They describe a model where extensions are sandboxed for safety (bounded resource use, determinism, no API extension) and present implementations — Extensible ZooKeeper (EZK) and Extensible DepSpace (EDS) — showing that extensibility increases throughput of a distributed queue by over an order of magnitude (17x for ZK, 24x for DepSpace) without breaking Byzantine fault tolerance or adding significant kernel complexity."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Limited coordination-kernel APIs force inefficient RPC chains. - Custom extensions execute atomically server-side, like stored procedures for coordination state. - Sandboxing requirements: no API changes, security, determinism, bounded resource use. - Operation extensions vs. event extensions. - Huge throughput gains (17x, 24x) over ZooKeeper/DepSpace."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Bottom-up Programming]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Coordination kernels (ZooKeeper, DepSpace) are fundamentally limited by fixed primitive APIs that force clients into inefficient multi-RPC workarounds; allowing dynamically-installed, sandboxed, server-side extensions preserves safety while dramatically improving throughput. - **Mechanism:** Defines an extension model (operation and event extensions) and sandbox requirements (no API modification, security, determinism, bounded resource use); implements EZK (ZooKeeper) and EDS (DepSpace); evaluates four standard recipes (shared counter, queue, barrier, leader election) showing 17-24x throughput gains. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Coordination Kernel]], [[Server-Side Extensions]], [[Sandboxing]], [[Determinism]], [[Byzantine Fault Tolerance]], [[Stored-Procedure Coordination]], [[Coordination Recipes]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Offers a systems counterpoint to the agent-level coordination abstractions in [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] and [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]]; shares the extensibility design philosophy of [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] applied to distributed state."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"coordination #distributed-systems #zookeeper #extensibility","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"15":2,"17":1,"17x":2,"2015":2,"24x":3,"a":3,"abstractions":1,"acl":1,"adaptive":1,"adding":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"allowing":1,"alysson":1,"an":2,"and":9,"api":3,"apis":2,"applied":1,"are":3,"argues":1,"as":1,"atomically":2,"authors":1,"bahn":1,"barrier":1,"because":1,"bessani":1,"bottom":1,"bounded":3,"breaking":1,"by":2,"byzantine":2,"can":1,"capability":1,"centralize":1,"chains":1,"changes":1,"christopher":1,"claim":1,"clients":2,"complexity":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":11,"counter":1,"counterpoint":1,"cs":1,"custom":1,"datacenter":1,"de":1,"defines":1,"depspace":6,"describe":1,"design":2,"determinism":4,"distler":2,"distributed":4,"dramatically":1,"dynamically":2,"eds":2,"efficient":1,"election":2,"engineering":1,"eurosys":2,"evaluates":1,"event":2,"execute":2,"extensibility":5,"extensible":3,"extension":2,"extensions":7,"ezk":2,"fau":1,"fault":2,"file":1,"fischer":1,"fixed":2,"flavio":1,"for":5,"force":3,"four":1,"frank":1,"fundamentally":1,"gains":2,"gossip":1,"https":1,"huge":1,"ideas":1,"implementations":1,"implements":1,"improving":1,"in":2,"increases":1,"inefficient":2,"install":1,"installed":1,"interfaces":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"junqueira":1,"kernel":4,"kernels":1,"key":1,"langsec":1,"language":1,"leader":2,"level":1,"like":2,"limited":3,"locks":1,"magnitude":1,"mechanism":1,"model":2,"modification":1,"multi":4,"multiagent":1,"no":3,"of":3,"offers":1,"on":1,"operation":2,"operations":1,"or":1,"order":1,"over":2,"paper":1,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"philosophy":1,"present":1,"preserves":1,"primitive":1,"primitives":1,"procedure":1,"procedures":1,"programming":2,"prone":1,"propose":1,"protocols":1,"publications":1,"queue":2,"queues":1,"race":1,"recipes":3,"reference":1,"relates":1,"requirements":2,"resource":3,"rpc":4,"s":1,"safety":2,"sandbox":1,"sandboxed":2,"sandboxing":2,"security":3,"self":1,"server":4,"services":2,"shared":1,"shares":1,"showing":2,"side":4,"significant":1,"single":1,"slow":1,"small":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"standish":1,"state":3,"step":1,"stored":2,"such":1,"suffer":1,"summary":1,"sycara":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"that":5,"the":5,"their":1,"they":1,"throughput":4,"to":3,"tobias":1,"tolerance":2,"turning":1,"up":1,"url":1,"use":3,"used":1,"using":1,"vs":1,"where":1,"which":1,"while":1,"without":1,"workarounds":2,"www4":1,"zk":1,"zookeeper":6}},{"dl":332,"n":"Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture","s":"papers/security/principled-design-of-the-modern-web-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Fielding & Taylor (2000). *ICSE 2000*. Source file: `337180.337228.pdf`. [URL](https://ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/webarch_icse2000.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Fielding and Taylor introduce the Representational State Transfer (REST) architectural style as the abstract model that guided the redesign of HTTP/1.1 and URIs. REST is presented as a coordinated set of architectural constraints (client-server, statelessness, cacheability, uniform interface, layered system, code-on-demand) chosen to meet the needs of an internet-scale distributed hypermedia system. The paper defines REST's data elements (resource, representation, metadata, control data), connectors (client, server, cache, resolver, tunnel), and components (origin server, gateway, proxy, user agent), and uses multiple architectural views (process, data, connector) to illustrate how they combine. It then evaluates how well HTTP/1.1 and related Web standards conform to REST, using the style to diagnose architectural mismatches (e.g., cookies, embedded frames)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- REST as an architectural *style* (set of constraints), not an architecture. - Resources are conceptual, addressed by URIs; representations are transferred. - Statelessness and caching for scalability; uniform interface for generality. - Intermediaries (proxies, gateways) enabled by layered connectors. - Mismatches (e.g., cookies, HTML frames) as REST-style violations."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Internet-scale distributed hypermedia requires a disciplined *architectural style* - REST - derived from specific constraints rather than any particular implementation. - **Mechanism:** Decomposes architectures into data elements, connectors, and components; derives REST by incrementally adding constraints (client-server, stateless, cache, uniform interface, layered, code-on-demand); evaluates HTTP/1.1, URIs, cookies, frames against the style. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[REST]], [[Uniform Interface]], [[Statelessness]], [[Layered Systems]], [[Resources]], [[Representations]], [[Architectural Styles]], [[Hypermedia]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Provides the architectural substrate for REST-native agent protocols ACP, [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] and JSON-RPC [[Model Context Protocol]] covered in [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]; its uniform-interface constraint contrasts with the performative-rich messaging of [[KQML]]/[[FIPA-ACL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"web-architecture #REST #distributed-systems #foundational","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":6,"2000":2,"a":2,"abstract":1,"acl":1,"acp":1,"adding":1,"addressed":1,"against":1,"agent":8,"an":3,"and":8,"any":1,"architectural":8,"architecture":3,"architectures":1,"are":2,"as":4,"by":3,"cache":2,"cacheability":1,"caching":1,"chosen":1,"claim":1,"client":3,"code":2,"combine":1,"communication":1,"components":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"conform":1,"connections":1,"connector":1,"connectors":3,"constraint":1,"constraints":4,"context":2,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"cookies":3,"coordinated":1,"covered":1,"data":4,"decomposes":1,"defines":1,"demand":2,"derived":1,"derives":1,"design":1,"diagnose":1,"disciplined":1,"distributed":3,"e":2,"edu":1,"elements":2,"embedded":1,"enabled":1,"evaluates":2,"fielding":3,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":3,"foundational":2,"frames":3,"from":1,"g":2,"gateway":1,"gateways":1,"generality":1,"guided":1,"how":2,"html":1,"http":3,"https":1,"hypermedia":3,"ics":1,"icse":1,"icse2000":1,"ideas":1,"illustrate":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"incrementally":1,"interface":5,"intermediaries":1,"internet":2,"interoperability":1,"into":1,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"it":1,"its":1,"json":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"languages":1,"layered":4,"mechanism":1,"meet":1,"messaging":1,"metadata":1,"mismatches":2,"model":3,"modern":1,"multiple":1,"native":1,"needs":1,"not":1,"of":7,"on":2,"origin":1,"paper":1,"particular":1,"pdf":1,"performative":1,"presented":1,"principled":1,"process":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":2,"provides":1,"proxies":1,"proxy":1,"pubs":1,"rather":1,"redesign":1,"reference":1,"related":1,"relates":1,"representation":1,"representational":1,"representations":2,"requires":1,"resolver":1,"resource":1,"resources":2,"rest":11,"rich":1,"rpc":1,"s":1,"scalability":1,"scale":2,"server":4,"set":2,"source":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"standards":1,"state":1,"stateless":1,"statelessness":3,"style":6,"styles":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"survey":1,"system":2,"systems":2,"tags":1,"taylor":2,"than":1,"that":1,"the":10,"then":1,"they":1,"to":7,"transfer":1,"transferred":1,"tunnel":1,"uci":1,"uniform":5,"uris":3,"url":1,"used":1,"user":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"views":1,"violations":1,"web":3,"webarch":1,"well":1,"with":1}},{"dl":468,"n":"Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines","s":"papers/security/exploit-programming---from-buffer-overflows-to-weird-machines","secs":[{"h":"Exploit Programming: From Buffer Overflows to \"Weird Machines\" and Theory of Computation","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Bratus, Locasto, Patterson, Sassaman, Shubina (2011). *;login: The USENIX Magazine*, Vol. 36, No. 6 (December 2011). Source file: `Bratus.pdf`. [URL](https://www.usenix.org/publications/login/december-2011-volume-36-number-6/exploit-programming-buffer-overflows-weird)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This influential ;login: article reframes exploitation research as a discipline of computation theory. The authors trace the evolution from simple stack-smashing (Aleph One) through return-to-libc, return-oriented programming, heap feng shui, and format string exploits, and argue that every such technique amounts to identifying and programming a \"weird machine\" latent inside a target: an unintended computational model realized by crafted inputs that drive the target's own code into performing computations its designers never intended. The essay is dedicated to Len Sassaman and is both a memorial and a manifesto. It argues that \"attack papers,\" often dismissed as intellectually marginal, are in fact constructive proofs that a target contains a stronger automaton than its designers believed, and thereby exposes incorrect assumptions about the computational nature of the system. Exploitation, in this view, comes full circle to the foundational questions of Church and Turing (\"what can a given machine compute?\") and deserves treatment as a rigorous subdiscipline unifying hacker practice with language-theoretic and computation-theoretic analysis."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Exploits are programs for weird machines instantiated inside a target. - Evolution: stack smashing -> return-to-libc -> ROP -> heap feng shui -> format strings. - \"Weird instructions\" as attacker-programmable primitives borrowed from target code (strcpy+RET, malloc bookkeeping, printf %n). - Attack papers as constructive proofs of unintended computational power. - Exploitation research as empirical computability theory: \"what can this machine actually compute?\" - Language- and computation-theoretic methods can redefine weaknesses previously overlooked. - Call to unify hacker craft with academic theory of computation."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Weird Machine]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] - [[Shotgun Parsing]] - [[Distributed Security]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Exploitation is the empirical study of unintended computational models (\"weird machines\") inside real systems, and brings security research back to the Church-Turing questions of what a given machine can compute. - **Mechanism:** Reconstructs the history of memory-corruption exploitation as a progression of increasingly general ways to program target-internal weird machines using crafted input data as instructions borrowed from the target's own code and data-interpretation loops; reinterprets attack papers as constructive proofs presenting a computationally stronger automaton than expected. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Weird Machine]], [[Exploit Programming]], [[Return-Oriented Programming]], [[Computability]], [[LangSec]], [[Attack Papers]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Companion essay to [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] by the same authors; provides the conceptual vocabulary ([[Weird Machine]]) invoked throughout [[LangSec]] and pertinent to [[Agent Security]] and [[LLM Agents]] where crafted prompts or tool inputs similarly instantiate unintended computation ([[Prompt Injection]], [[Tool Use]])."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"langsec #weird-machines #exploitation #computability #security","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"2011":3,"36":2,"6":2,"a":13,"about":1,"academic":1,"actually":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"aleph":1,"amounts":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":15,"applications":2,"are":2,"argue":1,"argues":1,"article":1,"as":9,"assumptions":1,"attack":4,"attacker":1,"authors":2,"automaton":2,"back":1,"believed":1,"bookkeeping":1,"borrowed":2,"both":1,"bratus":1,"brings":1,"buffer":2,"by":2,"call":1,"can":4,"church":2,"circle":1,"claim":1,"code":3,"comes":1,"companion":1,"computability":3,"computation":6,"computational":4,"computationally":1,"computations":1,"compute":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"connections":1,"constructive":3,"contains":1,"contribution":1,"corruption":1,"craft":1,"crafted":3,"data":2,"december":2,"dedicated":1,"deserves":1,"designers":2,"discipline":1,"dismissed":1,"distributed":1,"drive":1,"empirical":2,"essay":2,"every":1,"evolution":2,"expected":1,"exploit":3,"exploitation":6,"exploits":2,"exposes":1,"fact":1,"feng":2,"file":1,"for":1,"formal":2,"format":2,"foundational":2,"from":4,"full":1,"general":1,"given":2,"hacker":2,"heap":2,"history":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifying":1,"in":2,"incorrect":1,"increasingly":1,"influential":1,"injection":1,"input":1,"inputs":2,"inside":3,"instantiate":1,"instantiated":1,"instructions":2,"intellectually":1,"intended":1,"internal":1,"interpretation":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"invoked":1,"is":3,"it":1,"its":2,"key":1,"langsec":4,"language":4,"latent":1,"len":1,"libc":2,"llm":1,"locasto":1,"login":3,"loops":1,"machine":7,"machines":5,"magazine":1,"malloc":1,"manifesto":1,"marginal":1,"mechanism":1,"memorial":1,"memory":1,"methods":1,"model":1,"models":1,"n":1,"nature":1,"never":1,"no":1,"number":1,"of":12,"often":1,"one":1,"or":1,"org":1,"oriented":2,"overflows":2,"overlooked":1,"own":2,"papers":4,"parsing":1,"patterson":1,"performing":1,"pertinent":1,"power":1,"practice":1,"presenting":1,"previously":1,"primitives":1,"printf":1,"program":1,"programmable":1,"programming":6,"programs":1,"progression":1,"prompt":1,"prompts":1,"proofs":3,"provides":1,"publications":1,"questions":2,"real":1,"realized":1,"reconstructs":1,"redefine":1,"reference":1,"reframes":1,"reinterprets":1,"relates":1,"research":3,"ret":1,"return":4,"rigorous":1,"rop":1,"s":2,"same":1,"sassaman":2,"security":6,"shotgun":1,"shubina":1,"shui":2,"similarly":1,"simple":1,"smashing":2,"source":1,"stack":2,"stance":1,"strcpy":1,"string":1,"strings":1,"stronger":2,"study":1,"subdiscipline":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"target":7,"technique":1,"than":2,"that":4,"the":14,"theoretic":3,"theory":6,"thereby":1,"this":3,"through":1,"throughout":1,"to":12,"tool":2,"trace":1,"treatment":1,"turing":2,"unify":1,"unifying":1,"unintended":4,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"usenix":2,"using":1,"view":1,"vocabulary":1,"vol":1,"volume":1,"ways":1,"weaknesses":1,"weird":11,"what":3,"where":1,"with":2,"www":1}},{"dl":392,"n":"Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages","s":"papers/security/secure-communications-processing-for-distributed-languages","secs":[{"h":"Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Abadi, Fournet, Gonthier (1999). *Compaq SRC / Microsoft Research / INRIA technical paper*. Source file: `Secure_communications_processing_for_dis.pdf`. [URL](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/secure-communications-processing-distributed-languages/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Abadi, Fournet, and Gonthier formalize communications processing — the marshaling, unmarshaling, and cryptographic operations that wrap distributed language primitives like RPC and RMI — within a process calculus. They study how local communication semantics (single machine or protected network) can be extended transparently to hostile distributed networks through a generic cryptographic \"wrapper\" that operates like a firewall with an encrypting tunnel. The technical core uses the join-calculus and its cryptographic extension, the sjoin-calculus, to translate high-level join-calculus processes into protected low-level sjoin-calculus processes that exchange encrypted messages. They prove a full-abstraction theorem showing the wrapping preserves observational equivalence — attackers on the public network cannot distinguish wrapped processes that behave the same locally."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Join-calculus as basis for concurrent/distributed language semantics. - Sjoin-calculus adds symmetric encryption primitives. - Wrapper as filter/firewall doing marshaling + encryption uniformly. - Full-abstraction theorem: wrapping preserves equivalences. - Security reasoned compositionally across distribution boundaries."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[LangSec]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** The communications-processing layer of a distributed language (marshalling + crypto) can be compiled automatically from a local-semantics specification in such a way that distribution becomes observationally transparent even under an active network attacker. - **Mechanism:** Abadi, Fournet and Gonthier use the join-calculus for local semantics and the sjoin-calculus (join + symmetric crypto primitives) for the low-level network, defining a wrapper translation that implements channel communication via encrypted tunnels gated by a firewall-like filter. A full-abstraction theorem proves that two source programs are observationally equivalent iff their wrapped versions are, so security reasoning composes with functional reasoning. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Join Calculus]], [[Sjoin Calculus]], [[Full Abstraction]], [[Communications Processing]], [[Cryptographic Wrapper]], [[Observational Equivalence]], [[Marshalling]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Provides the calculus-level counterpart to language-engineering security efforts like [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] and [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]; its transparent-distribution agenda links to the actor-style transparency claims of [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] and the SOL/SINS encrypted inter-agent channels in [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"security #process-calculus #distributed-systems #cryptography","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"1999":1,"a":11,"abadi":3,"abstraction":4,"across":1,"active":1,"actor":1,"adds":1,"agenda":1,"agent":3,"an":2,"and":8,"approach":1,"architectural":1,"are":2,"as":2,"attacker":1,"attackers":1,"automatically":1,"based":1,"basis":1,"be":2,"becomes":1,"behave":1,"boundaries":1,"by":1,"calculus":13,"can":2,"cannot":1,"capability":1,"channel":1,"channels":1,"claim":1,"claims":1,"com":1,"communication":3,"communications":5,"compaq":1,"compiled":1,"composes":1,"compositionally":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrent":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"counterpart":1,"crypto":2,"cryptographic":4,"cryptography":1,"ddos":1,"defining":1,"dependable":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":8,"distribution":3,"doing":1,"edition":1,"efforts":1,"en":1,"encrypted":3,"encrypting":1,"encryption":2,"engineering":1,"equivalence":2,"equivalences":1,"equivalent":1,"erlang":1,"even":1,"exchange":1,"extended":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"filter":2,"firewall":3,"for":5,"formal":1,"formalize":1,"fournet":3,"from":1,"full":4,"functional":1,"gated":1,"generic":1,"gonthier":3,"halting":1,"high":1,"hostile":1,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"iff":1,"implements":1,"in":2,"inria":1,"insecurity":1,"inter":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"its":2,"join":6,"key":1,"langsec":1,"language":6,"languages":3,"layer":1,"level":4,"like":4,"links":1,"local":3,"locally":1,"low":2,"machine":1,"marshaling":2,"marshalling":2,"mechanism":1,"messages":1,"microsoft":2,"multi":1,"network":5,"networks":1,"observational":2,"observationally":2,"of":3,"on":1,"operates":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"paper":1,"patterns":1,"preserves":2,"prevent":1,"primitives":3,"problems":1,"process":2,"processes":3,"processing":5,"programming":1,"programs":1,"protected":2,"prove":1,"proves":1,"provides":1,"public":1,"publication":1,"reasoned":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"research":2,"rmi":1,"rpc":1,"same":1,"second":1,"secure":2,"security":6,"semantic":1,"semantics":4,"showing":1,"single":1,"sins":1,"sjoin":5,"so":1,"software":1,"sol":2,"source":2,"specification":1,"src":1,"stack":1,"stance":1,"study":1,"style":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"symmetric":2,"systems":3,"tags":1,"technical":2,"that":7,"the":15,"their":1,"theorem":3,"they":2,"through":1,"to":6,"translate":1,"translation":1,"transparency":1,"transparent":2,"transparently":1,"tunnel":1,"tunnels":1,"two":1,"under":1,"uniformly":1,"unmarshaling":1,"url":1,"us":1,"use":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"versions":1,"via":1,"way":1,"with":2,"within":1,"workbenches":1,"wrap":1,"wrapped":2,"wrapper":4,"wrapping":2,"www":1}},{"dl":410,"n":"Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages","s":"papers/security/agents-secure-interaction-in-data-driven-languages","secs":[{"h":"Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Mahdi Zargayouna, Flavien Balbo, Serge Haddad. *INRETS / LAMSADE / LSV-CNRS*. Source file: `ladspaper9.pdf`. [URL](https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-494/ladspaper9.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors focus on a distinct class of Multi-Agent Systems where agents coordinate indirectly through a shared, data-driven space (like Linda tuple spaces or Klaim) rather than via point-to-point ACL messaging. They argue existing data-driven coordination languages conflate security with the data layer, leaving no principled way to separate agent-level access-control policies from the shared space. They propose LACIOS (Language for Agent Contextual Interaction in Open Systems), which introduces *properties* (predicate-based descriptions) and symbolic matching as a richer alternative to tuple templates. Security in LACIOS is handled as an orthogonal layer of access-control rules expressed in the same language as agent behavior: global rules restrict who may see what, and local rules let each agent hide or expose parts of its own state. The paper gives syntax and informal semantics for spawn/add/update/look primitives and discusses a prototype implementation in Java-LACIOS."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Tuple-space / data-driven coordination separated from message-passing MAS. - Properties + symbolic descriptions replace rigid tuples. - Security as an orthogonal layer of global/local access rules. - Unified language for behavior and security policies. - Enables fine-grained contextual perception in open MAS."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[LangSec]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Data-driven coordination languages (Linda, Klaim, SecSpaces, SecOS) lack a principled separation between application logic and security; a richer, property-based description model with orthogonal access-control rules fixes this without abandoning the shared-space paradigm. - **Mechanism:** Introduces LACIOS with four primitives (spawn, add, update, look), replaces rigid tuples with descriptions (property→value maps) and symbolic descriptions parameterised by variables; specifies global access rules controlling perception/retrieval and local rules enabling contextual self-hiding by agents; defines process syntax and sketches a Java-LACIOS implementation. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Data-Driven Coordination]], [[Tuple Spaces]], [[Properties]], [[Symbolic Descriptions]], [[Access Control Rules]], [[Coordination-Security Separation]], [[Open Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** engineering / formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Extends the Linda/Klaim lineage with a security concern that parallels [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] and [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] but at the coordination-language level rather than the mobile-code level; offers a stigmergic alternative to the message-centric view of [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"coordination-languages #tuple-spaces #security #lacios","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"494":1,"a":9,"abandoning":1,"access":6,"acl":1,"add":2,"agent":10,"agents":4,"alternative":2,"an":2,"and":10,"application":1,"argue":1,"as":4,"at":1,"authors":1,"balbo":1,"based":2,"behavior":2,"between":1,"book":1,"but":1,"by":2,"capability":1,"centric":1,"ceur":1,"chapter":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"cnrs":1,"code":1,"communication":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concern":1,"conflate":1,"connections":1,"contextual":3,"contribution":1,"control":4,"controlling":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":7,"dagents":1,"data":7,"defines":1,"description":1,"descriptions":5,"discusses":1,"distinct":1,"distributed":1,"driven":6,"each":1,"enables":1,"enabling":1,"engineering":1,"existing":1,"expose":1,"expressed":1,"extends":1,"file":1,"fine":1,"fixes":1,"flavien":1,"flexible":1,"focus":1,"for":3,"formal":1,"four":1,"from":2,"gives":1,"global":3,"grained":1,"haddad":1,"handled":1,"hide":1,"hiding":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implementation":2,"in":6,"indirectly":1,"informal":1,"inrets":1,"interaction":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":2,"is":1,"its":1,"java":2,"key":1,"klaim":3,"lacios":6,"lack":1,"ladspaper9":1,"lamsade":1,"langsec":1,"language":4,"languages":5,"layer":3,"leaving":1,"let":1,"level":3,"like":1,"linda":3,"lineage":1,"local":3,"logic":1,"look":2,"lsv":1,"mahdi":1,"maps":1,"mas":2,"matching":1,"may":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"messaging":1,"mobile":2,"model":1,"multi":3,"multiagent":1,"no":1,"of":5,"offers":1,"on":1,"open":3,"or":2,"org":1,"oriented":1,"orthogonal":3,"own":1,"paper":1,"paradigm":1,"parallels":1,"parameterised":1,"parts":1,"passing":1,"pdf":1,"perception":2,"point":2,"policies":2,"predicate":1,"primitives":2,"principled":2,"process":1,"programming":1,"properties":3,"property":2,"propose":1,"prototype":1,"rather":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"replace":1,"replaces":1,"restrict":1,"retrieval":1,"richer":2,"rigid":2,"rules":8,"same":1,"secos":1,"secspaces":1,"secure":2,"security":11,"see":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"separate":1,"separated":1,"separation":2,"serge":1,"shared":3,"sketches":1,"source":1,"space":4,"spaces":3,"spawn":2,"specifies":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"stigmergic":1,"summary":1,"sycara":1,"symbolic":4,"syntax":2,"systems":5,"tags":1,"tcl":1,"templates":1,"than":2,"that":1,"the":10,"they":2,"this":1,"through":1,"to":5,"tuple":5,"tuples":2,"unified":1,"update":2,"url":1,"used":1,"value":1,"variables":1,"via":1,"view":1,"vol":1,"way":1,"what":1,"where":1,"which":1,"who":1,"with":5,"without":1,"ws":1,"zargayouna":1}},{"dl":415,"n":"PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman","s":"papers/security/pki-layer-cake---kaminsky-patterson-sassaman","secs":[{"h":"PKI Layer Cake: New Collision Attacks Against the Global X.509 Infrastructure","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Dan Kaminsky, Meredith L. Patterson, and Len Sassaman (2009). *Black Hat USA / IOActive technical report*. Source file: `1299769.pdf`. [URL](https://ioactive.com/pdfs/PKILayerCake.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Presents several new classes of attacks against the X.509 certificate infrastructure: MD2 preimage exploitation of VeriSign's still-trusted root, PKCS#10 Subject Name confusion attacks exploiting inconsistent ASN.1 BER parsing between CAs and browsers (multiple CNs, OID leading-zero padding, integer overflow, early null terminators), SQL injection through PKCS#10 subject names, generic SSL client-authentication bypasses, and EV-certificate hijacking via mixed script content. The paper is largely a case study in how ambiguity at the interface between components — in parsers, in semantics of fields like Common Name, in trust-store EKU handling — turns into exploitable security pathologies. It is of interest to agent-communication research as a cautionary tale about shared-format ambiguity between senders and receivers."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- ASN.1 BER is context-sensitive and handwritten parsers disagree subtly - Subject Name parsing varies across OpenSSL, NSS, CryptoAPI — attacker exploits the gap - MD2 preimage attack enables signature transfer to forged intermediate CA - \"Sender-receiver parsing disagreement\" as a general attack pattern - Postel's robustness principle considered harmful for security-critical parsing"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":21,"t":"- **Claim:** The global X.509 PKI is vulnerable not only because of weak hashes (MD2/MD5) but because layered, ambiguously-specified parsers (ASN.1 BER, PKCS#10, Subject Name handling) disagree about what a certificate says — an *inter-layer semantic gap* exploitable by attackers. - **Mechanism:** Demonstrate concrete attacks: MD2RSA signature transfer from Verisign's root, Subject Name Confusion via implementation-dependent CN-selection policies, PKCS#10-tunneled SQL/ASN.1 injection, OID leading-zero/integer-overflow tricks, null-terminator CN spoofing, SSL Client Authentication EKU bypass, and EV hijacking via mixed-trust scripting. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Parser Differential]], [[Parser Differentials]], [[X.509 PKI]], [[ASN.1 BER Ambiguity]], [[Certificate Authorities]], [[Protocol Layering Attacks]], [[Distributed Security]], [[LangSec]], [[Language-theoretic Security]], [[Postel's Robustness Principle]] - **Stance:** empirical / security-critique - **Relates to:** Canonical case study for [[Distributed Security]] and a prime example of why [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]-style disciplined parsing matters. The ambiguity of ASN.1 BER mirrors the semantic-drift concerns in agent communication languages ([[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]) — when two parties disagree about message meaning, security or coordination fails."},{"h":"Tags","l":28,"t":""},{"h":"security #pki #parsing #protocol-ambiguity","l":29,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":6,"10":4,"2009":1,"509":4,"a":7,"about":3,"acl":1,"acls":1,"across":1,"against":2,"agent":3,"ambiguity":5,"ambiguously":1,"an":1,"and":7,"approach":1,"as":2,"asn":6,"at":1,"attack":2,"attacker":1,"attackers":1,"attacks":5,"authentication":2,"authorities":1,"based":1,"because":2,"ber":5,"between":3,"black":1,"browsers":1,"but":1,"by":1,"bypass":1,"bypasses":1,"ca":1,"cake":1,"canonical":1,"cas":1,"case":2,"cautionary":1,"certificate":4,"claim":1,"classes":1,"client":2,"cn":2,"cns":1,"collision":1,"com":1,"common":2,"communication":3,"components":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"concrete":1,"confusion":2,"connections":1,"considered":1,"content":1,"context":1,"contracts":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"critical":1,"critique":1,"cryptoapi":1,"dan":1,"ddos":1,"demonstrate":1,"dependent":1,"differential":1,"differentials":1,"disagree":3,"disagreement":1,"disciplined":1,"distributed":2,"drift":1,"early":1,"eku":2,"empirical":1,"enables":1,"ev":2,"example":1,"exploitable":2,"exploitation":1,"exploiting":1,"exploits":1,"fails":1,"fields":1,"file":1,"for":2,"forged":1,"format":1,"from":1,"gap":2,"general":1,"generic":1,"global":2,"handling":2,"handwritten":1,"harmful":1,"hashes":1,"hat":1,"hijacking":2,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implementation":1,"in":5,"inconsistent":1,"infrastructure":2,"injection":2,"integer":2,"inter":1,"interest":1,"interface":1,"intermediate":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"ioactive":2,"is":4,"it":1,"kaminsky":1,"key":1,"l":1,"langsec":1,"language":2,"languages":2,"largely":1,"layer":2,"layered":1,"layering":1,"leading":2,"len":1,"like":1,"making":1,"matters":1,"md2":3,"md2rsa":1,"md5":1,"meaning":1,"mechanism":1,"meredith":1,"message":1,"mirrors":1,"mixed":2,"multiple":1,"name":5,"names":1,"new":2,"not":1,"nss":1,"null":2,"of":8,"oid":2,"only":1,"ontology":1,"openssl":1,"or":1,"overflow":2,"padding":1,"paper":1,"parser":2,"parsers":3,"parsing":6,"parties":1,"pathologies":1,"pattern":1,"patterson":1,"pdf":1,"pdfs":1,"pkcs":4,"pki":4,"pkilayercake":1,"policies":1,"postel":2,"preimage":2,"presents":1,"prevent":1,"prime":1,"principle":2,"principles":1,"protocol":2,"receiver":1,"receivers":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"report":1,"research":1,"rethinking":1,"robustness":2,"root":2,"s":4,"sassaman":1,"says":1,"script":1,"scripting":1,"security":8,"selection":1,"semantic":2,"semantics":1,"sender":1,"senders":1,"sensitive":1,"several":1,"shared":1,"signature":2,"smart":1,"smarter":1,"source":1,"specified":1,"spoofing":1,"sql":2,"ssl":2,"stance":1,"still":1,"store":1,"study":2,"style":1,"subject":5,"subtly":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"tale":1,"technical":1,"terminator":1,"terminators":1,"the":8,"theoretic":1,"through":1,"to":4,"transfer":2,"tricks":1,"trust":2,"trusted":1,"tunneled":1,"turns":1,"two":1,"url":1,"usa":1,"used":1,"varies":1,"verisign":2,"via":3,"vulnerable":1,"weak":1,"what":1,"when":1,"why":1,"x":4,"zero":2}},{"dl":508,"n":"Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory","s":"papers/security/security-applications-of-formal-language-theory","secs":[{"h":"Security Applications of Formal Language Theory","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sassaman, Patterson, Bratus, Locasto, Shubina (2011). *Dartmouth College Computer Science Technical Report TR2011-709*. Source file: `Security Applications of Formal Language Theory.pdf`. [URL](https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/cs_tr/335/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This is the foundational LangSec technical report: a sustained argument that the hardest unsolved problems of secure composition (unsafe input handling, mutually intelligible but divergent message interpretations between components) are consequences of ignoring formal language theory in protocol and software design. The authors connect everyday security failures to decidability results: if a protocol's input language requires recognizers more powerful than necessary (or worse, undecidable), then safely accepting inputs and ensuring identical interpretation across endpoints become theoretically unachievable, producing an endless stream of 0-days that no amount of patching can stop. Part I develops the formalism, situates exploitation as a constructive proof of unintended computation (\"weird machines\"), introduces the parse tree differential attack as a systematic technique for finding interpretation mismatches, and applies the framework to SQL validation, PKCS#1 (proven context-sensitive), X.509, ASN.1, and IDS/IPS composition failures. Part II distills the analysis into accessible design principles for protocol designers, developers, and auditors. The core prescription: keep input languages at the lowest Chomsky level that suffices, build recognizers that fully validate input before any processing, never mix recognition with action (\"shotgun parsing\"), and ensure identical parsers across endpoints to prevent parser differentials."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Composition is the primary engineering means and the primary security challenge. - Safely accepting inputs and identically interpreting messages across endpoints are both fundamentally language-theoretic problems. - Undecidable/overpowered input languages yield unfixable vulnerability classes. - Parse tree differential attack: exploiting divergence between implementations of the \"same\" language. - Weird machines as constructive proofs of unintended computation. - PKCS#1 proven context-sensitive (not regular, not context-free). - Design principles: minimize language power, full recognition before processing, identical parsers at all endpoints, no shotgun parsing. - Critique of \"good enough\" (80/20) solutions to undecidable problems."},{"h":"Connections","l":22,"t":"- [[LangSec]] - [[Shotgun Parsing]] - [[Weird Machine]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]] - [[Distributed Security]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** Insecurity at protocol and component boundaries is a language-theoretic phenomenon: when input languages exceed what recognizers can safely decide, secure composition is impossible, and the resulting vulnerabilities are not bugs but inevitable consequences of design choices. - **Mechanism:** Analyzes inputs as formal languages; classifies protocols by Chomsky level; shows that context-sensitive or undecidable languages force ad-hoc parsers whose implementation differences enable parse tree differential attacks; demonstrates weird machines as constructive proofs; prescribes minimal-power input languages, full recognition before processing, and identical recognizers at endpoints. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LangSec]], [[Chomsky Hierarchy]], [[Parser Differential]], [[Shotgun Parsing]], [[Weird Machine]], [[Input Validation]], [[Protocol Design]], [[Distributed Security]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** The canonical reference underlying [[LangSec]] and [[Shotgun Parsing]] in this vault; the theoretical substrate for [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] and for applying parser-theoretic discipline to ACL design ([[ACL Design Principles]], [[ACL Verifiability]]) and to [[Agent Security]] concerns around message interpretation in [[LLM Agents]] and [[Tool Use]] settings."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"langsec #formal-languages #parser-differential #weird-machines #protocol-design #security","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1":3,"20":1,"2011":1,"335":1,"509":1,"709":1,"80":1,"a":6,"accepting":2,"accessible":1,"acl":3,"across":3,"action":1,"ad":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"all":1,"amount":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"analyzes":1,"and":15,"any":1,"applications":1,"applies":1,"applying":1,"approach":1,"are":3,"argument":1,"around":1,"as":5,"asn":1,"at":4,"attack":2,"attacks":1,"auditors":1,"authors":1,"based":1,"become":1,"before":3,"between":2,"both":1,"boundaries":1,"bratus":1,"bugs":1,"build":1,"but":2,"by":1,"can":2,"canonical":1,"challenge":1,"choices":1,"chomsky":4,"claim":1,"classes":1,"classifies":1,"college":1,"component":1,"components":1,"composition":4,"computation":2,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connect":1,"connections":1,"consequences":2,"constructive":3,"context":4,"contribution":1,"core":1,"critique":1,"cs":1,"dartmouth":2,"days":1,"ddos":1,"decidability":1,"decide":1,"demonstrates":1,"design":8,"designers":1,"developers":1,"develops":1,"differences":1,"differential":6,"differentials":1,"digitalcommons":1,"discipline":1,"distills":1,"distributed":2,"divergence":1,"divergent":1,"edu":1,"enable":1,"endless":1,"endpoints":5,"engineering":1,"enough":1,"ensure":1,"ensuring":1,"everyday":1,"exceed":1,"exploitation":1,"exploiting":1,"failures":2,"file":1,"finding":1,"for":4,"force":1,"formal":4,"formalism":1,"foundational":2,"framework":1,"free":1,"full":2,"fully":1,"fundamentally":1,"good":1,"handling":1,"hardest":1,"hierarchy":2,"hoc":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identical":4,"identically":1,"ids":1,"if":1,"ignoring":1,"ii":1,"implementation":1,"implementations":1,"impossible":1,"in":3,"inevitable":1,"input":8,"inputs":3,"insecurity":1,"intelligible":1,"interpretation":3,"interpretations":1,"interpreting":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"ips":1,"is":4,"keep":1,"key":1,"langsec":5,"language":8,"languages":7,"level":2,"llm":1,"locasto":1,"lowest":1,"machine":2,"machines":4,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"messages":1,"minimal":1,"minimize":1,"mismatches":1,"mix":1,"more":1,"mutually":1,"necessary":1,"never":1,"no":2,"not":3,"of":10,"or":2,"overpowered":1,"parse":3,"parser":5,"parsers":3,"parsing":5,"part":2,"patching":1,"patterson":1,"phenomenon":1,"pkcs":2,"power":2,"powerful":1,"prescribes":1,"prescription":1,"prevent":2,"primary":2,"principles":3,"problems":3,"processing":3,"producing":1,"proof":1,"proofs":2,"protocol":6,"protocols":1,"proven":2,"recognition":3,"recognizers":4,"reference":2,"regular":1,"relates":1,"report":2,"requires":1,"resulting":1,"results":1,"s":1,"safely":3,"same":1,"sassaman":1,"science":1,"secure":2,"security":7,"sensitive":3,"settings":1,"shotgun":5,"shows":1,"shubina":1,"situates":1,"software":1,"solutions":1,"source":1,"sql":1,"stance":1,"stop":1,"stream":1,"substrate":1,"suffices":1,"summary":1,"sustained":1,"systematic":1,"tags":1,"technical":2,"technique":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":15,"then":1,"theoretic":3,"theoretical":1,"theoretically":1,"theory":2,"this":2,"to":8,"tool":1,"tr":1,"tr2011":1,"tree":3,"unachievable":1,"undecidable":4,"underlying":1,"unfixable":1,"unintended":2,"unsafe":1,"unsolved":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"validate":1,"validation":2,"vault":1,"verifiability":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"vulnerability":1,"weird":6,"what":1,"when":1,"whose":1,"with":1,"worse":1,"x":1,"yield":1}},{"dl":345,"n":"Security Kernel Lambda Calculus","s":"papers/security/security-kernel-lambda-calculus","secs":[{"h":"A Security Kernel Based on the Lambda-Calculus","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Jonathan A. Rees (1996). *MIT AI Laboratory Memo No. 1564*. Source file: `AIM-1564.pdf`. [URL](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5944)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Rees describes Scheme 48, a programming environment whose design is guided by operating-system security principles. The security kernel is W7, a call-by-value lambda-calculus with extensions for abstract data types, object mutation, and hardware access. Each user or subsystem runs in a separate evaluation environment holding the objects representing that user's privileges; because environments determine availability of object references, protection and sharing are controlled by construction. The paper describes experience with Scheme 48 as the programming environment for Cornell's mobile robots (no underlying OS) and as a secure multi-user workstation environment, arguing that lexical scope + first-class environments are a natural substrate for capability-style security among cooperating agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Lambda-calculus as minimal security kernel via capability-style environments. - Scheme 48 (W7): modules, macros, dynamic isolation, portable across platforms. - Trust mediated by controlling which names bind to which objects. - Authentication via capsules (tamper-proof labelled objects). - Applied to robots and multi-user Scheme environments."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Lexical scope and first-class environments in a lambda-calculus variant (W7) are a sufficient security kernel: protection reduces to controlling which names bind to which object references. - **Mechanism:** Implements Scheme 48 as a capability-style environment where each user/subsystem runs in its own environment; authentication via capsules (tamper-proof labelled objects); deployed on Cornell mobile robots (no OS) and as multi-user workstation environment. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Capability Security]], [[Lambda Calculus]], [[Lexical Scope]], [[Scheme 48]], [[Capsules]], [[Distributed Security]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** foundational / engineering - **Relates to:** Provides a principled, capability-based alternative to the input-validation discipline of [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] and the static DDoS analysis of [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]; relevant to sandboxing malicious tools described in [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"security #capabilities #lambda-calculus #foundational","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1564":1,"1721":1,"1996":1,"48":5,"5944":1,"a":13,"abstract":1,"access":1,"across":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"ai":1,"alternative":1,"among":1,"analysis":1,"and":7,"applied":1,"approach":2,"are":3,"arguing":1,"as":5,"attacks":1,"authentication":2,"availability":1,"babel":2,"based":4,"because":1,"bind":2,"by":4,"calculus":6,"call":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":5,"capsules":3,"claim":1,"class":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":1,"controlled":1,"controlling":2,"cooperating":1,"cornell":2,"data":1,"ddos":3,"deployed":1,"described":1,"describes":2,"design":1,"determine":1,"discipline":1,"distributed":1,"dspace":1,"dynamic":1,"each":2,"edu":1,"engineering":1,"environment":7,"environments":5,"evaluation":1,"experience":1,"extensions":1,"file":1,"first":2,"for":3,"foundational":2,"guided":1,"handle":1,"hardware":1,"holding":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implements":1,"in":4,"input":1,"introduced":1,"is":2,"isolation":1,"its":1,"jonathan":1,"kernel":4,"key":1,"labelled":2,"laboratory":1,"lambda":6,"language":2,"lexical":3,"macros":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":1,"mechanism":1,"mediated":1,"memo":1,"minimal":1,"mit":2,"mobile":2,"modules":1,"multi":5,"mutation":1,"names":2,"natural":1,"no":3,"object":3,"objects":4,"of":5,"on":2,"operating":1,"or":1,"os":2,"own":1,"paper":1,"platforms":1,"portable":1,"prevent":2,"principled":1,"principles":1,"privileges":1,"programming":2,"proof":2,"protection":2,"provides":1,"reduces":1,"rees":2,"reference":1,"references":2,"relates":1,"relevant":1,"representing":1,"robots":3,"runs":2,"s":2,"sandboxing":1,"scheme":6,"scope":3,"secure":1,"security":9,"separate":1,"seven":2,"sharing":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"static":1,"style":3,"substrate":1,"subsystem":2,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"tamper":2,"that":2,"the":7,"to":9,"tool":1,"tools":1,"trust":1,"turrets":2,"types":1,"underlying":1,"url":1,"used":1,"user":6,"validation":1,"value":1,"variant":1,"via":3,"w7":3,"where":1,"which":4,"whose":1,"with":2,"workstation":2}},{"dl":485,"n":"The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity","s":"papers/security/the-halting-problems-of-network-stack-insecurity","secs":[{"h":"The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sassaman, Patterson, Bratus, Shubina (2011). *;login: (USENIX), Vol. 36, No. 6*. Source file: `The_Halting_Problems_of_Network_Stack_In.pdf`. [URL](https://www.usenix.org/publications/login/december-2011-volume-36-number-6/halting-problems-network-stack-insecurity)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper founds language-theoretic security (LangSec) on a startling thesis: accepted/valid inputs to a program form an *input language*, and a program's input-handling code is effectively a *recognizer* for that language. Insecurity arises when this recognizer problem is computationally too powerful — recognizing context-sensitive or Turing-complete input languages makes validity checking undecidable, so exploitable mismatches between the intended and actual recognizer are inevitable. Through examples (X.509 ASN.1 parsing, SQL injection, network-stack fingerprinting, 802.15.4 SFD attacks, qmail), the authors show how handwritten ad-hoc recognizers introduce \"weird machines\" on which crafted inputs execute exploit programs. They propose two principles: (1) Starve the Turing beast — give parsers only the minimum computational power needed; (2) Secure composition requires parser computational equivalence. They argue HTML5's Turing-completeness regresses safety, and JSON/S-expressions exemplify the right design."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Inputs form a formal language; parsers are recognizers. - Undecidability of input validity => unexploitable security impossible. - Exploits run on \"weird machines\" built from crafted inputs. - Minimal computational power principle (a LangSec Least Privilege). - Postel's robustness principle harmful for security."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[Protocol Documents]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, the undecidability result the title invokes. - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] — Post 1944, decision-problem framing behind the recognizer view. - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] — Gödel 1931, the incompleteness ancestor of the LangSec impossibility argument."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Much network-stack insecurity is a consequence of treating input validation as an ad-hoc engineering task rather than as a formal recognition problem; if the input language is too powerful, safe validation is undecidable and exploitable \"weird machines\" are inevitable. - **Mechanism:** Sassaman et al. recast every parser as a recognizer for a formal language and map concrete vulnerability classes (ASN.1 in X.509, SQL injection, TCP/IP fingerprint ambiguity, 802.15.4 SFD spoofing, qmail overflows) onto the Chomsky hierarchy. They derive two design principles — starve the Turing beast (keep parsers minimal: regular/context-free where possible) and require computational equivalence of parsers for secure composition — and argue Postel's robustness principle exacerbates the problem. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LangSec]], [[Weird Machine]], [[Input Language]], [[Recognizer]], [[Chomsky Hierarchy]], [[Parser Equivalence]], [[Postel's Law Critique]], [[Halting Problem]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Frames the security motivation behind language-workbench approaches like [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] and the language-based DDoS defence in [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]; its recognizer view complements the calculus-level security of [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"langsec #security #formal-languages #protocols","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":3,"15":2,"1931":1,"1936":1,"1944":1,"2":1,"2011":2,"36":2,"4":2,"509":2,"6":2,"802":2,"a":11,"accepted":1,"actual":1,"ad":2,"agent":2,"al":1,"ambiguity":1,"an":3,"ancestor":1,"and":9,"approach":1,"approaches":1,"are":3,"argue":2,"argument":1,"arises":1,"as":3,"asn":2,"attacks":1,"authors":1,"based":2,"beast":2,"behind":2,"between":1,"bratus":1,"built":1,"calculus":1,"checking":1,"chomsky":2,"church":1,"claim":1,"classes":1,"code":1,"communication":1,"communications":1,"complements":1,"complete":1,"completeness":1,"composition":2,"computational":4,"computationally":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"consequence":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"crafted":2,"critique":1,"ddos":2,"december":1,"decision":2,"defence":1,"der":1,"derive":1,"design":2,"differential":1,"distributed":1,"documents":1,"effectively":1,"elementary":1,"engineering":1,"enumerable":1,"equivalence":3,"et":1,"every":1,"exacerbates":1,"examples":1,"execute":1,"exemplify":1,"exploit":1,"exploitable":2,"exploits":1,"expressions":1,"file":1,"fingerprint":1,"fingerprinting":1,"for":5,"form":2,"formal":5,"foundational":1,"founds":1,"frames":1,"framing":1,"free":1,"from":1,"give":1,"gödel":1,"halting":3,"handling":1,"handwritten":1,"harmful":1,"hierarchy":2,"hoc":2,"how":1,"html5":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"impossibility":1,"impossible":1,"in":2,"incompleteness":1,"inevitable":2,"injection":2,"input":7,"inputs":4,"insecurity":4,"integers":1,"intended":1,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"invokes":1,"ip":1,"is":5,"its":1,"json":1,"keep":1,"key":1,"langsec":6,"language":12,"languages":4,"law":1,"least":1,"level":1,"like":1,"login":2,"machine":1,"machines":3,"makes":1,"map":1,"mathematica":1,"mechanism":1,"minimal":2,"minimum":1,"mismatches":1,"motivation":1,"much":1,"multi":1,"needed":1,"network":4,"no":1,"number":2,"of":8,"on":3,"only":1,"onto":1,"or":1,"org":1,"overflows":1,"paper":1,"parser":4,"parsers":4,"parsing":1,"patterson":1,"positive":1,"possible":1,"post":1,"postel":3,"power":2,"powerful":2,"prevent":1,"principia":1,"principle":3,"principles":2,"privilege":1,"problem":6,"problems":3,"processing":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"propose":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"publications":1,"qmail":2,"rather":1,"recast":1,"recognition":1,"recognizer":7,"recognizers":2,"recognizing":1,"recursively":1,"reference":1,"regresses":1,"regular":1,"relates":1,"require":1,"requires":1,"result":1,"right":1,"robustness":2,"run":1,"s":6,"safe":1,"safety":1,"sassaman":2,"secure":3,"security":6,"sensitive":1,"sets":1,"sfd":2,"show":1,"shubina":1,"so":1,"source":1,"spoofax":1,"spoofing":1,"sql":2,"stack":4,"stance":1,"startling":1,"starve":2,"summary":1,"systeme":1,"systems":1,"sätze":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"tcp":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":20,"their":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":1,"thesis":1,"they":3,"this":1,"through":1,"title":1,"to":3,"too":2,"treating":1,"turing":4,"two":2,"und":1,"undecidability":2,"undecidable":2,"unentscheidbare":1,"unexploitable":1,"unsolvable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"usenix":2,"valid":1,"validation":2,"validity":2,"verwandter":1,"view":2,"vol":1,"volume":1,"vulnerability":1,"weird":4,"when":1,"where":1,"which":1,"workbench":2,"workbenches":1,"www":1,"x":2,"über":1}},{"dl":434,"n":"An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments","s":"papers/multi-agent/an-interaction-oriented-agent-framework-for-open-environments","secs":[{"h":"An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments (Mercurio)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Baldoni, Baroglio, Bergenti, Marengo, Mascardi, Patti, Ricci, Santi (2011). *AI*IA 2011 (Italian AI Association)*. Source file: `cbcl-ref/AI_IA2011.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23954-0_9)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors propose Mercurio, an agent-programming framework for open multi-agent systems that unifies direct (speech-act) and indirect (environment-mediated) communication under a single social/observational semantics based on commitments. Mercurio has three levels — specification (constitutive and regulative rules over a domain model), programming abstractions (Agents and Artifacts in the A&A meta-model), and infrastructure (built on JaCaMo integrating Jason, CArtAgO, and MOISE). Commitment-based protocols give a public, verifiable meaning to actions (replacing mentalistic ACL semantics); constitutive rules define what counts as what, while regulative rules impose temporal constraints on the social state. Artifacts reify interaction patterns and the social state itself, enabling the environment to monitor and detect violations. The framework thus conjugates MAS flexibility with software-engineering modularity and compositionality, targeting e-government, cross-business, and service-oriented applications."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Commitment-based social semantics replaces mentalistic ACL semantics. - Three levels: specification, programming abstractions, infrastructure. - Separation of constitutive and regulative rules. - Artifacts (A&A / CArtAgO) as first-class environment entities. - JaCaMo stack (Jason + CArtAgO + MOISE) as reference infrastructure."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Agents and Artifacts]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Interaction Protocols]] - [[Public Semantics]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Open multi-agent systems need a single, publicly verifiable interaction semantics that unifies direct (speech-act) and indirect (environment-mediated) communication; commitments plus Agents-and-Artifacts supply it and can be layered onto an existing AOP stack. - **Mechanism:** Mercurio stratifies into three levels. (1) Specification: a domain model plus constitutive rules (\"what counts as what\") and regulative rules (temporal constraints on the social state). (2) Programming abstractions: the A&A meta-model (agents + artifacts) where artifacts reify interaction patterns and the social state itself. (3) Infrastructure: the JaCaMo stack (Jason + CArtAgO + MOISE) runs the above so violations are environment-detectable and the social state is inspectable. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Mercurio Framework]], [[Commitment-Based Protocol]], [[Constitutive Rules]], [[Regulative Rules]], [[Agents and Artifacts]], [[JaCaMo]], [[Jason]], [[CArtAgO]], [[MOISE]], [[Social State]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Concretely instantiates the social-semantic programme of [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and the open-issue agenda of [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] and [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]]; its environment-reified interaction complements the self-organisation of [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"commitments #artifacts #open-systems #multi-agent","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1":1,"10":1,"1007":1,"2":1,"2011":2,"23954":1,"3":2,"642":1,"9":1,"978":1,"a":12,"above":1,"abstractions":3,"acl":3,"act":2,"actions":1,"adaptive":1,"agenda":1,"agent":12,"agents":5,"ai":2,"an":4,"and":20,"aop":1,"applications":1,"are":1,"art":1,"artifacts":9,"as":4,"association":1,"authors":1,"baldoni":1,"baroglio":1,"based":5,"be":1,"bergenti":1,"built":1,"business":1,"can":1,"cartago":5,"claim":1,"class":1,"commitment":4,"commitments":3,"communication":6,"complements":1,"composite":1,"compositionality":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concretely":1,"conjugates":1,"connections":1,"constitutive":5,"constraints":2,"contribution":1,"counts":2,"cross":1,"define":1,"detect":1,"detectable":1,"direct":2,"doi":1,"domain":2,"e":1,"enabling":1,"engineering":2,"entities":1,"environment":6,"environments":1,"existing":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"first":1,"flexibility":1,"for":2,"framework":4,"give":1,"government":1,"has":1,"https":1,"ia":1,"ideas":1,"impose":1,"in":4,"indirect":2,"infrastructure":4,"inspectable":1,"instantiates":1,"integrating":1,"interaction":6,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"issue":1,"it":1,"italian":1,"its":1,"itself":2,"jacamo":4,"jason":4,"key":1,"language":1,"languages":3,"layered":1,"levels":3,"marengo":1,"mas":1,"mascardi":1,"meaning":1,"mechanism":2,"mediated":2,"mentalistic":2,"mercurio":5,"meta":2,"model":4,"modularity":1,"moise":4,"monitor":1,"multi":4,"need":1,"network":1,"observational":1,"of":5,"on":4,"onto":1,"open":5,"org":1,"organisation":2,"oriented":3,"over":1,"patterns":2,"patti":1,"plus":2,"principles":1,"programme":1,"programming":5,"propose":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"public":2,"publicly":1,"reference":2,"regulative":5,"reified":1,"reify":2,"relates":1,"replaces":1,"replacing":1,"rethinking":1,"ricci":1,"rules":8,"runs":1,"santi":1,"self":3,"semantic":1,"semantics":8,"separation":1,"service":1,"single":2,"so":1,"social":9,"software":1,"source":1,"specification":3,"speech":2,"stack":3,"stance":1,"state":7,"stratifies":1,"summary":1,"supply":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"targeting":1,"temporal":2,"that":2,"the":18,"three":3,"thus":1,"to":3,"trends":1,"under":1,"unifies":2,"url":1,"used":1,"verifiable":3,"violations":2,"what":4,"where":1,"while":1,"with":1}},{"dl":413,"n":"Multiagent Systems Sycara","s":"papers/multi-agent/multiagent-systems-sycara","secs":[{"h":"Multiagent Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Katia P. Sycara (1998). *AI Magazine*, Summer 1998, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 79-92. Source file: `Multiagent_Systems.pdf`. [URL](https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1370)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Sycara's survey introduces multi-agent systems (MAS) as a paradigm for tackling problems too large, complex, or distributed for a single agent, presenting the key characteristics that distinguish MAS: each agent has incomplete information, there is no global control, data is decentralized, and computation is asynchronous. She motivates MAS via open systems like the Internet where heterogeneous agents from different designers must interoperate, and surveys the main research problems: coordination, communication, negotiation, coherence, conflict resolution, and reasoning about other agents. She organizes the field around issues (enabling communication, individual agent reasoning, adaptive coordination, protocols like Contract Net and KQML, reactive vs. deliberative architectures, emergent behavior) and applications (information gathering, e-commerce, manufacturing, health care, distributed planning). Throughout she emphasizes coherence — how locally-acting agents can achieve globally reasonable performance — as the defining challenge."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Four MAS characteristics: incomplete info, no global control, decentralized data, async computation. - Coherence as the central research challenge. - Spectrum from reactive (stimulus-response) to deliberative (BDI) architectures. - Coordination requires reasoning about other agents' expected behavior. - Organizations, markets, and scientific-community metaphors for MAS structure."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[KQML]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Contract Net Protocol]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Joint Intentions]] - [[BDI]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[Weak Agency]] - [[Facilitators]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** Multi-agent systems are the appropriate paradigm for open, distributed, heterogeneous problem-solving; they are characterised by four structural properties (incomplete info, no global control, decentralised data, async computation) and unified by the problem of achieving *coherence* through local decisions. - **Mechanism:** Survey-style synthesis organising the MAS field around: motivations (modularity, legacy interop, distributed data), core challenges (coherent coordination, negotiation, planning, conflict resolution), architectures (reactive, deliberative/BDI, hybrid), organisational metaphors (hierarchy, market, community, scientific), protocols (Contract Net, KQML), and application domains (info gathering, e-commerce, manufacturing, aircraft maintenance). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Coherence]], [[Problem-Solving Coherence]], [[Contract Net Protocol]], [[BDI Architecture]], [[Reactive vs Deliberative Agents]], [[Negotiation]], [[Joint Intentions]], [[Organizational Metaphors]] - **Stance:** survey / foundational - **Relates to:** Canonical MAS reference informing nearly every other note; defines the field that [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] and [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] critique; organisational metaphors dovetail with [[How Do Committees Invent]]; negotiation/coordination theme continued in [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] and [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"multi-agent-systems #survey #coordination #ai-magazine","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"1370":1,"19":1,"1998":2,"2":1,"79":1,"92":1,"a":2,"aaai":1,"about":2,"achieve":1,"achieving":1,"acl":2,"acls":2,"act":1,"acting":1,"adaptive":1,"agency":2,"agent":9,"agents":6,"ai":2,"aimagazine":2,"aircraft":1,"and":10,"application":1,"applications":1,"appropriate":1,"architecture":1,"architectures":3,"are":2,"around":2,"article":1,"as":3,"async":2,"asynchronous":1,"automated":1,"bdi":4,"behavior":2,"by":2,"can":1,"canonical":1,"care":1,"central":1,"challenge":2,"challenges":1,"characterised":1,"characteristics":2,"claim":1,"coherence":6,"coherent":1,"commerce":2,"committees":1,"communication":4,"community":2,"complex":1,"computation":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conflict":2,"connections":1,"continued":1,"contract":4,"contribution":1,"control":3,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":6,"core":1,"critique":1,"data":4,"decentralised":1,"decentralized":2,"decisions":1,"defines":1,"defining":1,"deliberative":4,"designers":1,"different":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":4,"do":1,"domains":1,"dovetail":1,"e":2,"each":1,"emergent":2,"emphasizes":1,"enabling":1,"every":1,"evolution":1,"expected":1,"facilitators":1,"field":3,"file":1,"for":5,"foundational":1,"four":2,"from":2,"gathering":2,"global":3,"globally":1,"has":1,"health":1,"heterogeneous":2,"hierarchy":1,"how":2,"https":1,"hybrid":1,"ideas":1,"in":1,"incomplete":3,"index":1,"individual":1,"info":3,"information":2,"informing":1,"intentions":2,"internet":1,"interop":1,"interoperate":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"invent":1,"is":3,"issues":1,"joint":2,"katia":1,"key":2,"kqml":3,"languages":1,"large":1,"legacy":1,"like":2,"local":1,"locally":1,"magazine":2,"main":1,"maintenance":1,"manufacturing":2,"market":1,"markets":1,"mas":7,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"metaphors":4,"modularity":1,"motivates":1,"motivations":1,"multi":5,"multiagent":1,"must":1,"nearly":1,"negotiation":5,"net":4,"no":4,"note":1,"of":2,"ojs":1,"open":2,"or":1,"org":1,"organisational":2,"organising":1,"organizational":1,"organizations":1,"organizes":1,"other":3,"p":1,"paradigm":2,"performance":1,"php":1,"planning":2,"pp":1,"presenting":1,"principles":1,"problem":3,"problems":2,"properties":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":2,"reactive":4,"reasonable":1,"reasoning":3,"reference":2,"relates":1,"requires":1,"research":2,"resolution":2,"response":1,"rethinking":1,"s":1,"scientific":2,"semantics":1,"she":3,"single":1,"solving":2,"source":1,"spectrum":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"stimulus":1,"strong":1,"structural":1,"structure":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"summer":1,"survey":4,"surveys":1,"sycara":2,"synthesis":1,"systems":7,"tackling":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":10,"theme":1,"theory":1,"there":1,"they":1,"through":1,"throughout":1,"to":2,"too":1,"toward":1,"unified":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"verifiable":1,"via":1,"view":1,"vol":1,"vs":2,"weak":1,"where":1,"with":1}},{"dl":345,"n":"Levels Of Social Orchestration","s":"papers/multi-agent/levels-of-social-orchestration","secs":[{"h":"Levels of Social Orchestration for Agentic Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Chopra, Bhattacharya, Leibo, Raskar (2025). *ICML 2025* (MIT, Google DeepMind). Source file: `agentic_draft.pdf`. [URL](https://lpm.media.mit.edu/agentic_draft.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors argue that as AI agents scale to billions, beneficial collective behaviour depends less on maximizing individual intelligence and more on discovering interaction protocols. They introduce Large Population Models (LPMs) - differentiable, end-to-end trainable protocols spanning simulated and physical agent networks - as a paradigm shift from LLMs (data -> language) to LPMs (protocol -> population). They propose a five-level taxonomy of agentic systems: L1 Perceive, L2 Automate, L3 Connect (all within human cognitive bounds), then L4 Navigate and L5 Transform (beyond Dunbar-scale human coordination). Case studies span pandemic response, traffic coordination, and Coachella-style crowd management, framing the progression from information intelligence to collective orchestration."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Protocol-centric intelligence: rules of interaction beat bigger individual models. - Large Population Models (LPMs): differentiable protocols over synthetic+physical agents. - L1-L5 levels: Perceive, Automate, Connect, Navigate, Transform. - Human Connectivity Barrier (~1500 people) as natural scaling limit. - Case studies in pandemics, traffic, crowd scheduling."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** At population scale, beneficial AI comes from protocol design, not model scaling; the paradigm must shift from LLMs (data to language) to Large Population Models (protocol to population). - **Mechanism:** Introduces differentiable, end-to-end trainable LPMs spanning simulated and physical agents; proposes a 5-level taxonomy (Perceive/Automate/Connect within human cognitive bounds, Navigate/Transform beyond them); case studies in pandemic response, traffic, crowd management. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Large Population Models]], [[Differentiable Protocols]], [[Human Connectivity Barrier]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[LLM Agents]], [[Self-Adaptive Systems]], [[Emergent Communication]] - **Stance:** foundational / engineering - **Relates to:** Provides the level-taxonomy lens under which [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] sits as an L4 mechanism; echoes the \"protocols-not-messages\" critique of [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]]; its macro vision contrasts with the infrastructural surveys [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] and [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"protocols #population-scale #agentic-systems #llm-agents","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1500":1,"2025":2,"5":1,"a":3,"adaptive":2,"agent":5,"agentic":4,"agents":7,"ai":4,"all":1,"an":1,"and":6,"argue":1,"as":4,"at":1,"authors":1,"automate":3,"barrier":2,"beat":1,"behaviour":1,"beneficial":2,"beyond":2,"bhattacharya":1,"bigger":1,"billions":1,"bounds":2,"case":3,"centric":1,"chopra":1,"claim":1,"coachella":1,"cognitive":2,"collective":2,"comes":1,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connect":3,"connections":1,"connectivity":2,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":2,"critique":1,"crowd":3,"data":2,"deepmind":1,"depends":1,"design":1,"differentiable":4,"discovering":1,"draft":1,"dunbar":1,"echoes":1,"edu":1,"effect":2,"emergent":1,"end":4,"engineering":1,"file":1,"five":1,"for":1,"foundational":1,"framing":1,"from":4,"google":1,"https":1,"human":6,"icml":1,"ideas":1,"in":3,"individual":2,"information":1,"infrastructural":1,"intelligence":3,"interaction":2,"interoperability":1,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"its":1,"key":1,"l1":2,"l2":1,"l3":1,"l4":2,"l5":2,"language":3,"large":4,"leibo":1,"lens":1,"less":1,"level":3,"levels":2,"limit":1,"llm":3,"llms":2,"lpm":1,"lpms":4,"macro":1,"management":2,"maximizing":1,"mechanism":2,"media":1,"messages":1,"mit":2,"model":1,"models":5,"more":1,"multi":2,"must":1,"natural":1,"navigate":3,"networks":1,"not":2,"of":6,"on":2,"orchestration":2,"over":1,"pandemic":2,"pandemics":1,"paradigm":2,"pdf":1,"people":1,"perceive":3,"physical":3,"population":8,"progression":1,"propose":1,"proposes":1,"protocol":6,"protocols":8,"provides":1,"raskar":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"response":2,"ripple":2,"rules":1,"scale":4,"scaling":2,"scheduling":1,"self":2,"shift":2,"simulated":2,"sits":1,"social":1,"source":1,"span":1,"spanning":2,"stance":1,"studies":3,"style":1,"summary":1,"survey":2,"surveys":1,"synthetic":1,"systems":7,"tags":1,"taxonomy":3,"that":1,"the":6,"them":1,"then":1,"they":2,"to":9,"traffic":3,"trainable":2,"transform":3,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vision":1,"which":1,"why":1,"with":1,"within":2}},{"dl":393,"n":"Agent-Oriented Programming","s":"papers/multi-agent/agent-oriented-programming","secs":[{"h":"Agent-Oriented Programming","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Shoham, Y. (1993). *Artificial Intelligence 60, Elsevier*. Source file: `shoam-aop.pdf`. [URL](https://www.infor.uva.es/~cllamas/MAS/AOP-Shoham.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Shoham introduces Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP) as a specialization of object-oriented programming in which the state of each module — now called an agent — is a mental state composed of beliefs, capabilities, decisions/choices, commitments, and obligations. Interpretation of these components is formally grounded in an extension of standard epistemic logics that adds temporality, obligation, decision, and capability operators. Agents communicate via speech-act-inspired primitives (inform, request, offer, promise, decline, etc.), constrained by rules such as honesty and consistency. The paper defines a class of agent interpreters and presents AGENT-0, a concrete implemented language whose semantics is tied to the mental-state logic. Shoham also discusses \"agentification\" — converting arbitrary devices into AOP-programmable agents — and situates AOP against BDI architectures, speech act theory, and McCarthy's Elephant2000."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- AOP as OOP specialization with mental-state components. - Agents constrained by honesty/consistency on communicative acts. - Speech-act-typed primitives as message types. - AGENT-0 language and interpreter. - \"Agentification\" of arbitrary devices."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Performatives]] - [[BDI]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[KQML]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Programming can be fruitfully specialised to an \"agent\" paradigm in which module state is a formally specified mental state and inter-module communication is a speech act constrained by rational/ethical rules. - **Mechanism:** Shoham extends standard modal-epistemic logic with temporal, obligation, decision and capability operators, defines the mental-state components of an agent (belief, capability, commitment, choice, obligation), then specifies a generic agent interpreter cycle (update mental state, execute commitments, handle incoming messages) and instantiates it in AGENT-0, whose programs are condition-action rules over mental state and whose messages are typed INFORM/REQUEST/UNREQUEST primitives. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[Mental State]], [[Commitment]], [[AGENT-0]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Agentification]], [[BDI]], [[Honesty Constraint]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Establishes the mentalistic ACL stance later criticised by [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and surveyed by [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]; AGENT-0's speech-act primitives anticipate [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] and [[FIPA-ACL]]; the mental-state architecture is reused in [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"aop #speech-acts #agents #programming-paradigm","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":5,"1993":1,"60":1,"a":7,"acl":2,"act":7,"action":1,"acts":2,"adds":1,"against":1,"agency":1,"agent":19,"agentification":3,"agents":5,"also":1,"an":6,"and":14,"anticipate":1,"aop":6,"arbitrary":2,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"are":2,"artificial":1,"as":5,"bdi":3,"be":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":1,"by":5,"called":1,"can":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":3,"choice":1,"choices":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"cllamas":1,"commitment":2,"commitments":2,"communicate":1,"communication":4,"communicative":1,"components":3,"composed":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"condition":1,"connections":1,"consistency":2,"constrained":3,"constraint":1,"contribution":1,"converting":1,"criticised":1,"cycle":1,"decision":2,"decisions":1,"decline":1,"defines":2,"devices":2,"discusses":1,"each":1,"elephant2000":1,"elsevier":1,"environments":1,"epistemic":2,"es":1,"establishes":1,"etc":1,"ethical":1,"execute":1,"extends":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"formally":2,"foundational":1,"framework":1,"fruitfully":1,"generic":1,"grounded":1,"handle":1,"honesty":3,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implemented":1,"in":5,"incoming":1,"infor":1,"inform":2,"inspired":1,"instantiates":1,"intelligence":1,"intelligent":1,"inter":1,"interaction":1,"interpretation":1,"interpreter":2,"interpreters":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":6,"it":1,"key":1,"kqml":2,"language":3,"languages":2,"later":1,"logic":2,"logics":1,"mas":1,"mccarthy":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":10,"mentalistic":2,"message":1,"messages":2,"modal":1,"module":3,"multi":1,"now":1,"object":1,"obligation":3,"obligations":1,"of":8,"offer":1,"on":1,"oop":1,"open":1,"operators":2,"oriented":6,"over":1,"paper":1,"paradigm":2,"pdf":1,"performatives":1,"practice":1,"presents":1,"primitives":4,"principles":1,"programmable":1,"programming":7,"programs":1,"promise":1,"rational":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"request":2,"rethinking":1,"reused":1,"rules":3,"s":2,"semantics":2,"shoham":5,"situates":1,"source":1,"specialised":1,"specialization":2,"specified":1,"specifies":1,"speech":8,"stance":2,"standard":2,"state":12,"strong":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"surveyed":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"temporal":1,"temporality":1,"that":1,"the":7,"then":1,"theory":4,"these":1,"tied":1,"to":3,"typed":2,"types":1,"unrequest":1,"update":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uva":1,"via":1,"which":2,"whose":3,"with":2,"www":1,"y":1}},{"dl":462,"n":"The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties","s":"papers/multi-agent/the-synthesis-of-digital-machines-with-provable-epistemic-properties","secs":[{"h":"The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Rosenschein, S.J. & Kaelbling, L.P. (1986). *Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1986 Conference* (J.Y. Halpern, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 83–98. Source file: `rosenschein-kaelbling-synthesis-digital-machines.pdf`. [URL](http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p83-rosenschein.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Rosenschein and Kaelbling introduce the *situated-automata* approach to knowledge: rather than treating `K(x, phi)` as \"machine x stores a syntactic representation of phi in its knowledge base\", they define it in terms of a correlation between the state of the machine and the state of its environment. A machine \"knows\" phi iff phi holds in every environment-state consistent with the machine's internal state. Under this definition the S5 axioms of epistemic logic fall out as theorems about well-designed embedded systems — without any symbolic storage of formulas. The paper extends earlier situated-automata work to compositional hardware: synchronous digital machines are analysed by treating their gates and delay elements as agents in a multi-agent system and reasoning about information flow among them. The authors introduce *Rex*, a language for recursively computing machine descriptions that lets designers build machines with provable epistemic properties from the gate level up. This is the technical foundation for \"knowledge as situatedness\" that underpins reactive agent architectures."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- *Situated-automata* semantics: knowledge = correlation between machine state and environment state, not syntactic storage. - S5 axioms (truth, consequential closure, positive and negative introspection) provable for embedded systems under this definition. - Compositional reasoning: gates and delays modelled as agents; knowledge of the whole follows from information flow among components. - *Rex*: a hierarchical specification language that compiles to digital machines with guaranteed epistemic properties. - Provides a bridge between epistemic logic, control theory, and reactive robotics."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Knowledge-Level Specification]] - [[Reactive vs Deliberative Agents]] - [[Subsumption Architecture]] - [[BDI Logic]] - [[Grounded Semantics]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[Symbolic Plans]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Knowledge in an embedded agent can be defined by state-environment correlation, so epistemic properties can be *compiled into* hardware rather than reasoned about at runtime. - **Mechanism:** Possible-worlds semantics where a machine's internal state partitions environment states; Rex language synthesises circuits whose state partitions provably realise specified knowledge predicates. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Situated Automata]], [[Correlational Knowledge]], [[Rex Language]], [[Epistemic S5]], [[Embedded Agent]]. - **Stance:** foundational/formal; engineering-oriented counterpoint to symbolic AI. - **Relates to:** Shoham's [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] cites this work as a key alternative route to agenthood: where AOP implements mental state as explicit data structures interpreted at runtime, Rosenschein & Kaelbling show mental state can be compiled away while preserving the same logical semantics. Shoham's discussion of \"natural vs artificial automata\" and of [[Reactive vs Deliberative Agents]] directly engages with this programme."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"situated-automata #epistemic-logic #reactive-agents #foundational #compilation #knowledge","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"1986":2,"83":1,"86":1,"98":1,"a":9,"about":4,"agent":6,"agenthood":1,"agents":5,"ai":1,"alternative":1,"among":2,"an":1,"analysed":1,"and":9,"any":1,"aop":1,"approach":1,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"are":1,"artificial":1,"as":7,"aspects":1,"at":2,"authors":1,"automata":6,"away":1,"axioms":2,"base":1,"bdi":1,"be":3,"between":3,"bridge":1,"build":1,"by":2,"can":3,"circuits":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"closure":1,"compilation":1,"compiled":2,"compiles":1,"components":1,"compositional":2,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"consequential":1,"consistent":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"correlation":3,"correlational":1,"counterpoint":1,"data":1,"define":1,"defined":1,"definition":2,"delay":1,"delays":1,"deliberative":2,"descriptions":1,"designed":1,"designers":1,"digital":3,"directly":1,"discussion":1,"earlier":1,"ed":1,"elements":1,"embedded":4,"engages":1,"engineering":1,"environment":5,"epistemic":9,"every":1,"explicit":1,"extends":1,"fall":1,"file":1,"flow":2,"follows":1,"for":3,"formal":1,"formulas":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":2,"from":2,"gate":1,"gates":2,"grounded":1,"guaranteed":1,"halpern":1,"hardware":2,"hierarchical":1,"holds":1,"http":1,"ideas":1,"iff":1,"implements":1,"in":5,"information":2,"internal":2,"interpreted":1,"into":1,"introduce":2,"introduced":1,"introspection":1,"is":1,"it":1,"its":2,"j":2,"kaelbling":3,"kaufmann":1,"key":2,"knowledge":11,"knows":1,"l":1,"language":4,"lets":1,"level":2,"logic":5,"logical":1,"machine":7,"machines":4,"mar19":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":3,"modelled":1,"morgan":1,"multi":1,"natural":1,"negative":1,"not":1,"of":12,"org":1,"oriented":3,"out":1,"p":1,"p83":1,"paper":1,"partitions":2,"pdf":1,"phi":3,"plans":1,"positive":1,"possible":1,"pp":1,"predicates":1,"preserving":1,"proceedings":2,"programme":1,"programming":2,"properties":4,"provable":3,"provably":1,"provides":1,"rather":2,"reactive":5,"realise":1,"reasoned":1,"reasoning":3,"recursively":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"representation":1,"rex":4,"robotics":1,"rosenschein":4,"route":1,"runtime":2,"s":5,"s5":3,"same":1,"semantics":4,"shoham":2,"show":1,"situated":5,"situatedness":1,"so":1,"source":1,"specification":2,"specified":1,"stance":1,"state":12,"states":1,"storage":2,"stores":1,"structures":1,"subsumption":1,"summary":1,"symbolic":3,"synchronous":1,"syntactic":2,"synthesis":1,"synthesises":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"tark":2,"technical":1,"terms":1,"than":2,"that":3,"the":14,"their":1,"them":1,"theorems":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"they":1,"this":5,"to":6,"treating":2,"truth":1,"under":2,"underpins":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vs":3,"well":1,"where":2,"while":1,"whole":1,"whose":1,"with":5,"without":1,"work":2,"worlds":1,"www":1,"x":1,"y":1}},{"dl":445,"n":"Intention Is Choice with Commitment","s":"papers/multi-agent/intention-is-choice-with-commitment","secs":[{"h":"Intention Is Choice with Commitment","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Cohen, P.R. & Levesque, H.J. (1990). *Artificial Intelligence* 42(3): 213–261. Source file: `cohen-levesque-intention-is-choice-with-commitment.pdf`. [URL](https://www-cs.stanford.edu/~epacuit/classes/lori-spr09/cohenlevesque-intention-aij90.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Cohen and Levesque formalise the \"rational balance\" that holds between an autonomous agent's beliefs, goals, actions, and intentions. They define intention as a composite mental attitude: a *persistent goal* that the agent is committed to pursuing until it is achieved, known to be impossible, or no longer relevant. This yields a modal logic whose axioms capture Bratman's three functional roles for intention — posing problems for means-end reasoning, acting as a screen of admissibility for future intentions, and prompting the agent to track (and re-try) the success of its actions. The paper opens with the now-classic \"Willie the robot\" vignette (uncommitted, overcommitted, then homicidally committed), framing intention as what an agent must reason about to be both reliable and responsive. By relativising intentions to beliefs about another agent's intentions the authors also sketch a theory of interpersonal commitment that anticipates speech-act and multi-agent communication semantics."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- *Persistent goal* (P-GOAL): a goal an agent will not drop until it is believed achieved, believed impossible, or its relevance condition fails. - *Intention* defined as a P-GOAL to have done an action while believing one is about to do it — closing Bratman's gap between intending and acting intentionally. - Avoids the \"side-effect problem\": agents don't intend foreseen side-effects of their actions. - Mutual/relativised intentions as a foundation for interpersonal commitments and speech acts. - Desiderata list (beliefs, feasibility, non-futility, tracking) becomes a standard benchmark for intention logics."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Belief-Desire-Intention]] - [[BDI Logic]] - [[BDI Architecture]] - [[Joint Intentions]] - [[Commitment]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Rational Action Semantics]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Intentional Stance]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Intention is not a primitive mental state but a *choice with commitment* — a goal plus a meta-policy for when to drop it. - **Mechanism:** Modal logic over beliefs and goals plus a temporal operator for persistence; intention defined compositionally so its functional roles (planning, filtering, tracking) are theorems rather than axioms. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Persistent Goal]], [[Commitment]], [[Rational Balance]], [[Mental State]], [[Nested Beliefs]], [[Joint Intentions]]. - **Stance:** foundational/formal. - **Relates to:** Shoham's [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] cites this paper as the prime candidate for grounding AOP's mental-state semantics; Shoham deliberately chooses a simpler obligation/commitment primitive for AGENT-0 but frames C&L as the rigorous theory AOP languages should eventually implement. The paper also underwrites FIPA-style [[Mentalistic Semantics]] and [[Rational Action Semantics]] for ACLs."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"intention #bdi #modal-logic #commitment #foundational #rational-agency","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1990":1,"213":1,"261":1,"3":1,"42":1,"a":15,"about":3,"achieved":2,"acls":1,"act":2,"acting":2,"action":3,"actions":3,"acts":1,"admissibility":1,"agency":1,"agent":10,"agents":1,"aij90":1,"also":2,"an":4,"and":10,"another":1,"anticipates":1,"aop":2,"architecture":1,"are":1,"artificial":1,"as":7,"attitude":1,"authors":1,"autonomous":1,"avoids":1,"axioms":2,"balance":2,"bdi":3,"be":2,"becomes":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":5,"believed":2,"believing":1,"benchmark":1,"between":2,"both":1,"bratman":2,"but":2,"by":1,"c":1,"candidate":1,"capture":1,"choice":2,"chooses":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"classes":1,"classic":1,"closing":1,"cohen":2,"cohenlevesque":1,"commitment":7,"commitments":1,"committed":2,"communication":1,"composite":1,"compositionally":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"cs":1,"define":1,"defined":2,"deliberately":1,"desiderata":1,"desire":1,"do":1,"don":1,"done":1,"drop":2,"edu":1,"effect":1,"effects":1,"end":1,"epacuit":1,"eventually":1,"fails":1,"feasibility":1,"file":1,"filtering":1,"fipa":1,"for":10,"foreseen":1,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":2,"frames":1,"framing":1,"functional":2,"futility":1,"future":1,"gap":1,"goal":7,"goals":2,"grounding":1,"h":1,"have":1,"holds":1,"homicidally":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implement":1,"impossible":2,"intelligence":1,"intend":1,"intending":1,"intention":11,"intentional":1,"intentionally":1,"intentions":7,"interpersonal":2,"introduced":1,"is":6,"it":4,"its":3,"j":1,"joint":2,"key":1,"known":1,"l":1,"languages":1,"levesque":2,"list":1,"logic":4,"logics":1,"longer":1,"lori":1,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":5,"mentalistic":1,"meta":1,"modal":3,"multi":1,"must":1,"mutual":1,"nested":1,"no":1,"non":1,"not":2,"now":1,"obligation":1,"of":4,"one":1,"opens":1,"operator":1,"or":2,"oriented":2,"over":1,"overcommitted":1,"p":3,"paper":3,"pdf":1,"persistence":1,"persistent":3,"planning":1,"plus":2,"policy":1,"posing":1,"prime":1,"primitive":2,"problem":1,"problems":1,"programming":2,"prompting":1,"pursuing":1,"r":1,"rather":1,"rational":5,"re":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relativised":1,"relativising":1,"relevance":1,"relevant":1,"reliable":1,"responsive":1,"rigorous":1,"robot":1,"roles":2,"s":6,"screen":1,"semantics":5,"shoham":2,"should":1,"side":2,"simpler":1,"sketch":1,"so":1,"source":1,"speech":3,"spr09":1,"stance":2,"standard":1,"stanford":1,"state":4,"style":1,"success":1,"summary":1,"t":1,"tags":1,"temporal":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":12,"their":1,"then":1,"theorems":1,"theory":3,"they":1,"this":2,"three":1,"to":9,"track":1,"tracking":2,"try":1,"uncommitted":1,"underwrites":1,"until":2,"url":1,"used":1,"vignette":1,"what":1,"when":1,"while":1,"whose":1,"will":1,"willie":1,"with":3,"www":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":810,"n":"On Agent-Based Software Engineering","s":"papers/multi-agent/on-agent-based-software-engineering","secs":[{"h":"On Agent-Based Software Engineering","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"- Jennings, Nicholas R. (2000). \"On agent-based software engineering.\" *Artificial Intelligence* 117(2): 277–296. (Based on the Computers and Thought Award lecture, IJCAI-99 Stockholm.) - PDF: [jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/abse.pdf](https://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/abse.pdf) - Also: [faculty.sites.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/archive/tesfatsi/jennings.pdf](https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/archive/tesfatsi/jennings.pdf) - ePrints Soton: [eprints.soton.ac.uk/253741/](https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253741/) - Local: `jennings2000_agent_based_se.pdf`"},{"h":"Summary","l":10,"t":"Jennings argues that agent-oriented techniques are not a mere rebranding of object-orientation or distributed computing but a genuinely new software engineering paradigm, particularly well-suited to complex, distributed, real-world systems. Contemporary software engineering paradigms (OO, component-ware, design patterns, software architectures) fall short in two ways when building such systems: (i) interactions between computational entities are defined too rigidly at design time, and (ii) there are insufficient mechanisms for representing a system's organisational structure. He advances two theses: the *Adequacy Hypothesis* — agent-oriented approaches significantly improve our ability to model, design, and build complex distributed software — and the *Establishment Hypothesis* — agent orientation will succeed as a mainstream SE paradigm. The paper offers a careful definition: an agent is an encapsulated computer system situated in some environment and capable of flexible autonomous action to meet its design objectives. Agents are (i) identifiable problem-solvers with well-defined boundaries, (ii) situated, (iii) purposive, (iv) autonomous (controlling both state and behaviour — this is what distinguishes them from objects, which must obey any public method call), and (v) flexible (reactive and proactive). Crucially, real problems require *multi-agent* solutions; the essential concepts of agent-based computing are agents, high-level (knowledge-level) interactions, and explicit organisational relationships. The canonical diagram shows agents, interaction links, organisational groupings, and spheres of visibility and influence over a shared environment. Interactions are conceptualised at the knowledge level (Newell): who should do what, when, on whose behalf — not at the syntactic level of method invocation. Agents decide at run time how to interact, including engaging in interactions unforeseen at design time. Organisational relationships (peer, team, manager/subordinate) shape behaviour and must be represented explicitly because they evolve during execution. Jennings then argues the case for agent-based software engineering, examines its drawbacks (hard to predict, hard to verify, concurrency pitfalls, immature methodologies), and advocates modelling at the *social level* as the promising remedy."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":17,"t":"- **Agents as the right abstraction for complex distributed systems**: encapsulated, situated, autonomous, flexible. - **Autonomy distinguishes agents from objects**: objects must execute any invoked public method; agents choose whether to respond. - **Interactions at the knowledge level**: goal-level, run-time, negotiated — not hard-wired at design time. - **Explicit organisational structure**: teams, roles, authority relations must be first-class, and must be dynamic. - **The canonical view**: agents + high-level interactions + organisational relationships + shared environment. - **Adequacy and Establishment Hypotheses**: agent-orientation is both *appropriate* and likely to become *mainstream*. - **Social level modelling**: beyond the knowledge level, systems should be analysed in terms of roles, dependencies, and collective behaviour. - **Drawbacks acknowledged**: emergent behaviour, verification difficulty, lack of mature tooling, overhead for simple problems."},{"h":"Connections","l":27,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] — this paper is one of the foundational manifestos for viewing SE through the MAS lens. - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] — Wooldridge & Jennings's companion treatment of the agent abstraction. - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] — Shoham's earlier proposal to shift from objects to agents; Jennings provides the SE-level case. - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] — complementary survey of MAS as a field. - [[Agent Architecture]], [[Abstract Agent Interfaces]] — concrete architectural instantiations of Jennings's abstraction. - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] — modern echo of the \"knowledge-level interaction, organisational structure\" agenda. - [[ACL Design Principles]], [[ACL Layering]], [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] — the communication machinery that knowledge-level interaction presupposes. - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] — institutional/organisational framing extends Jennings's call for explicit organisational relationships. - Contrast with [[Actor Model]] — actors encapsulate state but not autonomy of response. - Contrast with [[Intelligence Without Representation]] — Jennings is comfortable with knowledge-level abstractions Brooks is sceptical of."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":39,"t":"> Jennings articulates agent-orientation as a *software engineering* stance, not just an AI technique. By insisting that (a) autonomy is the diagnostic difference from objects, (b) interaction must be deferred from design time to run time, and (c) organisational relationships are first-class and evolvable, he gives MAS the conceptual backbone it needs to be taken seriously outside AI. For agent communication research, the paper's legacy is the \"social level\": ACLs, protocols, commitments, and institutions exist precisely because knowledge-level interaction among autonomous, organisationally-situated agents is what the paradigm is for. Every subsequent ACL design argument can be read as an attempt to fill in the interaction-and-organisation half of Jennings's canonical diagram."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"agent-theory #software-engineering #multi-agent-systems #autonomy #knowledge-level #organisational-structure #Jennings #foundational","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"117":1,"2":1,"2000":1,"253741":2,"277":1,"296":1,"99":1,"a":11,"ability":1,"abse":2,"abstract":1,"abstraction":3,"abstractions":1,"ac":2,"acknowledged":1,"acl":3,"acls":2,"action":1,"actor":1,"actors":1,"adequacy":2,"advances":1,"advocates":1,"agenda":1,"agent":20,"agents":11,"ai":2,"also":1,"among":1,"an":4,"analysed":1,"and":23,"any":2,"approaches":1,"appropriate":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"archive":2,"are":7,"argues":2,"argument":1,"articulates":1,"artificial":1,"as":6,"at":8,"attempt":1,"authority":1,"autonomous":4,"autonomy":4,"award":1,"b":1,"backbone":1,"based":5,"be":7,"because":2,"become":1,"behalf":1,"behaviour":4,"between":1,"beyond":1,"both":2,"boundaries":1,"brooks":1,"build":1,"building":1,"but":2,"by":1,"c":1,"call":2,"can":1,"canonical":3,"capable":1,"careful":1,"case":2,"choose":1,"class":2,"collective":1,"comfortable":1,"commitments":1,"common":1,"communication":4,"companion":1,"complementary":1,"complex":3,"component":1,"computational":1,"computer":1,"computers":1,"computing":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"conceptualised":1,"concrete":1,"concurrency":1,"connections":1,"contemporary":1,"contrast":2,"contribution":1,"controlling":1,"crucially":1,"cse":2,"decide":1,"deferred":1,"defined":2,"definition":1,"dependencies":1,"design":9,"diagnostic":1,"diagram":2,"difference":1,"difficulty":1,"distinguishes":2,"distributed":4,"do":1,"drawbacks":2,"during":1,"dynamic":1,"earlier":1,"echo":1,"edu":4,"emergent":1,"encapsulate":1,"encapsulated":2,"engaging":1,"engineering":7,"entities":1,"environment":3,"eprints":3,"essential":1,"establishment":2,"every":1,"evolvable":1,"evolve":1,"examines":1,"execute":1,"execution":1,"exist":1,"explicit":3,"explicitly":1,"extends":1,"faculty":2,"fall":1,"field":1,"fill":1,"first":2,"flexible":3,"for":9,"foundational":2,"framing":1,"from":5,"genuinely":1,"gives":1,"goal":1,"groupings":1,"half":1,"hard":3,"he":2,"high":2,"how":1,"https":3,"hypotheses":1,"hypothesis":2,"i":2,"iastate":2,"ideas":1,"identifiable":1,"ii":2,"iii":1,"ijcai":1,"immature":1,"improve":1,"in":5,"including":1,"influence":1,"insisting":1,"instantiations":1,"institutional":2,"institutions":1,"insufficient":1,"intelligence":2,"intelligent":1,"interact":1,"interaction":6,"interactions":6,"interfaces":1,"invocation":1,"invoked":1,"is":10,"it":1,"its":2,"iv":1,"jennings":13,"jmvidal":2,"just":1,"key":1,"knowledge":9,"lack":1,"layering":1,"lecture":1,"legacy":1,"lens":1,"level":17,"library":2,"likely":1,"links":1,"llms":1,"local":1,"machinery":1,"mainstream":2,"manager":1,"manifestos":1,"mas":3,"mature":1,"mechanisms":1,"meet":1,"mere":1,"method":3,"methodologies":1,"model":2,"modelling":2,"modern":1,"multi":3,"multiagent":1,"must":6,"needs":1,"negotiated":1,"networks":1,"new":1,"newell":1,"nicholas":1,"not":5,"obey":1,"object":1,"objectives":1,"objects":5,"of":17,"offers":1,"on":4,"one":1,"ontology":1,"oo":1,"or":1,"organisation":1,"organisational":11,"organisationally":1,"orientation":4,"oriented":3,"our":1,"outside":1,"over":1,"overhead":1,"paper":3,"paradigm":3,"paradigms":1,"particularly":1,"patterns":1,"pdf":5,"peer":1,"pitfalls":1,"practice":1,"precisely":1,"predict":1,"presupposes":1,"principles":1,"proactive":1,"problem":1,"problems":2,"programming":1,"promising":1,"proposal":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"public":2,"purposive":1,"r":1,"reactive":1,"read":1,"real":2,"reality":1,"rebranding":1,"reference":1,"relations":1,"relationships":5,"remedy":1,"representation":1,"represented":1,"representing":1,"require":1,"research":1,"respond":1,"response":1,"right":1,"rigidly":1,"roles":2,"run":3,"s":7,"sc":2,"scalable":1,"sceptical":1,"se":3,"seriously":1,"shape":1,"shared":2,"shift":1,"shoham":1,"short":1,"should":2,"shows":1,"significantly":1,"simple":1,"sites":2,"situated":4,"social":3,"software":9,"solutions":1,"solvers":1,"some":1,"soton":3,"spheres":1,"stance":1,"state":2,"stockholm":1,"structure":4,"subordinate":1,"subsequent":1,"succeed":1,"such":1,"suited":1,"summary":1,"survey":1,"sycara":1,"syntactic":1,"system":2,"systems":7,"tags":1,"taken":1,"team":1,"teams":1,"technique":1,"techniques":1,"terms":1,"tesfatsi":4,"that":3,"the":27,"them":1,"then":1,"theory":2,"there":1,"theses":1,"they":1,"this":2,"thought":1,"through":1,"time":7,"to":13,"too":1,"tooling":1,"treatment":1,"two":2,"uk":2,"unforeseen":1,"v":1,"verification":1,"verify":1,"view":1,"viewing":1,"visibility":1,"ware":1,"ways":1,"well":2,"what":3,"when":2,"whether":1,"which":1,"who":1,"whose":1,"will":1,"wired":1,"with":4,"without":1,"wooldridge":1,"world":1}},{"dl":423,"n":"Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents","s":"papers/multi-agent/ensuring-trustworthy-and-ethical-behaviour-in-intelligent-logical-agents","secs":[{"h":"Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Stefania Costantini (2020; arXiv 2024). *arXiv:2402.07547v1*. Source file: `2402.07547v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07547)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Proposes runtime self-checking techniques for computational-logic-based (BDI-style) agents so they can monitor their own behaviour for trustworthiness and ethical compliance, beyond what static a-priori verification can guarantee. The core contribution is A-ILTL (Agent-Oriented Interval Linear Temporal Logic), a specification language for metaconstraints and evolutionary expressions that an agent can apply introspectively to its own state, goals, and actions. Costantini argues that learning, open MAS, and long-lived autonomous systems make static model checking insufficient; agents must *reflect* on their behaviour and take counter-measures. The paper relates the approach to self-aware computing, Arkin's ethical governor, Metacognitive Loops, and \"restraining bolts\" from reinforcement learning."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Runtime verification (RV) complements static model checking for agents - A-ILTL: interval-LTL with metarules for self-checking BDI agents - Reification/naming mechanism allows meta-predicates solve/solve_not to gate actions - Trace expressions and introspection for ethical reasoning - Agents should *reflect* and *self-improve* — not merely obey hardcoded rules"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** A-priori (static) verification is insufficient for learning, evolving, or open-MAS agents; agents must *themselves* continuously self-monitor against ethical and behavioural constraints at runtime via a lightweight logic-based introspection mechanism. - **Mechanism:** Introduces *A-ILTL* (Agent-Oriented Interval Linear Temporal Logic) — a language-independent interval-temporal logic for specifying meta-constraints over an agent's BDI state; Evolutionary A-ILTL Expressions include past events, a temporal property, future expected events, and repair countermeasures. Meta-rules with `solve`/`solve_not` meta-predicates gate object-level actions. Positioned as a complementary runtime \"restraining bolt\" alongside a-priori verification and RL-based ethical governors. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Runtime Verification]], [[A-ILTL]], [[BDI Agents]], [[BDI]], [[Mental State]], [[Machine Ethics]], [[Self-aware Computing]], [[Self-Adaptive Systems]], [[Meta-rules]], [[Trace Expressions]], [[Ethical Governor]], [[Metacognitive Loop]], [[Restraining Bolts]] - **Stance:** formal / ethics-engineering - **Relates to:** Builds on the logical-agent substrate of [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] and the BDI tradition surveyed in [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]. Its runtime-monitoring stance complements the empirical failure-mode work of [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] and the trustworthiness framing of [[AI Agents Under Threat]]. Shares the \"agent knows its own norms\" spirit with commitment-based semantics in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"agent-verification #ethics #logic-agents #bdi #runtime-verification","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"07547":1,"07547v1":1,"2020":1,"2024":1,"2402":2,"a":13,"abs":1,"actions":3,"adaptive":2,"against":1,"agent":11,"agents":12,"ai":1,"allows":1,"alongside":1,"an":2,"and":16,"apply":1,"approach":1,"argues":1,"arkin":1,"arxiv":3,"as":1,"at":1,"autonomous":1,"aware":2,"based":4,"bdi":7,"behaviour":3,"behavioural":1,"beyond":1,"bolt":1,"bolts":2,"builds":1,"can":3,"checking":4,"claim":1,"commitment":1,"communication":1,"complementary":1,"complements":2,"compliance":1,"computational":1,"computing":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constraints":2,"continuously":1,"contribution":2,"core":1,"costantini":2,"counter":1,"countermeasures":1,"do":1,"empirical":1,"engineering":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":7,"ethics":3,"events":2,"evolutionary":2,"evolving":1,"expected":1,"expressions":4,"fail":1,"failure":1,"file":1,"for":8,"formal":1,"foundations":2,"framing":1,"from":1,"future":1,"gate":2,"goals":1,"governor":2,"governors":1,"guarantee":1,"hardcoded":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"iltl":5,"improve":1,"in":3,"include":1,"independent":1,"institutional":1,"insufficient":2,"intelligent":2,"interval":4,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"introspection":2,"introspectively":1,"is":2,"its":3,"key":1,"knows":1,"language":2,"learning":3,"level":1,"lightweight":1,"linear":2,"lived":1,"llm":1,"lloyd":2,"logic":8,"logical":2,"long":1,"loop":1,"loops":1,"ltl":1,"machine":1,"make":1,"mas":2,"measures":1,"mechanism":3,"mental":1,"merely":1,"meta":5,"metacognitive":2,"metaconstraints":1,"metarules":1,"mode":1,"model":2,"monitor":2,"monitoring":1,"multi":2,"must":2,"naming":1,"norms":1,"not":2,"obey":1,"object":1,"of":5,"on":2,"open":2,"or":1,"org":1,"oriented":3,"over":1,"own":3,"paper":1,"past":1,"positioned":1,"practice":1,"predicates":2,"priori":3,"programming":3,"property":1,"proposes":1,"reality":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"reflect":2,"reification":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":2,"repair":1,"restraining":3,"rl":1,"rules":3,"runtime":7,"rv":1,"s":2,"self":8,"semantics":1,"shares":1,"should":1,"so":1,"solve":2,"source":1,"specification":1,"specifying":1,"spirit":1,"stance":2,"state":3,"static":4,"stefania":1,"style":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"surveyed":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"take":1,"techniques":1,"temporal":4,"that":2,"the":8,"their":2,"themselves":1,"theory":1,"they":1,"threat":1,"to":4,"trace":2,"tradition":1,"trustworthiness":2,"trustworthy":1,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verification":7,"via":1,"what":1,"why":1,"with":3,"work":1}},{"dl":339,"n":"Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel","s":"papers/multi-agent/multi-agent-collaboration-in-ai---wasif-tunkel","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI: Enhancing Software Development with Autonomous LLMs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Mubeen Wasif and David Tunkel (2025). *ResearchGate preprint*. Source file: `16.pdf`"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A short survey-style paper arguing that multi-agent LLM systems can improve software-development workflows by distributing tasks (requirements, code generation, testing, documentation) across specialised autonomous agents that communicate via structured dialogue. The authors report qualitative experimental findings that division of labour and iterative refinement among agents produce higher-quality outputs than single-agent baselines. The paper also surveys open challenges: coordination overhead, response consistency, bias propagation, and governance/security concerns. It advocates human-in-the-loop validation and explainability (XAI) as mitigations, and points to future integration with IDEs, CI/CD, and RAG."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Specialised agent roles (coder, tester, documenter) mirror human dev teams - Structured inter-agent dialogue enables iterative code refinement - Hybrid human-AI teams recommended for reliability - Coordination cost, bias propagation, accountability are unsolved - RAG and adaptive prompting as future contextual-awareness tools"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Multi-agent LLM systems, with role-specialised agents (coder, tester, documenter) communicating through structured dialogue, outperform single-agent LLMs on software-engineering tasks by mirroring human team division-of-labour. - **Mechanism:** Survey-plus-experiment discussion: assign distinct agents to requirement analysis, code generation, debugging, documentation; use iterative feedback loops and structured prompts; report efficiency/accuracy gains while flagging coordination overhead, bias propagation, and security concerns; advocate human-in-the-loop governance. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LLM Agents]], [[Role-specialised Agents]], [[Human-in-the-loop]], [[Agent Coordination Overhead]], [[Explainable AI]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Retrieval-Augmented Generation]], [[Division of Labour]] - **Stance:** engineering / survey - **Relates to:** A light-weight practitioner view of the same problem space that [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] tackles rigorously, and that [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] operationalises as an open-source library. Shares the communication-protocol concern with [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"llm-agents #multi-agent #software-engineering #survey","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"2025":1,"a":3,"accountability":1,"accuracy":1,"across":1,"adaptive":1,"advocate":1,"advocates":1,"agent":13,"agents":10,"ai":3,"al":2,"also":1,"among":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":10,"are":1,"arguing":1,"as":3,"assign":1,"augmented":1,"authors":1,"autonomous":2,"awareness":1,"baselines":1,"bias":3,"by":2,"can":1,"cd":1,"challenges":1,"ci":1,"claim":1,"code":3,"coder":2,"collaboration":1,"communicate":1,"communicating":1,"communication":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concern":1,"concerns":2,"connections":1,"consistency":1,"contextual":1,"contribution":1,"coordination":4,"cost":1,"david":1,"debugging":1,"dev":1,"development":2,"dialogue":3,"discussion":1,"distinct":1,"distributing":1,"division":3,"do":2,"documentation":2,"documenter":2,"efficiency":1,"enables":1,"engineering":3,"enhancing":1,"et":2,"experiment":1,"experimental":1,"explainability":1,"explainable":1,"fail":2,"feedback":1,"file":1,"findings":1,"flagging":1,"for":2,"framework":2,"future":2,"gains":1,"generation":3,"governance":2,"higher":1,"human":6,"hybrid":1,"ideas":1,"ides":1,"improve":1,"in":4,"integration":1,"inter":1,"introduced":1,"it":1,"iterative":3,"key":1,"labour":3,"library":1,"light":1,"llm":7,"llms":3,"loop":3,"loops":1,"mechanism":1,"mirror":1,"mirroring":1,"mitigations":1,"mubeen":1,"multi":8,"networks":1,"of":5,"on":1,"open":2,"operationalises":1,"outperform":1,"outputs":1,"overhead":3,"paper":2,"plus":1,"points":1,"practitioner":1,"preprint":1,"problem":1,"produce":1,"prompting":1,"prompts":1,"propagation":3,"protocol":2,"qualitative":1,"quality":1,"rag":2,"recommended":1,"reference":1,"refinement":2,"relates":1,"reliability":1,"report":2,"requirement":1,"requirements":1,"researchgate":1,"response":1,"retrieval":1,"rigorously":1,"role":2,"roles":1,"same":1,"scalable":1,"security":2,"shares":1,"short":1,"single":2,"software":4,"source":2,"space":1,"specialised":4,"stance":1,"structured":4,"style":1,"summary":1,"survey":4,"surveys":1,"systems":6,"tackles":1,"tags":1,"tasks":2,"team":1,"teams":2,"tester":2,"testing":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":7,"through":1,"to":3,"tools":1,"tunkel":1,"unsolved":1,"use":1,"used":1,"validation":1,"via":1,"view":1,"wasif":1,"weight":1,"while":1,"why":2,"with":4,"workflows":1,"xai":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":555,"n":"Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture","s":"papers/multi-agent/modeling-rational-agents-within-a-bdi-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). In J. Allen, R. Fikes, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91)*, 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann. Also AAII Technical Note 14. Source file: `rao_georgeff_bdi_architecture.pdf`. [URL](https://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/rao91a.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Rao and Georgeff give the canonical formalization of the Belief–Desire–Intention architecture as a modal/temporal logic over a branching-time possible-worlds model (a first-order extension of CTL*). Beliefs, goals (chosen, consistent, believed-achievable desires), and intentions are each modelled as accessibility relations over time trees, with the crucial innovation that belief-, goal-, and intention-accessible worlds are themselves time trees rather than static worlds — so an agent's mental state simultaneously ranges over uncertainty about the world (branches across belief-worlds) and choice among options (branches within each world). The paper realises the central tenets of Bratman's philosophical theory (intentions as partial plans, irreducible to belief+desire) in a tractable semantic framework and introduces the distinction between *choice* (what the agent picks) and *possibility* (what the environment affords). A key technical contribution is the family of *commitment strategies* — blind, single-minded, and open-minded — which parametrically define how intentions persist under changing beliefs, yielding a taxonomy of rational agent types from fanatically committed to fully reconsidering. The formalism relates intentions to actions via sub-world inclusion (goals ⊆ beliefs; intentions ⊆ goals), avoiding classical side-effect problems of earlier intention logics."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- First-order CTL*-based modal logic with Bel, Goal, Intend accessibility. - Belief-, goal-, intention-accessible worlds are themselves branching time trees. - Optional vs. inevitable path modalities; distinguishes choice from possibility. - Strong realism constraint: goal-worlds are sub-worlds of belief-worlds. - Commitment strategies: blind, single-minded, open-minded. - Intentions treated as first-class, non-reducible to beliefs and desires. - Comparison with Cohen–Levesque's reductive intention formalism."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[BDI]] - [[BDI Architecture]] - [[BDI Logic]] - [[BDI Agents]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[Intentional Stance]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** Rational agent behaviour is best modelled by treating beliefs, goals and intentions as equally fundamental modal attitudes over branching time, with agent types differentiated by commitment strategy rather than by reduction of intention to other attitudes. - **Mechanism:** (i) Adopt CTL*-style branching time where each situation is a time point in a time tree, with path modalities *optional* and *inevitable*; (ii) associate each situation with sets of belief-, goal-, and intention-accessible worlds, each itself a time tree, imposing sub-world containment (strong realism); (iii) define rationality postulates relating the three attitudes; (iv) axiomatise commitment policies (blind = drop intention only on achievement, single-minded = also drop when no longer believed achievable, open-minded = also drop when no longer desired), yielding distinct agent classes. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[BDI Logic]], [[Commitment Strategies]], [[Strong Realism]], [[Branching Time]], [[Intention]], [[Practical Reasoning]] - **Stance:** formal framework - **Relates to:** Formalises the philosophical picture of [[Two Faces of Intention]] and operationalises the stance of [[Intentional Stance]]; provides the semantic bedrock for [[BDI Architecture]], [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] and the theory side of [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]; differs from and complements [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] (Cohen & Levesque) by treating intention as primitive rather than derived."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"bdi #agents #logic #foundational #rationality","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"14":1,"1991":1,"473":1,"484":1,"91":1,"a":11,"aaii":1,"about":1,"accessibility":2,"accessible":3,"achievable":2,"achievement":1,"across":1,"actions":1,"adopt":1,"affords":1,"agent":8,"agents":5,"allen":1,"also":3,"among":1,"an":1,"and":17,"architecture":4,"are":4,"as":6,"associate":1,"attitudes":3,"avoiding":1,"axiomatise":1,"based":1,"bdi":8,"bedrock":1,"behaviour":1,"bel":1,"belief":7,"beliefs":5,"believed":2,"best":1,"between":1,"blind":3,"branches":2,"branching":5,"bratman":1,"by":4,"canonical":1,"central":1,"changing":1,"choice":5,"chosen":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"classical":1,"cohen":2,"commitment":7,"committed":1,"comparison":1,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"consistent":1,"constraint":1,"containment":1,"contribution":2,"crucial":1,"cse":1,"ctl":3,"define":2,"derived":1,"desire":2,"desired":1,"desires":2,"differentiated":1,"differs":1,"distinct":1,"distinction":1,"distinguishes":1,"drop":3,"e":1,"each":5,"earlier":1,"eds":1,"edu":1,"effect":1,"environment":1,"equally":1,"extension":1,"faces":2,"family":1,"fanatically":1,"fikes":1,"file":1,"first":3,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalises":1,"formalism":2,"formalization":1,"foundational":1,"framework":2,"from":3,"fully":1,"fundamental":1,"georgeff":2,"give":1,"goal":5,"goals":4,"how":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"imposing":1,"in":3,"inclusion":1,"inevitable":2,"innovation":1,"intelligent":2,"intend":1,"intention":14,"intentional":2,"intentions":7,"international":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"irreducible":1,"is":5,"itself":1,"iv":1,"j":1,"jmvidal":1,"kaufmann":1,"key":2,"knowledge":1,"kr":1,"levesque":2,"library":1,"logic":5,"logics":1,"longer":2,"m":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"minded":6,"modal":3,"modalities":2,"model":1,"modeling":1,"modelled":2,"morgan":1,"no":2,"non":1,"note":1,"of":16,"on":2,"only":1,"open":3,"operationalises":1,"optional":2,"options":1,"order":2,"oriented":2,"other":1,"over":4,"p":1,"paper":1,"parametrically":1,"partial":1,"path":2,"pdf":1,"persist":1,"philosophical":2,"picks":1,"picture":1,"plans":1,"point":1,"policies":1,"possibility":2,"possible":1,"postulates":1,"practical":1,"practice":2,"primitive":1,"principles":1,"problems":1,"proceedings":1,"programming":2,"provides":1,"r":1,"ranges":1,"rao":2,"rao91a":1,"rather":3,"rational":3,"rationality":2,"realises":1,"realism":3,"reasoning":2,"reconsidering":1,"reducible":1,"reduction":1,"reductive":1,"reference":1,"relates":2,"relating":1,"relations":1,"representation":1,"s":4,"sandewall":1,"sc":1,"second":1,"semantic":2,"sets":1,"side":2,"simultaneously":1,"single":3,"situation":2,"so":1,"source":1,"stance":4,"state":1,"static":1,"strategies":3,"strategy":1,"strong":3,"style":1,"sub":3,"summary":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"technical":2,"temporal":1,"tenets":1,"than":3,"that":1,"the":17,"themselves":2,"theory":4,"three":1,"time":10,"to":6,"tractable":1,"treated":1,"treating":2,"tree":2,"trees":3,"two":2,"types":2,"uncertainty":1,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"what":2,"when":2,"where":1,"which":1,"with":8,"within":2,"world":4,"worlds":9,"yielding":2}},{"dl":492,"n":"The BOID Architecture","s":"papers/multi-agent/the-boid-architecture","secs":[{"h":"The BOID Architecture: Conflicts Between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Broersen, Dastani, Hulstijn, Huang, van der Torre (2001). *Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS'01)*, Montreal. Source file: `broersen_01_boid.pdf`. [URL](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/375735.375735)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper introduces the BOID architecture, a deontic extension of the classic BDI (Belief-Desire-Intention) agent model that adds Obligations as a first-class motivational attitude alongside Beliefs, Desires, and Intentions. The authors argue that autonomous agents must reason not only about what they believe, want, and plan, but also about the norms and social commitments that constrain them, and that modeling obligations explicitly lets the architecture handle conflicts between self-interested goals and externally imposed duties. The central contribution is a classification of conflict types between the four components (e.g., BO, BD, BI, OD, OI, DI, and triple/quadruple conflicts such as BOD and BOID) and a corresponding taxonomy of agent types determined by orderings over which component overrules which. Six \"realistic\" orderings yield named agent types: realistic, simple-minded/stable (BIDO, BIOD), selfish (BDIO, BDOI), social (BOID, BOID), and open-minded. Conflicts are resolved by feedback loops in the control cycle that iteratively apply rules from each component, producing one or multiple extensions in the sense of Reiter's default logic. An additional planning component selects actions from intentions."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Deontic extension of BDI: Obligations become a fourth motivational attitude. - Four components as input/output black boxes producing sets of formulas (extensions). - Taxonomy of conflicts: binary (BO, BD, BI, OD, OI, DI), triple (BOD, BOI, BDI, OID), quadruple (BOID). - Agent types as orderings over components: realistic, simple-minded, selfish, social, open-minded. - Conflict resolution via feedback-loop control architecture (extensions constructed before selection). - Connection to Reiter's default logic and Thomason's BDP logic. - Single-extension vs multiple-extension BOID; planning component selects one final extension."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[BDI]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Autonomous agents require obligations as a first-class motivational attitude alongside BDI, and an agent's character can be formally identified with the priority ordering used to resolve conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. - **Mechanism:** Four component black boxes (B, O, I, D) produce extensions over a propositional language; an ordering function rho on rules determines which components override others; a feedback-loop control cycle iteratively applies applicable rules; a planning component selects a single extension. The 24 possible orderings collapse to six realistic agent types. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[BDI]], [[Deontic Logic]], [[Default Logic]], [[Agent Types]], [[Norms and Obligations]], [[Agent Architecture]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** formal - **Relates to:** Extends the BDI foundations referenced throughout the vault ([[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[BDI]]) with normative reasoning relevant to [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]; provides a conflict-resolution substrate that agent communication languages ([[FIPA-ACL]], [[KQML]]) implicitly assume when performatives carry commissive or directive force."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"bdi #deontic #agent-architecture #norms #multi-agent-systems","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"01":1,"10":1,"1145":1,"2001":1,"24":1,"375735":2,"a":11,"about":2,"acl":1,"acm":1,"actions":1,"additional":1,"adds":1,"agent":17,"agents":4,"alongside":2,"also":1,"an":3,"and":16,"applicable":1,"applies":1,"apply":1,"architecture":6,"are":1,"argue":1,"as":5,"assume":1,"attitude":3,"authors":1,"autonomous":3,"b":1,"bd":2,"bdi":9,"bdio":1,"bdoi":1,"bdp":1,"be":1,"become":1,"before":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":3,"believe":1,"between":4,"bi":2,"bido":1,"binary":1,"biod":1,"black":2,"bo":2,"bod":2,"boi":1,"boid":7,"boxes":2,"broersen":1,"but":1,"by":2,"can":1,"carry":1,"central":1,"character":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"classic":1,"classification":1,"collapse":1,"commissive":1,"commitments":1,"communication":3,"component":6,"components":4,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"conflict":3,"conflicts":6,"connection":1,"connections":1,"constrain":1,"constructed":1,"contribution":2,"control":3,"corresponding":1,"cycle":2,"d":1,"dastani":1,"default":3,"deontic":4,"der":1,"desire":1,"desires":3,"determined":1,"determines":1,"di":2,"directive":1,"dl":1,"doi":1,"duties":1,"e":1,"each":1,"explicitly":1,"extends":1,"extension":6,"extensions":4,"externally":1,"feedback":3,"fifth":1,"file":1,"final":1,"fipa":1,"first":2,"force":1,"formal":1,"formally":1,"formulas":1,"foundations":1,"four":3,"fourth":1,"from":2,"function":1,"g":1,"goals":1,"handle":1,"https":1,"huang":1,"hulstijn":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identified":1,"implicitly":1,"imposed":1,"in":2,"input":1,"institutional":2,"intention":1,"intentions":4,"interested":1,"international":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":1,"iteratively":2,"key":1,"kqml":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"lets":1,"logic":5,"loop":2,"loops":1,"mechanism":1,"minded":4,"model":1,"modeling":1,"montreal":1,"motivational":3,"multi":3,"multiple":2,"must":1,"named":1,"normative":1,"norms":3,"not":1,"o":1,"obligations":7,"od":2,"of":8,"oi":2,"oid":1,"on":2,"one":2,"only":1,"open":2,"or":2,"ordering":2,"orderings":4,"org":1,"oriented":2,"others":1,"output":1,"over":3,"override":1,"overrules":1,"paper":1,"performatives":1,"plan":1,"planning":3,"possible":1,"priority":1,"proceedings":1,"produce":1,"producing":2,"programming":2,"propositional":1,"provides":1,"quadruple":2,"realistic":4,"reality":2,"reason":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"referenced":1,"reiter":2,"relates":1,"relevant":1,"require":1,"resolution":2,"resolve":1,"resolved":1,"rho":1,"rules":3,"s":4,"selection":1,"selects":3,"self":1,"selfish":2,"sense":1,"sets":1,"simple":2,"single":2,"six":2,"social":3,"source":1,"stable":1,"stance":1,"substrate":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"taxonomy":2,"that":6,"the":15,"them":1,"they":1,"this":1,"thomason":1,"throughout":1,"to":5,"torre":1,"triple":2,"types":6,"url":1,"used":2,"van":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"want":1,"what":1,"when":1,"which":3,"with":2,"yield":1}},{"dl":393,"n":"Deals Among Rational Agents","s":"papers/multi-agent/deals-among-rational-agents","secs":[{"h":"Deals Among Rational Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Rosenschein, J.S. & Genesereth, M.R. (1985). *Proceedings IJCAI-85*, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 91–99. Source file: `rosenschein-genesereth-deals-among-rational-agents.pdf`. [URL](http://logic.stanford.edu/publications/rosenschein/deals.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Rosenschein and Genesereth present a game-theoretic framework for interactions between intelligent agents with potentially disparate goals. They drop the \"benevolent agent\" assumption that pervaded early DAI and ask instead: what can purely rational, self-interested agents achieve through communication? The answer is given via payoff matrices, *rational offer groups*, and binding *deals* — coalitions of joint moves that no rational agent should unilaterally reject. They prove that communication, modelled as exchanging offer groups, lets rational agents coordinate on jointly optimal outcomes that are unreachable without communication. The results are illustrated on Prisoner's Dilemma, multiple-best-plan, and similar bargaining games, showing that binding promises transform defection-prone situations into cooperation. The paper is an early formal bridge between game theory, distributed AI, and agent communication."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Rejects the benevolent-agent assumption; models agents as utility-maximisers with private goals. - *Rational move* = a move no agent should ever be persuaded to abandon given common knowledge of rationality. - *Offer group* = set of joint moves an agent is willing to commit to; *deal* = intersection of accepted offer groups. - Theorems: existence of non-null rational offer groups; lower bounds on guaranteed payoffs; a Group Rationality Theorem showing communication can dominate no-communication outcomes. - Shows rational cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma once binding deals are available."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Rubinstein Bargaining]] - [[Contract Net Protocol]] - [[Multiagent Systems]] - [[Mechanism Design]] - [[Cheap Talk]] - [[Nash Equilibrium]] - [[Commitment]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Communication among rational, non-benevolent agents can be given a precise game-theoretic semantics in which binding offers transform achievable payoff sets. - **Mechanism:** Payoff matrices + rationality assumptions (minimal/separate/unique move rationality) + rational offer groups whose intersections define enforceable deals. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Rational Offer Groups]], [[Binding Deal]], [[Benevolent Agent Assumption]], [[Individual Rationality]], [[Group Rationality]]. - **Stance:** foundational/formal (game-theoretic). - **Relates to:** Shoham's [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] cites this work as one of the key precursors for modelling agent societies without assuming shared goals; AGENT-0's \"commit\" primitive is the programming-language analogue of the binding deals formalised here. The paper also foreshadows [[Negotiation]] protocols, auction-based coordination, and modern [[Mechanism Design]] for MAS."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"game-theory #negotiation #rational-agents #foundational #dai #communication","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1985":1,"85":1,"91":1,"99":1,"a":4,"abandon":1,"accepted":1,"achievable":1,"achieve":1,"agent":11,"agents":7,"ai":1,"also":1,"among":2,"an":2,"analogue":1,"and":6,"angeles":1,"answer":1,"are":3,"as":3,"ask":1,"assuming":1,"assumption":3,"assumptions":1,"auction":1,"available":1,"bargaining":2,"based":1,"be":2,"benevolent":4,"best":1,"between":2,"binding":6,"bounds":1,"bridge":1,"ca":1,"can":3,"cheap":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"coalitions":1,"commit":2,"commitment":1,"common":1,"communication":8,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contract":1,"contribution":1,"cooperation":2,"coordinate":1,"coordination":1,"dai":2,"deal":2,"deals":6,"defection":1,"define":1,"design":2,"dilemma":2,"disparate":1,"distributed":1,"dominate":1,"drop":1,"early":2,"edu":1,"enforceable":1,"equilibrium":1,"ever":1,"exchanging":1,"existence":1,"file":1,"for":3,"foreshadows":1,"formal":2,"formalised":1,"foundational":2,"framework":1,"game":5,"games":1,"genesereth":2,"given":3,"goals":3,"group":3,"groups":6,"guaranteed":1,"here":1,"http":1,"ideas":1,"ijcai":1,"illustrated":1,"in":2,"individual":1,"instead":1,"intelligent":1,"interactions":1,"interested":1,"intersection":1,"intersections":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":4,"j":1,"joint":2,"jointly":1,"key":2,"knowledge":1,"language":1,"lets":1,"logic":1,"los":1,"lower":1,"m":1,"mas":1,"matrices":2,"maximisers":1,"mechanism":3,"minimal":1,"modelled":1,"modelling":1,"models":1,"modern":1,"move":3,"moves":2,"multiagent":1,"multiple":1,"nash":1,"negotiation":3,"net":1,"no":3,"non":2,"null":1,"of":7,"offer":7,"offers":1,"on":3,"once":1,"one":1,"optimal":1,"oriented":2,"outcomes":2,"paper":2,"payoff":3,"payoffs":1,"pdf":1,"persuaded":1,"pervaded":1,"plan":1,"potentially":1,"pp":1,"precise":1,"precursors":1,"present":1,"primitive":1,"prisoner":2,"private":1,"proceedings":1,"programming":3,"promises":1,"prone":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"prove":1,"publications":1,"purely":1,"r":1,"rational":12,"rationality":6,"reference":1,"reject":1,"rejects":1,"relates":1,"results":1,"rosenschein":3,"rubinstein":1,"s":5,"self":1,"semantics":1,"separate":1,"set":1,"sets":1,"shared":1,"shoham":1,"should":2,"showing":2,"shows":1,"similar":1,"situations":1,"societies":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"stanford":1,"summary":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"talk":1,"that":5,"the":10,"theorem":1,"theorems":1,"theoretic":3,"theory":2,"they":2,"this":1,"through":1,"to":4,"transform":2,"unilaterally":1,"unique":1,"unreachable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"utility":1,"via":1,"what":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"willing":1,"with":2,"without":2,"work":1}},{"dl":418,"n":"Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures","s":"papers/multi-agent/are-multiagent-systems-resilient-to-communication-failures","secs":[{"h":"Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures?","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Philip N. Brown, Holly P. Borowski, and Jason R. Marden (2017). *arXiv:1710.08500 (American Control Conference 2018)*. Source file: `1710.08500v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08500)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Studies whether game-theoretic multiagent systems that tolerate \"offline\" design-time information loss also tolerate \"online\" runtime communication failures. Using potential games as the canonical setting, the authors show a surprising negative result: even a single communication failure about a weakly-coupled (\"inconsequential\") agent's action can drive best-response and log-linear-learning dynamics to arbitrarily poor equilibria, regardless of which proxy-payoff evaluator the ignorant agent uses. The paper also identifies positive results — identical-interest games with the max evaluator remain well-behaved under a single failure — and proposes a \"coarse potential alignment\" certificate for when proxy payoffs are safe. It further shows a paradox: in identical-interest games, performance can improve when *more* agents are denied information about an inconsequential player."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Proxy-payoff evaluators (sum/max/min/mean) and their admissibility - Single communication failure can destabilise potential-game equilibria - Identical-interest + max evaluator is the only generally safe combination - \"Inconsequentiality\" as an epsilon-weak-coupling definition - Larger action spaces (more profiles) make games more susceptible"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Even when a single \"weakly-coupled\" agent loses information about another's action, standard game-theoretic multi-agent control (potential games, identical-interest games, log-linear learning) can collapse to arbitrarily bad equilibria — resilience to communication failures is fundamentally limited by the structure of the problem, not just the learning rule. - **Mechanism:** Formalise the notion of ε-*inconsequentiality* (a player whose action change barely affects another's payoff) and *proxy payoff evaluators* (max/mean/min/sum over unobserved actions); prove negative theorems showing acceptable evaluators can induce pathological Nash equilibria, then positive structural results (ε-inconsequential + max-evaluator + identical-interest ⇒ resilience) and \"informational paradox\" results where *removing* communication can improve outcomes. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Potential Games]], [[Log-linear Learning]], [[Proxy Payoff Evaluators]], [[Inconsequentiality]], [[Communication Failures]], [[Distributed Optimization]], [[Nash Equilibrium Pathologies]], [[Nash Equilibrium]], [[Best-Response Dynamics]], [[Price of Anarchy]], [[Identical-Interest Games]] - **Stance:** formal / game-theoretic - **Relates to:** Provides the theoretical foundation for robustness concerns raised empirically in [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] and [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]. The inconsequentiality notion parallels weak-coupling arguments in [[Gossip Protocols]] and [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"multi-agent #game-theory #robustness #distributed-optimization","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"08500":2,"1710":2,"2017":1,"2018":1,"a":9,"about":3,"abs":1,"acceptable":1,"action":4,"actions":1,"admissibility":1,"affects":1,"agent":9,"agents":1,"aggregation":1,"alignment":1,"also":2,"american":1,"an":3,"anarchy":1,"and":8,"another":2,"arbitrarily":2,"are":3,"arguments":1,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"authors":1,"bad":1,"barely":1,"based":1,"behaved":1,"best":2,"borowski":1,"brown":1,"by":1,"can":6,"canonical":1,"certificate":1,"change":1,"claim":1,"coarse":1,"collapse":1,"combination":1,"communication":8,"composite":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"control":2,"coupled":2,"coupling":2,"definition":1,"denied":1,"design":1,"destabilise":1,"distributed":2,"do":1,"drive":1,"dynamic":1,"dynamics":2,"empirically":1,"epsilon":1,"equilibria":4,"equilibrium":2,"evaluator":4,"evaluators":4,"even":2,"fail":1,"failure":3,"failures":4,"file":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"foundation":1,"fundamentally":1,"further":1,"game":5,"games":8,"generally":1,"gossip":3,"holly":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identical":6,"identifies":1,"ignorant":1,"improve":2,"in":5,"inconsequential":3,"inconsequentiality":4,"induce":1,"information":3,"informational":1,"interest":6,"introduced":1,"is":2,"it":1,"jason":1,"just":1,"key":1,"languages":1,"large":1,"larger":1,"learning":4,"limited":1,"linear":3,"llm":1,"log":3,"loses":1,"loss":1,"make":1,"marden":1,"max":5,"mean":2,"mechanism":2,"min":2,"more":3,"multi":4,"multiagent":2,"n":1,"nash":3,"negative":2,"network":1,"networks":1,"not":1,"notion":2,"of":4,"offline":1,"online":1,"only":1,"optimization":2,"org":1,"organisation":1,"outcomes":1,"over":1,"p":1,"paper":1,"paradox":2,"parallels":1,"pathological":1,"pathologies":1,"payoff":5,"payoffs":1,"performance":1,"philip":1,"player":2,"poor":1,"positive":2,"potential":5,"price":1,"problem":1,"profiles":1,"proposes":1,"protocols":2,"prove":1,"provides":1,"proxy":5,"r":1,"raised":1,"reference":1,"regardless":1,"relates":1,"remain":1,"removing":1,"resilience":2,"resilient":1,"response":2,"result":1,"results":3,"robustness":2,"rule":1,"runtime":1,"s":3,"safe":2,"self":1,"setting":1,"show":1,"showing":1,"shows":1,"single":4,"source":1,"spaces":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"structural":1,"structure":1,"studies":1,"sum":2,"summary":1,"surprising":1,"susceptible":1,"systems":4,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":12,"their":1,"then":1,"theorems":1,"theoretic":3,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"time":1,"to":5,"tolerate":2,"under":1,"unobserved":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"weak":2,"weakly":2,"well":1,"when":3,"where":1,"whether":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"why":1,"with":1,"ε":2}},{"dl":520,"n":"Two Faces of Intention","s":"papers/multi-agent/two-faces-of-intention","secs":[{"h":"Two Faces of Intention","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Bratman, M. E. (1984). *The Philosophical Review*, 93(3), 375–405. Source file: `bratman_two_faces_of_intention.pdf`. [URL](http://pacherie.free.fr/COURS/MSC/Bratman-Two_Faces_Intention-PhilRev1984.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Bratman's canonical statement of the *planning theory* of intention. He argues that commonsense psychology uses \"intention\" to characterise both actions (done intentionally) and mental states (intending to act), and that neither the *desire-belief* reductionist model (Davidson) nor the *Simple View* (to A intentionally I must intend to A) correctly captures the two faces. Instead, intentions are distinctive, irreducible states of mind that function as elements of partial, future-directed *plans* which coordinate conduct over time and with other agents. Because intentions serve as inputs to further means-end reasoning and as filters on admissible options, they must satisfy internal and means-end consistency constraints; but they need not entail all their foreseen consequences as further intentions. Bratman develops the distinction between what one intends and the *motivational potential* of an intention (foreseen but unintended side-effects that one is nonetheless prepared to bring about), which dissolves classic puzzles about double effect without collapsing into the Simple View. The methodological priority of future-directed intention — intentions as ingredients of plans — became the philosophical foundation for the BDI architecture in AI."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Two faces: intentional action vs. intending (present- vs. future-directed). - Rejection of the Desire-Belief reductive model. - Rejection of the Simple View (intentional A-ing requires intending to A). - Intentions as partial plans coordinating activity over time. - Plan-consistency, means-end coherence, non-reconsideration norms. - Distinction: what one intends vs. motivational potential (side effects). - Future-directed intention has methodological priority."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[BDI]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] - [[Intentional Stance]] - [[Practical Reasoning]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Society of Mind]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Intentions cannot be reduced to configurations of belief and desire; they are distinctive planning states whose function is to stabilise and coordinate future action, and the two uses of \"intention\" (for acts and for mental states) are united through the common role of such planning states rather than through an identity of content. - **Mechanism:** Bratman argues against the Desire-Belief Model by showing planning creatures settle in advance on options that beliefs+desires underdetermine; against the Simple View by exhibiting cases where A is done intentionally without intending-to-A (e.g., foreseen side effects one is willing to accept). He replaces both with the Single Phenomenon View refined by a plan-theoretic account: intentions are inputs to further reasoning, demand consistency and means-end coherence, resist easy reconsideration, and possess *motivational potential* beyond strict intended content. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Intention]], [[Planning Theory of Intention]], [[Practical Reasoning]], [[Motivational Potential]], [[Future-Directed Intention]], [[Simple View]], [[Single Phenomenon View]] - **Stance:** philosophical theory - **Relates to:** Philosophical foundation cited and formalised by [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] and [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]]; supplies the mentalistic vocabulary surveyed in [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] and operationalised in [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]; complements the external ascription view of [[Intentional Stance]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"intention #philosophy #bdi #foundational #practical-reasoning","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1984":1,"3":1,"375":1,"405":1,"93":1,"a":9,"about":2,"accept":1,"account":1,"act":1,"action":2,"actions":1,"activity":1,"acts":1,"admissible":1,"advance":1,"against":2,"agent":2,"agents":5,"ai":1,"all":1,"an":2,"and":17,"architecture":3,"are":4,"argues":2,"as":6,"ascription":1,"bdi":5,"be":1,"became":1,"because":1,"belief":4,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"beyond":1,"both":2,"bratman":5,"bring":1,"but":2,"by":4,"cannot":1,"canonical":1,"captures":1,"cases":1,"characterise":1,"choice":2,"cited":1,"claim":1,"classic":1,"coherence":2,"collapsing":1,"commitment":2,"common":1,"commonsense":1,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conduct":1,"configurations":1,"connections":1,"consequences":1,"consistency":3,"constraints":1,"content":2,"contribution":1,"coordinate":2,"coordinating":1,"correctly":1,"cours":1,"creatures":1,"davidson":1,"demand":1,"desire":4,"desires":1,"develops":1,"directed":5,"dissolves":1,"distinction":2,"distinctive":2,"done":2,"double":1,"e":2,"easy":1,"effect":1,"effects":3,"elements":1,"end":4,"entail":1,"exhibiting":1,"external":1,"faces":4,"file":1,"filters":1,"for":3,"foreseen":3,"formalised":1,"foundation":2,"foundational":1,"fr":1,"free":1,"function":2,"further":3,"future":6,"g":1,"has":1,"he":2,"http":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"identity":1,"in":4,"ing":1,"ingredients":1,"inputs":2,"instead":1,"intelligent":2,"intend":1,"intended":1,"intending":4,"intends":2,"intention":14,"intentional":4,"intentionally":3,"intentions":7,"internal":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"irreducible":1,"is":6,"key":1,"m":1,"means":4,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":1,"methodological":2,"mind":2,"model":3,"modeling":2,"motivational":4,"msc":1,"must":2,"need":1,"neither":1,"non":1,"nonetheless":1,"nor":1,"norms":1,"not":1,"of":17,"on":2,"one":4,"operationalised":1,"options":2,"oriented":2,"other":1,"over":2,"pacherie":1,"partial":2,"pdf":1,"phenomenon":2,"philosophical":4,"philosophy":1,"philrev1984":1,"plan":2,"planning":5,"plans":3,"possess":1,"potential":4,"practical":3,"practice":2,"prepared":1,"present":1,"priority":2,"programming":2,"psychology":1,"puzzles":1,"rather":1,"rational":2,"reasoning":5,"reconsideration":2,"reduced":1,"reductionist":1,"reductive":1,"reference":1,"refined":1,"rejection":2,"relates":1,"replaces":1,"requires":1,"resist":1,"review":1,"role":1,"s":1,"satisfy":1,"serve":1,"settle":1,"showing":1,"side":3,"simple":5,"single":2,"society":1,"source":1,"stabilise":1,"stance":3,"statement":1,"states":5,"strict":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"surveyed":1,"tags":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":20,"their":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":5,"they":3,"through":2,"time":2,"to":13,"two":5,"underdetermine":1,"unintended":1,"united":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":2,"view":8,"vocabulary":1,"vs":3,"what":2,"where":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"willing":1,"with":4,"within":2,"without":2}},{"dl":399,"n":"Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice","s":"papers/multi-agent/intelligent-agents-theory-and-practice","secs":[{"h":"Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N. R. (1995). *Knowledge Engineering Review*. Source file: `woodridge_intelligent_agents.pdf`. [URL](https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/michael.wooldridge/pubs/ker95.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A foundational survey that organizes the agent-based computing field into three tightly coupled concerns: agent theories (formal specifications of what an agent is, often via intentional notions such as belief, desire, intention, obligation), agent architectures (software/hardware designs satisfying those specifications, e.g., BDI, subsumption, layered), and agent languages (programming languages whose primitives embody the theorists' concepts). Wooldridge and Jennings distinguish a weak notion of agency (autonomy, social ability, reactivity, pro-activeness) from a stronger AI-centric notion involving mentalistic attributes (knowledge, belief, intention) and sometimes emotion or mobility. They review representational and reasoning formalisms (modal logics for knowledge and belief, intention logics), critique their computational tractability, and survey implementations (AGENT-0, PLACA, Concurrent METATEM). The paper sets the vocabulary used by much subsequent MAS research."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three-way division: theory, architecture, language. - Weak vs. strong notion of agency. - Intentional stance justifies mentalistic ascription (Dennett/McCarthy). - BDI and related mental-state architectures. - Survey of 1990s agent languages and applications."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Weak Agency]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[BDI]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** The emerging field of agent-based computing should be structured around the interlocking triad of agent theories, architectures and languages, and tensions between weak (behavioural) and strong (mentalistic) notions of agency should be kept explicit rather than elided. - **Mechanism:** Wooldridge and Jennings synthesise early 1990s work by (i) defining weak agency (autonomy, social ability, reactivity, pro-activeness) and strong agency (adds belief, desire, intention, emotion, mobility); (ii) surveying modal-logic theories of knowledge/belief/intention and the intentional stance as justification; (iii) cataloguing BDI, subsumption and layered architectures; and (iv) reviewing implemented languages (AGENT-0, PLACA, Concurrent METATEM) and representative applications. Computational tractability of the richer logics is flagged as a central open problem. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Weak Agency]], [[Strong Agency]], [[Intentional Stance]], [[BDI]], [[Subsumption Architecture]], [[Layered Architecture]], [[Concurrent METATEM]], [[PLACA]], [[Agent Theory-Architecture-Language Triad]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Canonises the vocabulary used by [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]]; its tractability critique anticipates the social-semantic move in [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"agents #bdi #survey #foundational","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":2,"1990s":2,"1995":1,"a":4,"ability":2,"ac":1,"act":1,"activeness":2,"adds":1,"agency":9,"agent":18,"agents":2,"ai":1,"an":2,"and":19,"anticipates":1,"applications":2,"architecture":4,"architectures":4,"around":1,"as":3,"ascription":1,"attributes":1,"autonomy":2,"based":2,"bdi":6,"be":2,"behavioural":1,"belief":5,"between":1,"by":3,"canonises":1,"cataloguing":1,"central":1,"centric":1,"claim":1,"communication":3,"computational":2,"computing":2,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"concurrent":3,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"coupled":1,"critique":2,"cs":1,"defining":1,"dennett":1,"designs":1,"desire":2,"distinguish":1,"division":1,"e":1,"early":1,"elided":1,"embody":1,"emerging":1,"emotion":2,"engineering":1,"environments":1,"explicit":1,"field":2,"file":1,"flagged":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"formalisms":1,"foundational":2,"framework":1,"from":1,"g":1,"hardware":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"implementations":1,"implemented":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"intention":5,"intentional":4,"interaction":1,"interlocking":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"involving":1,"is":2,"its":1,"iv":1,"jennings":3,"justification":1,"justifies":1,"kept":1,"ker95":1,"key":1,"knowledge":4,"language":3,"languages":7,"layered":3,"logic":1,"logics":3,"m":1,"mas":1,"mccarthy":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":4,"metatem":3,"michael":1,"mobility":2,"modal":2,"move":1,"much":1,"multi":1,"n":1,"notion":3,"notions":2,"obligation":1,"of":9,"often":1,"open":2,"or":1,"organizes":1,"oriented":3,"ox":1,"paper":1,"pdf":1,"people":1,"placa":3,"practice":1,"primitives":1,"principles":1,"pro":2,"problem":1,"programming":3,"pubs":1,"r":1,"rather":1,"reactivity":2,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"related":1,"relates":1,"representational":1,"representative":1,"research":1,"rethinking":1,"review":2,"reviewing":1,"richer":1,"satisfying":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"sets":1,"should":2,"social":3,"software":1,"sometimes":1,"source":1,"specifications":2,"speech":1,"stance":4,"state":2,"strong":5,"stronger":1,"structured":1,"subsequent":1,"subsumption":3,"such":1,"summary":1,"survey":5,"surveying":1,"synthesise":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tensions":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":11,"their":1,"theories":3,"theorists":1,"theory":4,"they":1,"those":1,"three":2,"tightly":1,"to":1,"tractability":3,"trends":1,"triad":2,"uk":1,"url":1,"used":3,"via":1,"vocabulary":2,"vs":1,"way":1,"weak":6,"what":1,"whose":1,"wooldridge":4,"work":1,"www":1}},{"dl":416,"n":"On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication","s":"papers/emergent-lang/on-the-pitfalls-of-measuring-emergent-communication","secs":[{"h":"On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Lowe, Foerster, Boureau, Pineau, Dauphin (2019). *AAMAS 2019 (Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems)*. Source file: `p693.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.05168)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper critically examines metrics used to detect and measure emergent communication in multi-agent reinforcement learning. The authors show that commonly used indicators — such as speaker consistency (SC), context independence (CI), mutual information between messages and actions, and message-entropy — can be misleading: agents trained with a communication channel that does not influence their behavior may still exhibit high values on these metrics, producing the illusion of communication. To disentangle the phenomenon, they propose decomposing communication into positive signaling (messages carry information about a speaker's observations) and positive listening (messages influence a listener's subsequent actions). They introduce causal influence of communication (CIC), a causal-intervention-based metric measuring how an agent's message changes another agent's action distribution, and demonstrate its properties on matrix communication games (MCGs). They offer concrete recommendations for when each metric should be trusted."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Speaker consistency can be positive even when no communication happens. - Separate positive signaling from positive listening. - Causal influence of communication (CIC) via interventions on messages. - Matrix Communication Games as a minimal testbed. - Entropy-based metrics are shape-dependent and deceptive."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Popular metrics for emergent communication in MARL cannot distinguish real communication from spurious correlations; communication must be analysed causally, decomposed into signalling and listening. - **Mechanism:** The authors construct Matrix Communication Games where a policy with a non-influential communication channel still scores high on speaker consistency, context independence, mutual information, and entropy-based measures. They then define positive signalling and positive listening as orthogonal properties, and introduce Causal Influence of Communication (CIC) as a do-calculus intervention that measures how replacing the sent message would change the listener's action distribution. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Positive Signalling]], [[Positive Listening]], [[Causal Influence of Communication]], [[Speaker Consistency]], [[Context Independence]], [[Matrix Communication Games]], [[Emergent Communication]] - **Stance:** critique - **Relates to:** Sharpens the empirical agenda of [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] and [[Emergent Communication]]; its causal framing complements the decision-theoretic message-value account in [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] and offers a verifiability foothold missing from the mentalistic semantics critiqued by [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"emergent-communication #multi-agent-rl #metrics #deep-learning","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"05168":1,"18th":1,"1903":1,"2019":2,"a":9,"aamas":1,"about":1,"abs":1,"account":1,"act":1,"action":2,"actions":2,"agenda":1,"agent":8,"agents":3,"an":1,"analysed":1,"and":13,"another":1,"are":1,"arxiv":1,"as":4,"authors":2,"automating":1,"autonomous":1,"based":3,"be":4,"behavior":1,"between":1,"boureau":1,"by":1,"calculus":1,"can":2,"cannot":1,"carry":1,"causal":6,"causally":1,"change":1,"changes":1,"channel":2,"ci":1,"cic":3,"claim":1,"commonly":1,"communication":24,"competence":1,"complements":1,"compositional":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conf":1,"connections":1,"consistency":4,"construct":1,"context":3,"contribution":1,"correlations":1,"critically":1,"critique":1,"critiqued":1,"dauphin":1,"deceptive":1,"decision":1,"decomposed":1,"decomposing":1,"deep":1,"define":1,"demonstrate":1,"dependent":1,"detect":1,"disentangle":1,"distinguish":1,"distribution":2,"do":1,"does":1,"each":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":7,"empirical":1,"entropy":3,"even":1,"evolution":1,"examines":1,"exhibit":1,"file":1,"foerster":1,"foothold":1,"for":2,"framing":1,"from":3,"games":4,"grounded":1,"happens":1,"high":2,"how":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"illusion":1,"in":4,"independence":3,"indicators":1,"influence":6,"influential":1,"information":3,"intervention":2,"interventions":1,"intl":1,"into":2,"introduce":2,"introduced":1,"its":2,"key":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"learning":2,"linguistic":1,"listener":2,"listening":5,"llm":1,"lowe":1,"marl":1,"matrix":4,"may":1,"mcgs":1,"measure":1,"measures":2,"measuring":2,"mechanism":1,"mentalistic":1,"message":4,"messages":4,"metric":2,"metrics":5,"minimal":1,"misleading":1,"missing":1,"multi":4,"multiagent":1,"must":1,"mutual":2,"no":1,"non":1,"not":1,"observations":1,"of":9,"offer":1,"offers":1,"on":6,"org":1,"orthogonal":1,"paper":1,"phenomenon":1,"pineau":1,"pitfalls":1,"policy":1,"popular":1,"populations":1,"positive":9,"principles":1,"proc":1,"producing":1,"properties":2,"propose":1,"real":1,"recommendations":1,"reference":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":1,"replacing":1,"rethinking":1,"rl":1,"s":5,"sc":1,"scores":1,"semantics":2,"sent":1,"separate":1,"shape":1,"sharpens":1,"should":1,"show":1,"signaling":2,"signalling":3,"source":1,"speaker":5,"speech":1,"spurious":1,"stance":1,"still":2,"subsequent":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"testbed":1,"that":3,"the":12,"their":1,"then":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":1,"these":1,"they":4,"this":1,"to":3,"towards":1,"trained":1,"trusted":1,"url":1,"used":3,"value":1,"values":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":1,"via":1,"when":2,"where":1,"with":2,"would":1}},{"dl":402,"n":"Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations","s":"papers/emergent-lang/emergence-of-grounded-compositional-language-in-multi-agent-populations","secs":[{"h":"Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Igor Mordatch and Pieter Abbeel (2018). *AAAI-18*. Source file: `11492-13-15020-1-2-20201228.pdf`. [URL](https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/11492)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Proposes a multi-agent environment and differentiable training procedure in which agents develop an abstract compositional communication protocol purely from the need to coordinate on non-linguistic goals (move-to-location, look-at, etc.) in a 2D world with landmarks. Agents emit streams of discrete symbols (Gumbel-Softmax relaxed) along with physical actions; symbols acquire stable, interpretable meanings corresponding to goal types, landmarks, and agent identities. The emergent language exhibits syntactic ordering, vocabulary-size regularization via a Dirichlet-process-inspired penalty, and non-verbal strategies (pointing, guiding) when symbols are disabled. The paper is a foundational piece in the modern \"emergent communication\" literature."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Communication emerges from cooperative multi-agent RL with shared reward - Gumbel-Softmax makes discrete symbol channels differentiable - Vocabulary-size penalty (DP-style) prevents symbol proliferation and encourages compositionality - Non-verbal channels (gaze, position) substitute when verbal is unavailable - Symbols ground to concepts: GOTO, color, landmark/agent identity"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** A basic compositional language with coherent vocabulary and rudimentary syntax can emerge from scratch among agents in a physically-grounded, cooperative multi-agent environment, driven purely by the need to coordinate on shared goals. - **Mechanism:** N agents with private goals share a continuous 2D environment and emit discrete symbol streams; policies are trained end-to-end with differentiable communication (Gumbel-Softmax), shared reward, plus a Dirichlet-process-inspired vocabulary-sparsity penalty and an auxiliary goal-prediction reward. Non-verbal strategies (pointing, gaze) emerge when symbolic channel is unavailable. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Emergent Communication]], [[Grounded Compositional Language]], [[Symbol Grounding Problem]], [[Compositionality]], [[Gumbel-Softmax]], [[Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning]], [[Referential Games]], [[Language Games]], [[Non-verbal Communication]], [[Vocabulary Size Penalty]], [[Dirichlet Process]] - **Stance:** empirical / computational-simulation - **Relates to:** Companion to [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] (also referential games but 2-player, image-based). Contrasts with the pre-designed [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] approaches: here semantics emerge from task pressure rather than being stipulated. Resonates with the emergent-protocol behaviour Agora exhibits in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"emergent-communication #multi-agent-rl #grounded-language #compositionality","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"11492":1,"18":1,"2":1,"2018":1,"2d":2,"a":10,"aaai":3,"abbeel":1,"abstract":1,"acl":1,"acquire":1,"actions":1,"agent":12,"agents":4,"agora":1,"along":1,"also":1,"among":1,"an":3,"and":11,"approaches":1,"are":2,"article":1,"as":1,"at":1,"auxiliary":1,"based":1,"basic":1,"behaviour":1,"being":1,"but":1,"by":1,"can":1,"channel":1,"channels":2,"claim":1,"coherent":1,"color":1,"communication":10,"companion":1,"compositional":4,"compositionality":3,"computational":1,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"continuous":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"cooperation":2,"cooperative":2,"coordinate":2,"corresponding":1,"designed":1,"develop":1,"differentiable":3,"dirichlet":3,"disabled":1,"discrete":3,"dp":1,"driven":1,"emerge":3,"emergence":3,"emergent":5,"emerges":1,"emit":2,"empirical":1,"encourages":1,"end":2,"environment":3,"etc":1,"exhibits":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":2,"foundational":1,"from":4,"games":3,"gaze":2,"goal":2,"goals":3,"goto":1,"ground":1,"grounded":4,"grounding":1,"guiding":1,"gumbel":4,"here":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identities":1,"identity":1,"igor":1,"image":1,"in":6,"index":1,"inspired":2,"interpretable":1,"introduced":1,"is":3,"key":1,"kqml":1,"landmark":1,"landmarks":2,"language":9,"learning":1,"linguistic":1,"literature":1,"llms":2,"location":1,"look":1,"makes":1,"meanings":1,"mechanism":1,"modern":1,"mordatch":1,"move":1,"multi":9,"n":1,"natural":2,"need":2,"networks":2,"non":5,"of":6,"ojs":1,"on":2,"ordering":1,"org":1,"paper":1,"penalty":4,"php":1,"physical":1,"physically":1,"piece":1,"pieter":1,"player":1,"plus":1,"pointing":2,"policies":1,"populations":1,"position":1,"pre":1,"prediction":1,"pressure":1,"prevents":1,"private":1,"problem":1,"procedure":1,"process":3,"proliferation":1,"proposes":1,"protocol":4,"purely":2,"rather":1,"reference":1,"referential":2,"regularization":1,"reinforcement":1,"relates":1,"relaxed":1,"resonates":1,"reward":3,"rl":2,"rudimentary":1,"scalable":2,"scratch":1,"semantics":1,"share":1,"shared":3,"simulation":1,"size":3,"softmax":4,"source":1,"sparsity":1,"stable":1,"stance":1,"stipulated":1,"strategies":2,"streams":2,"style":1,"substitute":1,"summary":1,"symbol":4,"symbolic":1,"symbols":4,"syntactic":1,"syntax":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"than":1,"the":9,"to":8,"trained":1,"training":1,"types":1,"unavailable":2,"url":1,"used":1,"verbal":5,"via":1,"view":1,"vocabulary":5,"when":3,"which":1,"with":8,"world":1}},{"dl":402,"n":"Language Games for Autonomous Robots","s":"papers/emergent-lang/language-games-for-autonomous-robots","secs":[{"h":"Language Games for Autonomous Robots","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Steels, L. (2001). *IEEE Intelligent Systems, Sept/Oct 2001*. Source file: `steels01languageGames.pdf`. [URL](https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/128135/1/Language%20games.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Steels presents language games as a paradigm for creating grounded, open-ended dialogue between autonomous robots and humans. A language game is a scripted verbal interaction situated in a shared environment that simultaneously exercises perception, conceptualization, verbalization, interpretation, and action. By playing repeated games, agents integrate disparate AI components (vision, speech, planning, learning) into a coherent whole and bootstrap shared vocabulary and meaning without a central designer. The paper details the guessing game as a canonical example: a speaker picks a topic, conceptualizes a distinguishing feature, verbalizes it, and the listener tries to identify the referent — feedback updates their lexicons' association scores. Experiments on Sony AIBO and the \"Talking Heads\" setup show how robots acquire words like color and spatial terms through embodied interaction. Language games thus provide a framework for studying the emergence of grounded communication conventions."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Language games integrate perception, conceptualization, and action. - Guessing game as a minimal grounded-dialogue protocol. - Shared context + feedback drives lexicon convergence. - Talking Heads experiment: lexicons emerge via population interaction. - Language games tackle integration and grounding jointly."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Language Games]] - [[Conceptualization]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Grounded, open-ended communication in robots can emerge from repeated situated \"language games\" that co-exercise perception, conceptualisation, verbalisation and action — with no central designer of the lexicon. - **Mechanism:** Steels formalises the guessing-game protocol: speaker selects a topic in shared scene, computes a distinguishing category, encodes it as a word; listener decodes, points, and success/failure feeds back to associative lexicon scores. Embodied populations of Sony AIBOs and the Talking Heads platform empirically show lexicon convergence over colour, spatial and proper-name vocabularies, demonstrating that integration of AI sub-systems and semantic grounding are solved jointly rather than separately. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Language Game]], [[Guessing Game]], [[Grounding]], [[Lexicon Convergence]], [[Talking Heads Experiment]], [[Semiotic Cycle]], [[Emergent Communication]] - **Stance:** empirical - **Relates to:** Provides an embodied-situated counterpart to the decision-theoretic language emergence of [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] and the neural-MARL emergence of [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]]; its feedback-driven convergence contrasts with the top-down protocol stipulation of [[FIPA-ACL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"language-games #grounding #robots #emergent-language","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"10261":1,"128135":1,"2001":2,"20games":1,"a":15,"acl":1,"acquire":1,"act":1,"action":3,"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":2,"aibo":1,"aibos":1,"an":1,"and":15,"are":1,"as":4,"association":1,"associative":1,"automating":1,"autonomous":2,"back":1,"between":1,"bitstream":1,"bootstrap":1,"by":1,"can":1,"canonical":1,"category":1,"central":2,"claim":1,"co":1,"coherent":1,"color":1,"colour":1,"communication":5,"competence":1,"components":1,"compositional":1,"computes":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualisation":1,"conceptualization":3,"conceptualizes":1,"connections":1,"context":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"conventions":1,"convergence":4,"counterpart":1,"creating":1,"csic":1,"cycle":1,"decision":1,"decodes":1,"demonstrating":1,"designer":2,"details":1,"dialogue":2,"digital":1,"disparate":1,"distinguishing":2,"down":1,"driven":1,"drives":1,"embodied":3,"emerge":2,"emergence":4,"emergent":3,"empirical":1,"empirically":1,"encodes":1,"ended":2,"environment":1,"es":1,"evolution":1,"example":1,"exercise":1,"exercises":1,"experiment":2,"experiments":1,"failure":1,"feature":1,"feedback":3,"feeds":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":3,"formalises":1,"framework":1,"from":1,"game":6,"games":9,"grounded":5,"grounding":4,"guessing":4,"heads":4,"how":1,"https":1,"humans":1,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"ieee":1,"in":4,"integrate":2,"integration":2,"intelligent":1,"interaction":3,"interpretation":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"it":2,"its":1,"jointly":2,"key":1,"l":1,"language":15,"languages":1,"learning":1,"lexicon":5,"lexicons":2,"like":1,"linguistic":1,"listener":2,"marl":1,"meaning":1,"mechanism":1,"minimal":1,"multi":2,"name":1,"neural":1,"no":1,"oct":1,"of":9,"on":1,"open":2,"over":1,"paper":1,"paradigm":1,"pdf":1,"perception":3,"picks":1,"planning":1,"platform":1,"playing":1,"points":1,"population":1,"populations":2,"presents":1,"proper":1,"protocol":3,"provide":1,"provides":1,"rather":1,"reference":1,"referent":1,"relates":1,"repeated":2,"robots":5,"scene":1,"scores":2,"scripted":1,"selects":1,"semantic":1,"semiotic":1,"separately":1,"sept":1,"setup":1,"shared":4,"show":2,"simultaneously":1,"situated":3,"solved":1,"sony":2,"source":1,"spatial":2,"speaker":2,"speech":2,"stance":1,"steels":3,"stipulation":1,"studying":1,"sub":1,"success":1,"summary":1,"systems":3,"tackle":1,"tags":1,"talking":4,"terms":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":13,"their":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":1,"through":1,"thus":1,"to":4,"top":1,"topic":2,"towards":1,"tries":1,"updates":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verbal":1,"verbalisation":1,"verbalization":1,"verbalizes":1,"via":1,"vision":1,"vocabularies":1,"vocabulary":1,"whole":1,"with":2,"without":1,"word":1,"words":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":384,"n":"Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language","s":"papers/emergent-lang/multi-agent-cooperation-and-the-emergence-of-natural-language","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of (Natural) Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Angeliki Lazaridou, Alexander Peysakhovich, and Marco Baroni (2017). *ICLR 2017*. Source file: `1612.07182v2.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07182)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Introduces a referential-game framework for studying emergent communication: a sender sees a target/distractor image pair and sends a single symbol from a fixed vocabulary; a receiver must identify the target using that symbol. The agents are blank-slate neural networks trained only by communication-success reward. The paper studies whether agents converge, whether the emergent symbols align with human-interpretable semantics, and how to nudge the system toward natural-language-compatible codes. Two sender architectures (agnostic vs informed) are compared; the informed sender produces richer vocabulary usage. A supplementary supervised image-labelling objective is shown to ground agent symbols to human concepts, making them partially interpretable to crowd-workers."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Referential games as minimal test-beds for emergent protocols - Informed (feature-aware) sender yields more human-like symbol usage - Symbol purity measured against conceptual (McRae) categories - Mixing self-play with supervised labelling grounds emergent codes to natural language - Foundational for later emergent-communication literature"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Two neural-network agents playing a referential game (sender/receiver over image pairs) can develop a symbolic code from scratch; with architectural and supervisory nudges, that code can be made to align with human-interpretable object categories. - **Mechanism:** Lewis-style signalling game with REINFORCE training; contrast *agnostic* vs *informed* sender architectures; analyse symbol-to-category purity; then mix supervised image-labelling with self-play to ground emergent symbols in human vocabulary (AlphaGo-inspired). Crowdsourced evaluation shows humans can guess the correct image 68% of the time from emitted symbols. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Emergent Communication]], [[Referential Games]], [[Lewis Signalling Games]], [[Language Games]], [[Grounding in Human Language]], [[Symbol Grounding Problem]], [[Cheap Talk]], [[Symbol-Category Purity]], [[REINFORCE]], [[Compositionality]] - **Stance:** empirical / deep-learning - **Relates to:** Companion/precursor to [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] (physical grounding, >2 agents). Feeds the emergent-protocol thesis of [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]. Contrasts with stipulated-semantics ACLs ([[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], [[FIPA-ACL]])."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"emergent-communication #referential-games #deep-rl #language-emergence","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"07182":1,"1612":1,"2":1,"2017":2,"68":1,"a":11,"abs":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"against":1,"agent":6,"agents":4,"agnostic":2,"alexander":1,"align":2,"alphago":1,"an":1,"analyse":1,"and":5,"angeliki":1,"architectural":1,"architectures":2,"are":2,"arxiv":1,"as":2,"aware":1,"baroni":1,"be":1,"beds":1,"blank":1,"by":1,"can":3,"categories":2,"category":2,"cheap":1,"claim":1,"code":2,"codes":2,"communication":8,"companion":1,"compared":1,"compatible":1,"compositional":2,"compositionality":1,"concepts":2,"conceptual":2,"connections":1,"contrast":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"converge":1,"cooperation":1,"correct":1,"crowd":1,"crowdsourced":1,"deep":2,"develop":1,"distractor":1,"emergence":4,"emergent":9,"emitted":1,"empirical":1,"evaluation":1,"feature":1,"feeds":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"fixed":1,"for":5,"foundational":1,"framework":1,"from":3,"game":3,"games":5,"ground":2,"grounded":2,"grounding":3,"grounds":1,"guess":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":6,"humans":1,"iclr":1,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"image":5,"in":4,"informed":4,"inspired":1,"interpretable":3,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"labelling":3,"language":9,"later":1,"lazaridou":1,"learning":1,"lewis":2,"like":1,"literature":1,"llms":2,"made":1,"making":1,"marco":1,"mcrae":1,"measured":1,"mechanism":1,"minimal":1,"mix":1,"mixing":1,"more":1,"multi":4,"must":1,"natural":3,"network":1,"networks":3,"neural":2,"nudge":1,"nudges":1,"object":1,"objective":1,"of":7,"only":1,"org":1,"over":1,"pair":1,"pairs":1,"paper":1,"partially":1,"peysakhovich":1,"physical":1,"play":2,"playing":1,"populations":2,"precursor":1,"problem":1,"produces":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":1,"purity":3,"receiver":2,"reference":1,"referential":5,"reinforce":2,"relates":1,"reward":1,"richer":1,"rl":1,"scalable":2,"scratch":1,"sees":1,"self":2,"semantics":2,"sender":6,"sends":1,"shown":1,"shows":1,"signalling":2,"single":1,"slate":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"stipulated":1,"studies":1,"studying":1,"style":1,"success":1,"summary":1,"supervised":3,"supervisory":1,"supplementary":1,"symbol":7,"symbolic":1,"symbols":4,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"talk":1,"target":2,"test":1,"that":2,"the":10,"them":1,"then":1,"thesis":1,"time":1,"to":10,"toward":1,"trained":1,"training":1,"two":2,"url":1,"usage":2,"used":1,"using":1,"vocabulary":3,"vs":2,"whether":2,"with":7,"workers":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":576,"n":"Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing","s":"papers/ontology/toward-principles-for-the-design-of-ontologies-used-for-knowledge-sharing","secs":[{"h":"Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Gruber, T. R. (1995). *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies*, 43(5–6), 907–928. Substantial revision of a 1993 paper presented at the International Workshop on Formal Ontology (Padova). Also Stanford KSL Technical Report 93-04. Source file: `gruber_onto_design.pdf`. [URL](http://tomgruber.org/writing/onto-design.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Gruber articulates the engineering foundations of ontology design for knowledge sharing. An **ontology** is defined as *an explicit specification of a conceptualization*: a vocabulary of classes, relations, functions, and object constants, together with axioms constraining their interpretation, intended to allow heterogeneous agents to communicate about a domain without sharing a global knowledge base. Agents **commit** to an ontology when their observable behaviour is consistent with its definitions — a notion of commitment grounded in Newell's Knowledge Level and Levesque's tell-and-ask interface. Common ontologies thus underwrite interoperability at the knowledge level rather than at the symbol or data level. Gruber proposes five design criteria: (1) **Clarity** — definitions should be objective and, where possible, complete (necessary and sufficient conditions); (2) **Coherence** — sanctioned inferences must be consistent with informal definitions; (3) **Extendibility** — anticipate new uses so the vocabulary can be monotonically extended without revision; (4) **Minimal encoding bias** — conceptualise at the knowledge level, independent of symbol-level representation; (5) **Minimal ontological commitment** — say only what is required for the intended knowledge-sharing tasks, leaving maximum freedom for specialisation. He discusses the tradeoffs — especially between extendibility and minimal commitment — and illustrates the criteria through case studies in engineering mathematics (physical quantities, units, algebras) and bibliographic data, contrasting alternative design choices against the criteria. The paper is the engineering charter for the ontology-sharing tradition that produced Ontolingua, KIF, and the modern Semantic Web."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Ontology = explicit specification of a conceptualization. - Ontological commitment: observable behaviour consistent with definitions. - Knowledge-level (not symbol-level) specification (Newell). - Tell-and-ask interface as the model of agent knowledge use (Levesque). - Five design criteria: clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias, minimal commitment. - Design tradeoffs, particularly extendibility vs. minimal commitment. - Case studies: engineering mathematics and bibliographic data. - Ontology as shared vocabulary, not shared belief."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Ontologies]] - [[Ontology]] - [[Ontological Commitment]] - [[Ontology Design Criteria]] - [[Ontology Engineering]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[KQML]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** Ontologies are *designed artifacts* for knowledge sharing and should be evaluated by objective engineering criteria — clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias, and minimal ontological commitment — rather than by a priori notions of naturalness or metaphysical truth. - **Mechanism:** Gruber grounds the account in the Knowledge Level: an ontology specifies a conceptualization via a logical vocabulary with definitional and constraint axioms; an agent commits to the ontology when its tell/ask behaviour respects those definitions. He derives the five criteria from the requirements of knowledge-sharing interoperability, works through their inherent tensions (e.g., clarity favours complete definitions while minimal commitment favours weaker theories; extendibility favours larger vocabulary while minimal commitment favours smaller), and illustrates the application of the criteria in case studies that compare alternative representational choices. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Ontology]], [[Ontological Commitment]], [[Conceptualization]], [[Knowledge Level]], [[Clarity]], [[Coherence]], [[Extendibility]], [[Encoding Bias]], [[Minimal Ontological Commitment]] - **Stance:** engineering methodology - **Relates to:** Canonical definition inherited by [[Ontologies]], [[Ontology Engineering]] and [[Handbook On Ontologies]]; underpins the shared-vocabulary assumption of [[KQML]] and [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]; supplies the design rationale behind [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"ontology #knowledge-sharing #foundational #engineering #design-principles","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"04":1,"1":1,"1993":1,"1995":1,"2":1,"3":1,"4":1,"43":1,"5":2,"6":1,"907":1,"928":1,"93":1,"a":12,"about":1,"account":1,"acls":2,"against":1,"agent":3,"agents":2,"algebras":1,"allow":1,"also":1,"alternative":2,"an":5,"and":17,"anticipate":1,"application":1,"are":1,"articulates":1,"artifacts":1,"as":3,"ask":3,"assumption":1,"at":4,"axioms":2,"base":1,"be":4,"behaviour":3,"behind":1,"belief":1,"between":1,"bias":4,"bibliographic":2,"by":3,"can":1,"canonical":1,"case":3,"charter":1,"choices":2,"claim":1,"clarity":5,"classes":1,"coherence":4,"commit":1,"commitment":12,"commits":1,"common":3,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"compare":1,"complete":2,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualise":1,"conceptualization":4,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"consistent":3,"constants":1,"constraining":1,"constraint":1,"contrasting":1,"contribution":1,"criteria":8,"data":3,"defined":1,"definition":1,"definitional":1,"definitions":6,"derives":1,"design":10,"designed":1,"discusses":1,"domain":1,"e":1,"encoding":4,"engineering":9,"especially":1,"evaluated":1,"explicit":2,"extended":1,"extendibility":7,"favours":4,"file":1,"five":3,"for":7,"formal":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"freedom":1,"from":1,"functions":1,"g":1,"global":1,"grounded":1,"grounds":1,"gruber":4,"handbook":2,"he":2,"heterogeneous":1,"http":1,"human":1,"ideas":1,"illustrates":2,"in":4,"independent":1,"inferences":1,"informal":1,"inherent":1,"inherited":1,"intended":2,"interface":2,"international":2,"interoperability":2,"interpretation":1,"introduced":1,"is":4,"its":2,"journal":1,"key":1,"kif":1,"knowledge":14,"kqml":2,"ksl":1,"languages":1,"larger":1,"leaving":1,"level":9,"levesque":2,"logical":1,"mathematics":2,"maximum":1,"mechanism":1,"metaphysical":1,"methodology":1,"minimal":11,"model":1,"modern":1,"monotonically":1,"must":1,"naturalness":1,"necessary":1,"new":1,"newell":2,"not":2,"notion":1,"notions":1,"object":1,"objective":2,"observable":2,"of":16,"on":3,"only":1,"onto":1,"ontolingua":3,"ontological":6,"ontologies":7,"ontology":19,"or":2,"org":1,"padova":1,"paper":2,"particularly":1,"pdf":1,"physical":1,"portable":2,"possible":1,"presented":1,"principles":2,"priori":1,"produced":1,"proposes":1,"quantities":1,"r":1,"rather":2,"rationale":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relations":1,"report":1,"representation":1,"representational":1,"required":1,"requirements":1,"respects":1,"revision":2,"s":2,"sanctioned":1,"say":1,"semantic":1,"shared":3,"sharing":8,"should":2,"smaller":1,"so":1,"source":1,"specialisation":1,"specification":3,"specifications":2,"specifies":1,"stance":1,"stanford":1,"studies":4,"substantial":1,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"symbol":3,"t":1,"tags":1,"tasks":1,"technical":1,"tell":3,"tensions":1,"than":2,"that":2,"the":25,"their":3,"theories":1,"those":1,"through":2,"thus":1,"to":5,"together":1,"tomgruber":1,"toward":1,"tradeoffs":2,"tradition":1,"truth":1,"underpins":1,"underwrite":1,"units":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":2,"uses":1,"via":1,"vocabulary":6,"vs":1,"weaker":1,"web":1,"what":1,"when":2,"where":1,"while":2,"with":5,"without":2,"works":1,"workshop":1,"writing":1}},{"dl":409,"n":"Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications","s":"papers/ontology/ontolingua-portable-ontology-specifications","secs":[{"h":"A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Thomas R. Gruber (1993). *Knowledge Acquisition*, 5(2):199-220 (KSL Technical Report KSL-92-71). Source file: `ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf`. [URL](https://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Gruber's landmark paper defines an *ontology* as \"an explicit specification of a conceptualization\" — a formal vocabulary of classes, relations, functions, and axioms that captures the intended meaning of terms shared among knowledge-based systems. He addresses the portability problem: ontologies need to be reused across applications built in different representation languages (frame-based, description-logic, relational, Prolog), which would otherwise each need bespoke versions. The solution is Ontolingua, a system that specifies ontologies in a standard declarative form (predicate calculus extended with KIF and frame-ontology idioms) and translates them into the forms required by specific target representation systems. The approach accommodates stylistic differences across representations while preserving declarative content, and handles translation from an expressive source into restricted targets. The paper articulates criteria for good ontology design (clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias, minimal ontological commitment) that still guide knowledge-engineering practice today."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Ontology = explicit specification of a conceptualization. - Ontological commitments as agreements about shared vocabulary. - Translation approach: one source language → many target representations. - Ontolingua built atop KIF and a frame ontology. - Design criteria: clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Ontologies]] - [[Ontology]] - [[KQML]] - [[KIF]] - [[Conceptualization]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Shared knowledge among heterogeneous AI systems requires explicit, portable specifications of conceptualisations — ontologies — that can be defined once in a neutral declarative form and mechanically translated into many target representation systems while preserving declarative content. - **Mechanism:** Defines \"ontology\" as explicit specification of a conceptualisation; introduces ontological commitments as vocabulary-sharing agreements at the knowledge level (Newell); implements Ontolingua in KIF (Lisp-like predicate calculus with equality) with a Frame Ontology capturing class/relation/function/axiom idioms; provides translators to LOOM, Epikit, Express, and pure KIF. Proposes design criteria: clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias, minimal ontological commitment. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Ontology]], [[Conceptualization]], [[Ontological Commitment]], [[KIF]], [[Frame Ontology]], [[Ontolingua]], [[Knowledge-Level Specification]], [[Translation Approach]], [[Ontology Design Criteria]] - **Stance:** foundational / engineering - **Relates to:** Solves the content-language side of the problem that [[KQML Overview]] splits into content/message/communication layers; cited by virtually all agent-communication work needing shared vocabulary including [[FIPA-ACL]], [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], and [[Handbook On Ontologies]]; design criteria still guide modern ontology engineering."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"ontology #ontolingua #kif #knowledge-sharing #gruber","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"199":1,"1993":2,"2":1,"220":1,"5":1,"71":1,"92":1,"a":11,"about":1,"accommodates":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"acquisition":1,"across":2,"addresses":1,"agent":3,"agreements":2,"ai":1,"all":1,"among":2,"an":3,"and":8,"applications":1,"approach":4,"articulates":1,"as":4,"at":1,"atop":1,"axiom":1,"axioms":1,"based":2,"be":2,"bespoke":1,"bias":3,"built":2,"by":2,"calculus":2,"can":1,"captures":1,"capturing":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"clarity":3,"class":1,"classes":1,"coherence":3,"commitment":3,"commitments":2,"common":1,"communication":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualisation":1,"conceptualisations":1,"conceptualization":4,"connections":1,"content":4,"contribution":1,"criteria":5,"declarative":4,"defined":1,"defines":2,"description":1,"design":5,"differences":1,"different":1,"each":1,"encoding":3,"engineering":3,"epikit":1,"equality":1,"explicit":4,"express":1,"expressive":1,"extended":1,"extendibility":3,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"form":2,"formal":1,"forms":1,"foundational":1,"frame":5,"from":1,"function":1,"functions":1,"good":1,"gruber":3,"guide":2,"handbook":1,"handles":1,"he":1,"heterogeneous":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"idioms":2,"implements":1,"in":4,"including":1,"intended":1,"into":4,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":1,"kaj":1,"key":1,"kif":7,"knowledge":7,"kqml":2,"ksl":2,"landmark":1,"language":2,"languages":2,"layers":1,"level":2,"like":1,"lisp":1,"logic":1,"loom":1,"many":2,"meaning":1,"mechanically":1,"mechanism":1,"message":1,"minimal":5,"modern":1,"multi":1,"need":2,"needing":1,"neutral":1,"newell":1,"of":8,"on":1,"once":1,"one":1,"ontolingua":6,"ontological":5,"ontologies":5,"ontology":15,"org":1,"otherwise":1,"overview":1,"paper":2,"pdf":1,"portability":1,"portable":2,"practice":1,"predicate":2,"preserving":2,"problem":2,"prolog":1,"proposes":1,"provides":1,"pure":1,"r":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relation":1,"relational":1,"relations":1,"report":1,"representation":3,"representations":2,"required":1,"requires":1,"restricted":1,"reused":1,"s":1,"shared":4,"sharing":2,"side":1,"solution":1,"solves":1,"source":3,"specific":1,"specification":4,"specifications":2,"specifies":1,"splits":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"still":2,"stylistic":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"target":3,"targets":1,"technical":1,"terms":1,"that":5,"the":9,"them":1,"thomas":1,"to":4,"today":1,"tomgruber":1,"translated":1,"translates":1,"translation":4,"translators":1,"url":1,"used":1,"versions":1,"virtually":1,"vocabulary":4,"which":1,"while":2,"with":3,"work":1,"would":1,"writing":1}},{"dl":306,"n":"Handbook On Ontologies","s":"papers/ontology/handbook-on-ontologies","secs":[{"h":"Handbook on Ontologies","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Staab & Studer, eds. (2004). *International Handbooks on Information Systems, Springer*. Source file: `CAP_LIB_05.pdf`. [URL](https://oa.upm.es/6427/1/CAP_LIB_05.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The Handbook on Ontologies provides a comprehensive reference on ontology research and practice. It is organized into four parts: (A) Ontology Representation and Reasoning (Description Logics, Frame Logic, RDF(S), OWL, ontology algebra); (B) Ontology Engineering (methodologies, large case studies, OntoClean, ontology learning, knowledge patterns, lexicons); (C) Ontology Infrastructure (management environments, problem-solving methods, multi-agent interaction, merging/mapping, browsing, visualization); and (D) Ontology Applications (knowledge management, eCommerce, semantic portals, hypermedia, enterprise integration, bioinformatics). The introduction positions ontologies as formal, explicit specifications of shared conceptualizations and traces their rise from knowledge-based systems through the Semantic Web into mainstream information systems."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Standard definition: ontology = formal, explicit specification of shared conceptualization. - Four-part organization: representation, engineering, infrastructure, applications. - Description Logics and Frame Logic as main representation paradigms. - OWL, RDF(S), and ontology algebra as Semantic Web foundations. - Multi-agent systems rely on ontologies for communication semantics."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Ontologies]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Ontologies - formal, explicit specifications of shared conceptualisations - are the unifying infrastructure behind knowledge-based systems, the Semantic Web, and multi-agent communication semantics. - **Mechanism:** Four-part reference structure covering representation/reasoning (DL, F-Logic, RDF(S), OWL, ontology algebra), engineering (OntoClean, ontology learning, patterns), infrastructure (management, merging, MAS interaction), and applications (KM, eCommerce, bioinformatics). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Ontologies]], [[Description Logics]], [[OWL]], [[RDF]], [[Frame Logic]], [[Ontology Engineering]], [[Semantic Web]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Agent Communication Languages]] - **Stance:** foundational / survey - **Relates to:** Supplies the representational substrate assumed by [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]], and the content-layer opacity of [[KQML Language And Protocol]] / [[FIPA-ACL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"ontologies #semantic-web #handbook #knowledge-representation","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"05":1,"1":1,"2004":1,"6427":1,"a":4,"acl":1,"acls":2,"agent":8,"algebra":3,"and":10,"applications":3,"are":1,"as":3,"assumed":1,"b":1,"based":2,"behind":1,"bioinformatics":2,"browsing":1,"by":1,"c":1,"cap":1,"case":1,"claim":1,"common":2,"communication":4,"comprehensive":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualisations":1,"conceptualization":1,"conceptualizations":1,"connections":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"covering":1,"d":1,"definition":1,"description":4,"design":1,"dl":1,"ecommerce":2,"eds":1,"engineering":4,"enterprise":1,"environments":1,"es":1,"explicit":3,"f":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":2,"formal":3,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"four":3,"frame":3,"from":1,"handbook":3,"handbooks":1,"https":1,"hypermedia":1,"ideas":1,"information":2,"infrastructure":4,"integration":1,"interaction":2,"international":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introduction":1,"is":1,"it":1,"key":1,"km":1,"knowledge":5,"kqml":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"large":1,"layer":1,"learning":2,"lexicons":1,"lib":1,"logic":4,"logics":3,"main":1,"mainstream":1,"management":3,"mapping":1,"mas":1,"mechanism":1,"merging":2,"methodologies":1,"methods":1,"multi":5,"oa":1,"of":6,"on":5,"ontoclean":2,"ontologies":8,"ontology":14,"opacity":1,"organization":1,"organized":1,"owl":4,"paradigms":1,"part":2,"parts":1,"patterns":3,"pdf":1,"portals":1,"positions":1,"practice":1,"problem":1,"protocol":1,"provides":1,"rdf":4,"reasoning":2,"reference":3,"relates":1,"rely":1,"representation":5,"representational":1,"research":1,"rise":1,"s":3,"semantic":7,"semantics":2,"shared":3,"solving":1,"source":1,"specification":1,"specifications":2,"springer":1,"staab":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"structure":1,"studer":1,"studies":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"survey":1,"systems":7,"tags":1,"the":7,"their":1,"through":1,"to":1,"traces":1,"unifying":1,"upm":1,"url":1,"used":1,"visualization":1,"web":5}},{"dl":849,"n":"The Semantic Web","s":"papers/ontology/the-semantic-web","secs":[{"h":"The Semantic Web","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"- Berners-Lee, Tim; Hendler, James; & Lassila, Ora (2001). \"The Semantic Web.\" *Scientific American* 284(5): 34–43, May 17 2001. - PDF: [jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/berners-lee01a.pdf](https://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/berners-lee01a.pdf) - Also: [scientificamerican.com/article/the-semantic-web](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-semantic-web/) - Lassila's site: [lassila.org/publications/2001/SciAm.html](https://www.lassila.org/publications/2001/SciAm.html) - Local: `semanticweb2001.pdf`"},{"h":"Summary","l":10,"t":"Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila sketch an extension of the World Wide Web in which content carries machine-processable meaning, enabling software agents to perform non-trivial tasks on behalf of users. The article opens with the now-famous Pete-and-Lucy vignette: Lucy's agent coordinates medical appointments, cross-references insurance providers, negotiates schedules with Pete's agent, and replans when a preferred plan is rejected. The authors stress that this does not require HAL-level AI; it requires that web pages embed structured semantics that off-the-shelf tools can author and that agents can consume. The vision rests on three interlocking commitments. First, meaning is expressed through structured data formats — XML for syntax, RDF for triples (subject–predicate–object with URIs), and ontologies that give classes, properties, and inference rules a shared interpretation. Second, the Web's decentralisation is preserved: unlike traditional knowledge-representation systems that require a single central vocabulary, the Semantic Web accepts paradoxes and unanswerable questions as the price of scale, and lets ontologies be published, linked, and partially reused. Third, *agents* are the consumers: they roam from page to page, chain inferences across ontologies, evaluate trust via digital signatures and proofs, and negotiate on behalf of human users. The article walks through examples of rule-based inference, ontology alignment (e.g., reconciling \"zip code\" across sites), and the architecture of trust (\"Oh, yeah?\" buttons) that lets an agent verify claims by following proofs. Throughout, the tone is programmatic. The authors concede that knowledge representation has existed since long before the Web and is \"in a state comparable to that of hypertext before the advent of the Web\" — useful demos but no global connective tissue. The Semantic Web's contribution is not new KR theory but *linking* KR into a single global system, exactly as hypertext was the connective tissue for documents. The payoff is machine-to-machine data integration, delegated tasks, and a qualitative shift in what individual users and organisations can accomplish through agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":17,"t":"- **Machine-processable meaning on the Web**: structured data with URI-identified terms, not just rendered documents. - **Layered stack**: URIs → XML → RDF (triples) → Ontologies (OWL-like) → Logic/Rules → Proof → Trust. - **Decentralised knowledge representation**: no central ontology; partial agreement, mapping between vocabularies. - **Agents as consumers**: the reason the Semantic Web matters is that software agents can act on the structured content, including negotiating, scheduling, verifying. - **Ontologies** provide shared classes, properties, and inference rules; critical for cross-site data integration. - **Trust via proofs and digital signatures**: an agent should be able to demand the derivation of a claim and check it. - **Pete-and-Lucy scenario** as the canonical multi-agent, multi-ontology, real-world task. - **Hypertext analogy**: KR is where hypertext was pre-Web — good ideas, no global connective layer; the Semantic Web is that layer."},{"h":"Connections","l":27,"t":"- [[Semantic Web]] — the cluster topic this paper names. - [[Ontologies]] — ontologies are the load-bearing layer of the Semantic Web stack. - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] — systematic treatment of the ontology engineering the paper demands. - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] — prior art on shareable ontology specifications that feeds into the Semantic Web plan. - [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] — Gruber's principles underlie the Semantic Web's ontology layer. - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], [[ACL Design Principles]] — the ACL literature provides the agent-to-agent communication layer that Pete's and Lucy's agents would need. - [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]], [[On Agent-Based Software Engineering]] — the agent side of the vision; Jennings's \"knowledge-level interaction\" is the social counterpart to the Semantic Web's data-level interoperability. - [[A Framework for Representing Knowledge]] — frames, slots, defaults prefigure RDF/OWL class-property structure. - [[Knowledge Representation]] — the historical discipline whose ideas the Semantic Web proposes to \"link into a single global system\". - [[Abstract Agent Interfaces]] — interface-level agreement aligning with ontology-level agreement."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":39,"t":"> The paper's achievement is not a new formalism but a *unifying architectural stance*: meaning on the Web is cheap only if it is decentralised, layered, and consumed by agents. By pairing ontology-based data with autonomous task-performing agents, Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila fuse two traditions — KR and MAS — that had been circling each other since the 1970s. For agent communication this is the moment when shared ontologies stop being a lab concern and become a *web-scale* precondition for agent interoperability; every subsequent discussion of common ontologies, ACL content languages, and cross-platform agent protocols inherits the Semantic Web's layered stack and its decentralised-by-design philosophy."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"semantic-web #ontologies #knowledge-representation #agents #web-architecture #RDF #OWL #Berners-Lee #Hendler #Lassila #foundational","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"17":1,"1970s":1,"2001":4,"284":1,"34":1,"43":1,"5":1,"a":14,"able":1,"abstract":1,"accepts":1,"accomplish":1,"achievement":1,"acl":3,"acls":1,"across":2,"act":1,"advent":1,"agent":14,"agents":11,"agreement":3,"ai":1,"aligning":1,"alignment":1,"also":1,"american":1,"an":3,"analogy":1,"and":27,"appointments":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":2,"are":2,"art":1,"article":4,"as":4,"author":1,"authors":2,"autonomous":1,"based":3,"be":2,"bearing":1,"become":1,"been":1,"before":2,"behalf":2,"being":1,"berners":6,"between":1,"but":3,"buttons":1,"by":4,"can":4,"canonical":1,"carries":1,"central":2,"chain":1,"cheap":1,"check":1,"circling":1,"claim":1,"claims":1,"class":1,"classes":2,"cluster":1,"code":1,"com":2,"commitments":1,"common":2,"communication":2,"comparable":1,"concede":1,"conceptual":1,"concern":1,"connections":1,"connective":3,"consume":1,"consumed":1,"consumers":2,"content":3,"contribution":2,"coordinates":1,"counterpart":1,"critical":1,"cross":3,"cse":2,"data":6,"decentralisation":1,"decentralised":3,"defaults":1,"delegated":1,"demand":1,"demands":1,"demos":1,"derivation":1,"design":3,"digital":2,"discipline":1,"discussion":1,"documents":2,"does":1,"e":1,"each":1,"edu":2,"embed":1,"enabling":1,"engineering":2,"evaluate":1,"every":1,"exactly":1,"examples":1,"existed":1,"expressed":1,"extension":1,"famous":1,"feeds":1,"first":1,"following":1,"for":9,"formalism":1,"formats":1,"foundational":1,"frames":1,"framework":1,"from":1,"fuse":1,"g":1,"give":1,"global":4,"good":1,"gruber":1,"had":1,"hal":1,"handbook":1,"has":1,"hendler":4,"historical":1,"html":2,"https":3,"human":1,"hypertext":4,"ideas":3,"identified":1,"if":1,"in":3,"including":1,"individual":1,"inference":3,"inferences":1,"inherits":1,"insurance":1,"integration":2,"intelligent":1,"interaction":1,"interface":1,"interfaces":1,"interlocking":1,"interoperability":2,"interpretation":1,"into":3,"is":15,"it":3,"its":1,"james":1,"jennings":1,"jmvidal":2,"just":1,"key":1,"knowledge":8,"kr":4,"lab":1,"languages":1,"lassila":7,"layer":5,"layered":3,"lee":4,"lee01a":2,"lets":2,"level":5,"library":2,"like":1,"link":1,"linked":1,"linking":1,"literature":1,"load":1,"local":1,"logic":1,"long":1,"lucy":4,"machine":4,"mapping":1,"mas":1,"matters":1,"may":1,"meaning":4,"medical":1,"moment":1,"multi":3,"names":1,"need":1,"negotiate":1,"negotiates":1,"negotiating":1,"new":2,"no":3,"non":1,"not":4,"now":1,"object":1,"of":15,"off":1,"oh":1,"on":9,"only":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":12,"ontology":10,"opens":1,"ora":1,"org":2,"organisations":1,"other":1,"owl":3,"page":2,"pages":1,"pairing":1,"paper":3,"paradoxes":1,"partial":1,"partially":1,"payoff":1,"pdf":3,"perform":1,"performing":1,"pete":4,"philosophy":1,"plan":2,"platform":1,"portable":1,"practice":1,"pre":1,"precondition":1,"predicate":1,"preferred":1,"prefigure":1,"preserved":1,"price":1,"principles":3,"prior":1,"processable":2,"programmatic":1,"proof":1,"proofs":3,"properties":2,"property":1,"proposes":1,"protocols":1,"provide":1,"providers":1,"provides":1,"publications":2,"published":1,"qualitative":1,"questions":1,"rdf":4,"real":1,"reason":1,"reconciling":1,"reference":1,"references":1,"rejected":1,"rendered":1,"replans":1,"representation":5,"representing":1,"require":2,"requires":1,"rests":1,"reused":1,"roam":1,"rule":1,"rules":3,"s":13,"sc":2,"scale":2,"scenario":1,"schedules":1,"scheduling":1,"sciam":2,"scientific":1,"scientificamerican":2,"second":1,"semantic":16,"semantics":1,"shareable":1,"shared":3,"sharing":1,"shelf":1,"shift":1,"should":1,"side":1,"signatures":2,"since":2,"single":3,"site":2,"sites":1,"sketch":1,"slots":1,"social":1,"software":3,"specifications":2,"stack":3,"stance":1,"state":1,"stop":1,"stress":1,"structure":1,"structured":4,"subject":1,"subsequent":1,"summary":1,"syntax":1,"system":2,"systematic":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"task":2,"tasks":2,"terms":1,"that":14,"the":52,"theory":2,"they":1,"third":1,"this":3,"three":1,"through":3,"throughout":1,"tim":1,"tissue":2,"to":8,"tone":1,"tools":1,"topic":1,"toward":1,"traditional":1,"traditions":1,"treatment":1,"triples":2,"trivial":1,"trust":4,"two":1,"unanswerable":1,"underlie":1,"unifying":1,"unlike":1,"uri":1,"uris":2,"used":1,"useful":1,"users":3,"verify":1,"verifying":1,"via":2,"vignette":1,"vision":2,"vocabularies":1,"vocabulary":1,"walks":1,"was":2,"web":26,"what":1,"when":2,"where":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"wide":1,"with":6,"world":2,"would":1,"www":2,"xml":2,"yeah":1,"zip":1}},{"dl":392,"n":"Ontology Change Classification and Survey","s":"papers/ontology/ontology-change-classification-and-survey","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Change: Classification and Survey","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Flouris, Manakanatas, Kondylakis, Plexousakis, Antoniou (2008). *The Knowledge Engineering Review, Cambridge University Press*. Source file: `Ontology_Change_Classification_and_Survey.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888908001367)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This survey tackles the terminological confusion surrounding ontology change in the Semantic Web era. The authors argue that many overlapping terms — ontology evolution, versioning, merging, mapping, matching, articulation, translation, debugging, integration, morphism — are used inconsistently across the literature, creating a major bottleneck for research. They propose a unifying terminology and taxonomy, fixing precise definitions and identifying the boundaries between ten subfields of ontology change plus ontology alignment. The paper organizes these subfields into four groups: heterogeneity resolution (mapping/matching/articulation/morphism/translation), modification (evolution, debugging/diagnosis/repair), fusion (integration, merging), and versioning. Each field is characterized by its purpose, inputs, outputs, and properties, and the authors review representative algorithms and systems, including a detailed classification of matching approaches (instance vs. schema, element vs. structure, language vs. constraint, matching cardinality, auxiliary information)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Ontology change is the generic process of adapting an ontology to a need for change. - Heterogeneity resolution is a prerequisite for any successful ontology change. - Formal pair <S, A> defines an ontology by signature and axioms. - Ten interlinked subfields are identified and disambiguated. - Ontology evolution is closely tied to belief revision."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Ontologies]] - [[Ontology]] - [[Conceptualization]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Research on ontology change is fragmented by inconsistent terminology; a precise, unified taxonomy is needed before the field's problems can be compared, composed, or solved. - **Mechanism:** The authors define an ontology formally as a signature–axiom pair <S,A>, then enumerate ten subfields (mapping, matching, morphism, articulation, translation, evolution, debugging, versioning, integration, merging) and characterise each by inputs/outputs/properties. Representative algorithms and systems are then slotted into the taxonomy, with matching approaches classified by dimension (schema vs. instance, element vs. structure, cardinality, auxiliary info). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Ontology Change]], [[Ontology Evolution]], [[Ontology Mapping]], [[Ontology Merging]], [[Ontology Alignment]], [[Belief Revision]], [[Semantic Web]], [[Heterogeneity Resolution]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Provides the vocabulary implicitly assumed by ACL work on shared ontologies ([[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]], [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]]) and complements the handbook-level treatment in [[Handbook On Ontologies]]. Its belief-revision framing links to epistemic semantics used in [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"ontologies #semantic-web #survey #knowledge-representation","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1017":1,"2008":1,"a":9,"acl":2,"across":1,"adapting":1,"agent":5,"algorithms":2,"alignment":2,"an":3,"and":12,"antoniou":1,"any":1,"approaches":2,"are":3,"argue":1,"art":1,"articulation":3,"as":1,"assumed":1,"authors":3,"auxiliary":2,"axiom":1,"axioms":1,"be":1,"before":1,"belief":3,"between":1,"bottleneck":1,"boundaries":1,"by":6,"cambridge":1,"can":1,"cardinality":2,"change":8,"characterise":1,"characterized":1,"claim":1,"classification":2,"classified":1,"closely":1,"communication":3,"compared":1,"complements":1,"composed":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualization":1,"confusion":1,"connections":1,"constraint":1,"contribution":1,"creating":1,"debugging":3,"define":1,"defines":1,"definitions":1,"detailed":1,"diagnosis":1,"dimension":1,"disambiguated":1,"doi":1,"each":2,"element":2,"engineering":1,"enumerate":1,"epistemic":1,"era":1,"evolution":5,"field":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"fixing":1,"flouris":1,"for":3,"formal":1,"formally":1,"four":1,"fragmented":1,"framing":1,"fusion":1,"generic":1,"groups":1,"handbook":2,"heterogeneity":3,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identified":1,"identifying":1,"implicitly":1,"in":5,"including":1,"inconsistent":1,"inconsistently":1,"info":1,"information":1,"inputs":2,"instance":2,"integration":3,"interlinked":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"is":6,"its":2,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"kondylakis":1,"language":2,"languages":2,"level":1,"links":1,"literature":1,"major":1,"manakanatas":1,"many":1,"mapping":4,"matching":6,"mechanism":1,"merging":4,"modification":1,"morphism":3,"multi":1,"need":1,"needed":1,"of":4,"on":3,"ontologies":4,"ontology":18,"or":1,"org":1,"organizes":1,"oriented":1,"outputs":2,"overlapping":1,"pair":2,"paper":1,"plexousakis":1,"plus":1,"precise":2,"prerequisite":1,"press":1,"problems":1,"process":1,"programming":1,"properties":2,"propose":1,"provides":1,"purpose":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"repair":1,"representation":1,"representative":2,"research":2,"resolution":3,"review":2,"revision":3,"s":3,"s0269888908001367":1,"schema":2,"semantic":3,"semantics":1,"shared":1,"signature":2,"slotted":1,"solved":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"structure":2,"subfields":4,"successful":1,"summary":1,"surrounding":1,"survey":4,"systems":3,"tackles":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":3,"ten":3,"terminological":1,"terminology":2,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":16,"then":2,"these":1,"they":1,"this":1,"tied":1,"to":4,"translation":3,"treatment":1,"trends":1,"unified":1,"unifying":1,"university":1,"url":1,"used":3,"versioning":3,"vocabulary":1,"vs":5,"web":3,"with":1,"work":1}},{"dl":554,"n":"Logic and Conversation","s":"papers/foundations/logic-and-conversation","secs":[{"h":"Logic and Conversation","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Grice, H. P. (1975). In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), *Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts*, pp. 41–58. Academic Press. (Originally delivered as the 1967 William James Lectures at Harvard.) Source file: `grice_logic_and_conversation.pdf`. [URL](https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Grice1975.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Grice's foundational paper introduces the theory of *conversational implicature*: the mechanism by which speakers convey more than they literally say. Starting from the divergences formalists find between natural-language connectives (and, or, if, not, all, some) and their formal analogues, Grice argues the divergences do not show natural language is defective; rather, they arise from principles governing rational cooperative exchange, not from logical form. At the centre is the **Cooperative Principle**: \"Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.\" The principle decomposes into four categories of maxims — **Quantity** (be as informative as required, no more), **Quality** (try to make your contribution true), **Relation** (be relevant), and **Manner** (be perspicuous). Speakers exploit these maxims — by apparently flouting them while the Cooperative Principle remains in force — to generate conversational implicatures that the hearer can calculate. The paper distinguishes *what is said* from *what is implicated*, and conventional from conversational implicatures, establishing the framework in which pragmatics has operated ever since. Its picture of communication as rational, cooperative, defeasible inference over an idealised shared purpose became a touchstone for ACL design, HCI dialogue systems, and the pragmatics of LLM prompting."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- What is said vs. what is implicated. - Conventional vs. conversational implicature. - Cooperative Principle as constitutive of rational discourse. - Four maxim categories: Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner. - Implicatures arise from (apparent) maxim-flouting under the CP. - Implicatures are calculable, cancellable, non-detachable. - Natural-language/formal-logic divergences need not reflect semantic defect."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** Successful communication rests on a presumed Cooperative Principle and its four categories of maxims; apparent violations of the maxims, against the background of presumed cooperation, generate implicatures — inferences about speaker meaning that go beyond literal content. - **Mechanism:** Grice frames discourse as goal-directed rational cooperation; derives the Cooperative Principle as a rationality constraint on contributions; distinguishes its maxims by Kantian category; shows that a speaker who says p while *flouting* a maxim (e.g., irrelevantly, uninformatively, or obscurely) signals that a further proposition q must be inferred to restore the presumption of cooperation — q is then conversationally implicated. Implicatures are *calculable* from the maxims plus context, *cancellable* without contradiction, and *non-detachable* from what is said. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Cooperative Principle]], [[Conversational Implicature]], [[Conventional Implicature]], [[Gricean Maxims]], [[Speaker Meaning]], [[What Is Said]] - **Stance:** philosophical/pragmatic theory - **Relates to:** Complements the illocutionary classification of [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]] by supplying a theory of pragmatic enrichment; informs the semantic/pragmatic layer distinctions in [[Agent Communication Languages]] and critiques of mentalistic ACL semantics in [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]; underpins the rational-speaker assumptions implicit in prompt engineering and [[LLM Agents]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"pragmatics #speech-acts #philosophy-of-language #foundational #implicature","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"1967":1,"1975":1,"2000":1,"3":1,"41":1,"58":1,"a":10,"about":1,"academic":1,"accepted":1,"acl":2,"act":1,"acts":6,"against":1,"agent":4,"agents":2,"all":1,"an":1,"analogues":1,"and":11,"apparent":2,"apparently":1,"are":4,"argues":1,"arise":2,"as":8,"assets":1,"assumptions":1,"at":4,"background":1,"based":1,"be":4,"became":1,"between":1,"beyond":1,"by":5,"calculable":2,"calculate":1,"can":1,"cancellable":2,"categories":3,"category":1,"centre":1,"claim":1,"classification":1,"cole":1,"communication":6,"complements":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"connectives":1,"constitutive":1,"constraint":1,"content":1,"context":1,"contradiction":1,"contribution":3,"contributions":1,"conventional":3,"conversation":1,"conversational":6,"conversationally":1,"convey":1,"cooperation":3,"cooperative":8,"cp":1,"critiques":1,"decomposes":1,"defeasible":1,"defect":1,"defective":1,"delivered":1,"derives":1,"design":1,"detachable":2,"dialogue":1,"directed":1,"direction":1,"discourse":2,"distinctions":1,"distinguishes":2,"divergences":3,"do":1,"e":1,"eds":1,"elephant":1,"engaged":1,"engineering":1,"enrichment":1,"establishing":1,"ever":1,"exchange":2,"exploit":1,"few":1,"file":1,"files":1,"find":1,"flouting":3,"for":1,"force":1,"form":1,"formal":2,"formalists":1,"foundational":2,"four":3,"frames":1,"framework":1,"from":8,"further":1,"g":1,"generate":2,"go":1,"goal":1,"governing":1,"grice":4,"grice1975":1,"gricean":1,"h":1,"harvard":1,"has":1,"hci":1,"hearer":1,"https":1,"idealised":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"illc":1,"illocutionary":3,"implicated":3,"implicature":5,"implicatures":6,"implicit":1,"in":7,"inference":1,"inferences":1,"inferred":1,"informative":1,"informs":1,"inquisitivesemantics":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"irrelevantly":1,"is":10,"it":1,"its":3,"j":1,"james":1,"kantian":1,"key":1,"l":1,"language":6,"languages":4,"layer":1,"learners":1,"lectures":1,"literal":1,"literally":1,"llm":3,"logic":2,"logical":1,"make":2,"manner":2,"maxim":3,"maxims":7,"meaning":2,"mechanism":2,"mentalistic":1,"models":1,"more":2,"morgan":1,"must":1,"natural":3,"need":1,"nl":1,"no":1,"non":2,"not":4,"obscurely":1,"occurs":1,"of":16,"on":3,"operated":1,"or":3,"originally":1,"over":1,"p":3,"paper":2,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"performatives":1,"perspicuous":1,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":1,"picture":1,"plus":1,"pp":1,"pragmatic":3,"pragmatics":3,"press":1,"presumed":2,"presumption":1,"principle":7,"principles":3,"programming":1,"projects":1,"prompt":1,"prompting":1,"proposition":1,"purpose":2,"q":2,"quality":2,"quantity":2,"rather":1,"rational":5,"rationality":1,"reference":1,"reflect":1,"relates":1,"relation":2,"relevant":1,"remains":1,"required":2,"restore":1,"rests":1,"rethinking":2,"s":1,"said":4,"say":1,"says":1,"semantic":2,"semantics":2,"shared":1,"shot":1,"show":1,"shows":1,"signals":1,"since":1,"some":1,"source":1,"speaker":4,"speakers":2,"speech":5,"stage":1,"stance":1,"starting":1,"successful":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"supplying":1,"syntax":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"talk":1,"taxonomy":2,"than":1,"that":4,"the":27,"their":1,"them":1,"then":1,"theory":4,"these":1,"they":2,"to":4,"touchstone":1,"true":1,"try":1,"under":1,"underpins":1,"uninformatively":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uva":1,"violations":1,"vol":1,"vs":2,"what":6,"which":4,"while":2,"who":1,"william":1,"without":1,"you":1,"your":2}},{"dl":620,"n":"General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers","s":"papers/foundations/general-recursive-functions-of-natural-numbers","secs":[{"h":"General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Kleene, Stephen C. (1936). \"General recursive functions of natural numbers.\" *Mathematische Annalen* 112, 727–766. [DOI 10.1007/BF01565439](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01565439). Open scan: [GDZ Göttingen](https://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/id/PPN235181684_0112)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Kleene's 1936 paper develops the theory of the **general recursive functions** — the class proposed by Herbrand in correspondence with Gödel and given a precise definition by Gödel in his 1934 Princeton lectures. Kleene formalises the Herbrand–Gödel scheme (systems of equations closed under substitution and replacement of equals) as the official definition of *effectively calculable* function in the recursion-theoretic tradition, and he proves the equivalence of this class with the λ-definable functions of Church and Kleene. After this paper, \"general recursive,\" \"λ-definable,\" and (shortly thereafter) \"Turing computable\" are known to name the same class of functions — the empirical content of Church's thesis. The central technical result is the **normal form theorem**. Kleene shows that every general recursive function can be written as `φ(x) = U(μy. T(e, x, y) = 0)`, where `T` is a primitive recursive *Kleene T-predicate* encoding \"y is the Gödel number of a computation of machine/equation-system `e` on input `x`,\" `U` is a primitive recursive result-extracting function, and `μy.` is the unbounded minimisation (least-`y`) operator. All of the apparent complexity of recursive definitions is thereby pushed into *one* unbounded search over a primitive-recursive predicate. The theorem provides a canonical form for every partial recursive function — the starting point of computability as a structural theory rather than a list of closure rules. The paper also clarifies the role of partial functions, introduces the use of indices `e` as first-class objects (each function gets a Gödel number so one can reason about `φ_e`), and establishes the technology — T-predicate, μ-operator, index encoding, normal form — that Kleene and others use in every subsequent paper on recursion theory."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **General recursive functions** (Herbrand–Gödel equation calculus) adopted as the working definition of effective calculability. - **Equivalence** with λ-definable functions: Church's thesis gains an additional leg. - **Kleene normal form theorem**: every partial recursive function `φ_e(x) = U(μy. T(e, x, y) = 0)`. - **T-predicate** `T(e, x, y)`: a primitive recursive relation formalising \"y codes a computation of `e` on `x`.\" - **μ-operator** (unbounded minimisation) as the one non-primitive-recursive ingredient needed. - **Indices** `e` for recursive functions — functions become numbers, enabling self-reference and universal machines."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[Lambda Calculus]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[On Notation for Ordinal Numbers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** The general recursive functions coincide with the λ-definable functions and admit a single normal form `U(μy. T(e, x, y) = 0)` reducing all partial recursive computation to unbounded search over a primitive recursive predicate. - **Mechanism:** Take Herbrand–Gödel equation calculus as primitive. Arithmetise derivations to get a primitive recursive \"is-a-computation\" predicate `T`. Use unbounded search (`μy`) to locate the first terminating computation; extract its result with a primitive recursive `U`. Cross-simulate with λ-calculus to prove equivalence. - **Concepts introduced/used:** general recursive function, T-predicate, μ-operator, normal form, index, [[Recursive Function]], [[Computability]] - **Stance:** foundational theorem paper (recursion theory) - **Relates to:** Second leg (with [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory|Church 1936]]) of Church's thesis; the normal form becomes the tool by which [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers|Kleene 1943]] constructs the arithmetical hierarchy and [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems|Post 1944]] organises r.e. sets; supplies the machinery that [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]] takes for granted."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"computability #recursion-theory #foundational #normal-form #kleene #church-thesis","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"0112":1,"10":2,"1007":2,"112":1,"1934":1,"1936":3,"1943":1,"1944":1,"1953":1,"727":1,"766":1,"a":16,"about":1,"additional":1,"admit":1,"adopted":1,"after":1,"all":2,"also":1,"an":3,"and":17,"annalen":1,"apparent":1,"are":1,"arithmetical":1,"arithmetise":1,"as":7,"be":1,"become":1,"becomes":1,"bf01565439":2,"by":3,"c":1,"calculability":1,"calculable":1,"calculus":4,"can":2,"canonical":1,"central":1,"church":6,"claim":1,"clarifies":1,"class":4,"classes":2,"closed":1,"closure":1,"codes":1,"coincide":1,"complexity":1,"computability":4,"computable":1,"computation":5,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constructs":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"correspondence":1,"cross":1,"de":1,"decision":4,"definable":4,"definition":3,"definitions":1,"der":1,"derivations":1,"develops":1,"doi":2,"e":1,"each":1,"effective":1,"effectively":1,"elementary":2,"empirical":1,"enabling":1,"encoding":2,"enumerable":4,"equals":1,"equation":3,"equations":1,"equivalence":3,"establishes":1,"every":4,"extract":1,"extracting":1,"first":2,"for":4,"form":8,"formal":1,"formalises":1,"formalising":1,"foundational":2,"function":9,"functions":12,"gains":1,"gdz":2,"general":8,"get":1,"gets":1,"given":1,"goettingen":1,"granted":1,"gödel":7,"göttingen":1,"halting":1,"he":1,"herbrand":4,"hierarchy":1,"his":1,"https":2,"i":1,"id":1,"ideas":1,"in":4,"index":2,"indices":2,"ingredient":1,"input":1,"integers":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":7,"its":1,"key":1,"kleene":10,"known":1,"lambda":1,"least":1,"lectures":1,"leg":2,"list":1,"locate":1,"machine":2,"machinery":1,"machines":1,"mathematica":1,"mathematische":1,"mechanism":1,"minimisation":2,"name":1,"natural":2,"needed":1,"non":1,"normal":7,"notation":1,"number":4,"numbers":4,"objects":1,"of":27,"official":1,"on":4,"one":3,"open":1,"operator":4,"ordinal":1,"org":1,"organises":1,"others":1,"over":2,"paper":5,"partial":4,"point":1,"positive":2,"post":1,"ppn235181684":1,"precise":1,"predicate":7,"predicates":2,"primitive":9,"princeton":1,"principia":1,"problem":3,"problems":4,"proposed":1,"prove":1,"proves":1,"provides":1,"pushed":1,"quantifiers":2,"r":1,"rather":1,"reason":1,"recursion":4,"recursive":25,"recursively":4,"reducing":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"relation":1,"replacement":1,"result":3,"rice":1,"role":1,"rules":1,"s":4,"same":1,"scan":1,"scheme":1,"search":3,"second":1,"self":1,"sets":5,"shortly":1,"shows":1,"simulate":1,"single":1,"so":1,"stance":1,"starting":1,"stephen":1,"structural":1,"sub":1,"subsequent":1,"substitution":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"system":1,"systeme":1,"systems":1,"sätze":1,"t":4,"tags":1,"take":1,"takes":1,"technical":1,"technology":1,"terminating":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":30,"their":4,"theorem":4,"theoretic":1,"theory":7,"thereafter":1,"thereby":1,"thesis":4,"this":2,"to":6,"tool":1,"tradition":1,"turing":2,"unbounded":5,"und":1,"under":1,"unentscheidbare":1,"uni":1,"universal":2,"unsolvable":2,"use":3,"used":1,"verwandter":1,"where":1,"which":1,"with":7,"working":1,"written":1,"y":2,"über":1,"λ":5,"μ":3}},{"dl":847,"n":"Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine","s":"papers/foundations/recursive-functions-of-symbolic-expressions-and-their-computation-by-machine","secs":[{"h":"Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1960). \"Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I.\" *Communications of the ACM* 3(4): 184-195. (Author-hosted LaTeX reformatting with minor notational changes.) Source file: `mccarthy-recursive.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/recursive/recursive.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The Lisp paper. McCarthy describes a programming system — LISP, for LISt Processor — developed for the IBM 704 at MIT, originally designed to support the *advice taker* of [[Programs with Common Sense]] by giving it a substrate for manipulating symbolic (declarative and imperative) sentences. The system evolved into a representation of *partial recursive functions over a class of symbolic expressions* (S-expressions) whose elegance transcended its motivating application. The paper presents S-expressions, a small set of elementary S-functions (`atom`, `eq`, `car`, `cdr`, `cons`), conditional expressions (newly introduced here), recursive function definitions via a λ-calculus-flavored notation, and the universal S-function `apply` that plays the role of a universal Turing machine and the practical role of an interpreter — the now-iconic code-is-data `eval`/`apply` kernel. The paper then translates this formalism into IBM 704 list structures (the famous CAR/CDR naming reflecting the 704's address and decrement register fields), describes the main features of the LISP system (garbage collection, interpreter, compiler sketch, free storage), and gives a recursive-function interpretation of flow charts — i.e., a semantics for imperative programs via recursive functions, anticipating much later work on denotational semantics. Conditional expressions, submitted by McCarthy as a letter to CACM and \"demoted to a letter\" by its editor (notes the footnote), were the notation Algol 60 then rejected in favour of `if ... then ... else`. Lisp is simultaneously an AI implementation vehicle and a theory of computation — and the paper's code-is-data property (programs are S-expressions) is what seeded the Lisp extensibility tradition (macros, embedded DSLs) that later runs through [[The Extensible Language - Graham]], [[Code as Data]], [[Macros as Language Extension]], and [[Creating Languages in Racket]]. McCarthy closes promising a Part II on symbolic applications and a companion paper applying the recursive-function formalism to mathematical logic and theorem proving — the latter effectively becoming [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] and [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- S-expressions: uniform tree/list data structure for both programs and data (code-is-data). - Five primitive functions (`atom`, `eq`, `car`, `cdr`, `cons`) suffice to define all computable functions over S-expressions. - Conditional expressions `(p1 → e1, ..., pn → en)` as a first-class construct — introduced to computer science here. - Recursive function definitions and λ-notation for anonymous functions. - Universal function `apply` — a meta-circular evaluator — plays the role of a universal Turing machine *and* a working interpreter. - Partial functions are inherent to computation (non-termination) and must be handled explicitly. - Flow charts reinterpreted as recursive function applications — an early denotational-style semantics for imperative programs. - Garbage collection (the concept of automatic reclamation of unreferenced list cells) introduced in the implementation notes."},{"h":"Connections","l":22,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] — Lisp was originally designed to support the advice taker. - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] — continues the theory-of-computation programme. - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] — first proof of program correctness uses Lisp-like semantics. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] — Graham's manifesto for the Lisp extensibility culture. - [[Code as Data]] — the homoiconicity principle first made concrete here. - [[Macros as Language Extension]] — macros exploit the S-expression representation of programs. - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] — modern Racket inherits `eval`/`apply` as the DSL substrate. - [[Lisp]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, the λ-calculus whose notation McCarthy adapts for anonymous functions. - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene 1936, the partial-recursive-function framing Lisp realises over S-expressions."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":44,"t":"- **Claim:** Partial recursive functions over symbolic expressions can be defined with five primitive operators (`atom`, `eq`, `car`, `cdr`, `cons`) plus conditional expressions and recursion, yielding a language in which programs are themselves symbolic expressions and a single universal function `apply` serves as both a universal Turing machine and a working interpreter — giving a uniform substrate for AI, programming, and the theory of computation. - **Mechanism:** S-expressions (atomic symbols + dotted pairs, list sugar); five primitives; conditional expression `(p → e, ...)`; recursive function definitions; λ-notation; universal `apply(f, args)`; IBM 704 list-structure implementation; garbage collection; recursive-function semantics of flow charts. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Lisp]], [[S-expression]], [[Conditional Expression]], [[Recursive Function]], [[Code as Data]], [[Homoiconicity]], [[eval apply]], [[Garbage Collection]], [[Meta-circular Evaluator]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** The implementation substrate that [[Programs with Common Sense]] anticipated. Its code-is-data property seeds the extensibility tradition — [[The Extensible Language - Graham]], [[Macros as Language Extension]], [[Creating Languages in Racket]] — and its `apply` formalism is the ancestor of denotational semantics used in [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] and [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":51,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #lisp #programming-languages #ai-history #code-as-data #1960 #recursive-functions","l":52,"t":""}],"tf":{"184":1,"1936":2,"195":1,"1960":2,"2000":1,"3":1,"4":1,"60":1,"704":4,"a":31,"acm":1,"acts":1,"adapts":1,"address":1,"advice":2,"ai":3,"algol":1,"all":1,"an":4,"ancestor":1,"and":25,"anonymous":2,"anticipated":1,"anticipating":1,"application":1,"applications":2,"apply":1,"applying":1,"are":3,"arithmetic":3,"articles":1,"artificial":3,"as":12,"ascribing":1,"at":1,"atomic":1,"author":1,"automatic":1,"based":1,"be":2,"becoming":1,"both":2,"business":1,"by":5,"cacm":1,"calculus":2,"can":1,"car":1,"cdr":1,"cells":1,"changes":1,"charts":3,"church":1,"circular":2,"circumscription":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"closes":1,"code":8,"collection":4,"common":5,"communication":1,"communications":1,"companion":1,"compiler":4,"computable":1,"computation":9,"computer":1,"concept":1,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conditional":6,"connections":1,"construct":1,"continues":1,"contribution":1,"correctness":4,"creating":3,"culture":1,"data":10,"declarative":1,"decrement":1,"define":1,"defined":1,"definitions":3,"demoted":1,"denotational":3,"describes":2,"designed":2,"developed":1,"dotted":1,"dsl":1,"dsls":1,"e":1,"early":1,"editor":1,"edu":1,"effectively":1,"elegance":1,"elementary":2,"elephant":1,"embedded":1,"epistemological":1,"eval":1,"evaluator":2,"evolved":1,"explicitly":1,"exploit":1,"expression":4,"expressions":19,"extensibility":3,"extensible":3,"extension":3,"famous":1,"favour":1,"features":1,"fields":1,"file":1,"first":4,"five":3,"flavored":1,"flow":3,"footnote":1,"for":13,"form":1,"formalism":3,"foundational":2,"framing":1,"free":1,"from":1,"function":12,"functions":13,"garbage":4,"general":1,"generality":1,"gives":1,"giving":2,"graham":4,"handled":1,"here":3,"history":1,"homoiconicity":2,"hosted":1,"http":1,"i":3,"ibm":3,"iconic":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"imperative":3,"implementation":4,"in":8,"individual":1,"inherent":1,"inherits":1,"intelligence":3,"interpretation":1,"interpreter":4,"into":2,"introduced":4,"is":7,"it":1,"its":4,"jmc":1,"john":1,"kernel":1,"key":1,"kleene":1,"knowledge":1,"language":9,"languages":4,"later":2,"latex":1,"latter":1,"letter":2,"like":1,"lisp":12,"list":6,"logic":1,"machine":5,"machines":1,"macros":5,"made":1,"main":1,"manifesto":1,"manipulating":1,"mathematical":4,"mccarthy":6,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"meta":2,"minor":1,"mit":1,"modern":1,"motivating":1,"much":1,"must":1,"naming":1,"natural":1,"newly":1,"non":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"notation":5,"notational":1,"notes":2,"now":1,"number":1,"numbers":1,"of":34,"on":3,"operators":1,"order":1,"originally":2,"over":4,"pairs":1,"paper":5,"part":3,"partial":4,"pdf":1,"philosophical":1,"plays":2,"plus":1,"practical":1,"presents":1,"primitive":2,"primitives":1,"principle":1,"problem":1,"problems":2,"processor":1,"program":1,"programme":1,"programming":4,"programs":9,"promising":1,"proof":1,"property":2,"propositions":1,"proving":1,"qualities":1,"racket":4,"realises":1,"reasoning":2,"reclamation":1,"recursion":1,"recursive":18,"reference":1,"reflecting":1,"reformatting":1,"register":1,"reinterpreted":1,"rejected":1,"relates":1,"representation":3,"role":3,"runs":1,"s":14,"science":4,"seeded":1,"seeds":1,"semantics":6,"sense":4,"sentences":1,"serves":1,"set":1,"simultaneously":1,"single":1,"sketch":1,"small":1,"some":1,"source":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"standpoint":1,"stanford":1,"storage":1,"structure":2,"structures":1,"style":1,"submitted":1,"substrate":4,"suffice":1,"sugar":1,"summary":1,"support":2,"symbolic":7,"symbols":1,"system":3,"tags":1,"taker":2,"termination":1,"that":3,"the":40,"their":2,"themselves":1,"then":2,"theorem":1,"theories":1,"theory":4,"this":1,"through":1,"to":10,"towards":3,"tradition":2,"transcended":1,"translates":1,"tree":1,"turing":3,"uniform":2,"universal":7,"unreferenced":1,"unsolvable":1,"url":1,"used":2,"uses":1,"vehicle":1,"via":2,"was":1,"were":1,"what":1,"which":1,"whose":2,"with":5,"work":1,"working":2,"yielding":1,"λ":4}},{"dl":406,"n":"Assigning Meanings to Programs","s":"papers/foundations/assigning-meanings-to-programs","secs":[{"h":"Assigning Meanings to Programs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Robert W. Floyd (1967). *Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics*, Vol. 19, pp. 19-32 (AMS). Source file: `FloydMeaning.pdf`. [URL](https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~necula/Papers/FloydMeaning.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Floyd's foundational paper establishes a rigorous, axiomatic basis for proving properties of programs — correctness, termination, equivalence — by attaching propositions (tags) to the edges of a flowchart. A *verification condition* for each command type guarantees that if the tag on its entrance edge is true when control arrives, then the tag on its exit edge is true when control leaves. Induction over execution then proves global properties like \"if initial values satisfy R1, final values satisfy R2\". The paper defines completeness and consistency of a semantic definition, gives general axioms (axioms 1-4 and corollaries), and derives verification conditions for assignment, conditional branch, join, start, and halt in a simple flowchart language, then extends the approach to fragments of ALGOL. It is a foundational work in axiomatic semantics, directly inspiring Hoare logic."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Interpretation = mapping from flowchart edges to propositions. - Verification condition per command type enforces local soundness. - Global correctness by induction over execution steps. - Semantic definition should be complete and consistent. - Termination proofs by showing a well-founded quantity strictly decreases."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Code as Data]] - [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] — Floyd/Hoare specs as the LLM-era correctness oracle - [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] — semantic-gap diagnostics in a blockchain setting - [[Hoare Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** A programming language's semantics can be defined independently of any implementation by attaching propositions to flowchart edges and constructing per-command verification conditions; global program properties then follow by induction. - **Mechanism:** Flowchart interpretation as a map from edges to propositions; four general axioms governing verification conditions; derivation of V_c for assignment, branch, join, start, halt; extension to an ALGOL subset (conditional, goto, for, compound, declarations); termination via well-founded decreasing quantities. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Axiomatic Semantics]], [[Verification Condition]], [[Strongest Verifiable Consequent]], [[Consistency and Completeness]], [[Inductive Assertions]], [[Termination Proof]] - **Stance:** foundational / formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Direct ancestor of Hoare logic and of every verifiable-semantics move in the vault, including [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] which transports Floyd/Hoare-style program semantics into the ACL-conformance question. Foundational for [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] and reasoning tools in [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"formal-semantics #program-verification #hoare-logic #foundations","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"19":2,"1967":1,"32":1,"4":1,"a":12,"acl":1,"acls":1,"agent":1,"algol":2,"ams":1,"an":1,"ancestor":1,"and":9,"any":1,"applied":1,"approach":2,"arrives":1,"as":3,"assertions":1,"assigning":1,"assignment":2,"attaching":2,"axiomatic":3,"axioms":3,"basis":1,"be":2,"berkeley":1,"blockchain":1,"branch":2,"by":5,"c":1,"can":1,"challenge":1,"claim":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"command":3,"complete":1,"completeness":2,"compound":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":3,"conditional":2,"conditions":3,"conformance":1,"connections":1,"consequent":1,"consistency":2,"consistent":1,"constructing":1,"contracts":1,"contribution":1,"control":2,"corollaries":1,"correctness":3,"data":1,"declarations":1,"decreases":1,"decreasing":1,"defined":1,"defines":1,"definition":2,"derivation":1,"derives":1,"diagnostics":1,"direct":1,"directly":1,"each":1,"edge":2,"edges":4,"edu":1,"eecs":1,"enforces":1,"entrance":1,"equivalence":1,"era":1,"establishes":1,"every":1,"execution":2,"exit":1,"extends":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"final":1,"flowchart":5,"floyd":4,"floydmeaning":1,"follow":1,"for":9,"formal":2,"formalization":1,"foundational":4,"foundations":2,"founded":2,"four":1,"fragments":1,"from":2,"gap":1,"general":2,"gives":1,"global":3,"goto":1,"governing":1,"grand":1,"guarantees":1,"halt":2,"hoare":6,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":2,"implementation":1,"in":6,"including":1,"independently":1,"induction":3,"inductive":1,"initial":1,"inspiring":1,"intent":1,"interpretation":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":3,"it":1,"its":2,"join":2,"key":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"leaves":1,"like":1,"llm":1,"lloyd":1,"local":1,"logic":5,"making":1,"map":1,"mapping":1,"mathematics":1,"meanings":1,"mechanism":1,"metatheoretic":1,"modular":1,"move":1,"necula":1,"of":10,"on":2,"oracle":1,"oriented":1,"over":2,"paper":2,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"people":1,"per":2,"pp":1,"proceedings":1,"program":3,"programming":3,"programs":2,"proof":1,"proofs":1,"properties":3,"propositions":4,"proves":1,"proving":1,"quantities":1,"quantity":1,"question":1,"r1":1,"r2":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliable":1,"rigorous":1,"robert":1,"s":2,"satisfy":2,"semantic":4,"semantics":8,"setting":1,"should":1,"showing":1,"simple":1,"smart":1,"smarter":1,"soundness":1,"source":1,"specs":1,"stance":1,"start":2,"steps":1,"strictly":1,"strongest":1,"style":1,"subset":1,"summary":1,"symposia":1,"tag":2,"tags":2,"termination":4,"that":1,"the":8,"then":4,"to":9,"tools":1,"transports":1,"true":2,"type":2,"url":1,"used":1,"v":1,"values":2,"vault":1,"verifiable":4,"verification":7,"via":1,"vol":1,"w":1,"well":2,"when":2,"which":1,"work":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":1015,"n":"The Society of Mind","s":"papers/foundations/the-society-of-mind","secs":[{"h":"The Society of Mind","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Marvin Minsky (1986). *Simon & Schuster (Touchstone)*. ISBN 0-671-65713-5. Source file: `minsky-society-of-mind.pdf`. [URL](https://archive.org/details/marvin-minsky-the-society-of-mind)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Minsky's landmark synthesis: **mind is built from many small agents each of which by itself can only do very simple things**, yet collectively — through the right kinds of organisation — give rise to intelligence. Thirty short chapters (each a few pages of essays numbered by subsection) develop a cognitive architecture in which no single agent is conscious, no single agent thinks, and no single agent understands — understanding is always a property of a *society of agents* working together. The book ranges across agent theory (agents and agencies, hierarchies and heterarchies), memory (K-lines as activatable sets of agents that were co-active when something was learned), introspection (B-brains watching A-brains watching the world), language (polynemes, isonomes, micronemes, pronomes as classes of inter-agent signals), frames (trans-frames for actions, scripts for scenes), reasoning (chains, uniframes, negation), emotion and development (attachment learning, Papert's principle), individuality (no unified self — an illusion produced by conflicting agencies), and consciousness (a coarse-grained access to the immediately prior mental state). Across all of it the architectural thesis is the same: *agencies, not agents, do the work; and the agencies are themselves agencies all the way down.* As a cognitive-architecture proposal the book is a precise anti-unitarian manifesto — against the idea that there is a single central \"thinker\", a single logical reasoner, or a single goal-pursuing executive. It is also the philosophical wellspring of modern **multi-agent AI**: Shoham's Agent-Oriented Programming, Wooldridge & Jennings' agent theory, the BDI tradition, and today's [[LLM Agents]] frameworks (MetaGPT, CAMEL, AutoGen, AGENTS) all descend from — and often explicitly cite — this picture."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Agents and agencies:** the mind is a society; each agent is a specialist that knows little on its own; intelligence is organisational - **Parts and wholes:** a mind has no single \"centre\"; every whole is made of parts that are themselves wholes of smaller parts - **Hierarchies and heterarchies:** not pure trees — agencies form overlapping networks with mutual reciprocity - **K-lines:** Minsky's theory of memory — a memory is a K-line that, when activated, re-arouses the set of agents whose joint activity earlier constituted the experience - **B-brains and levels of introspection:** a brain that watches another brain (and so on); the basis of self-knowledge, but also of systematic error - **Frames and trans-frames:** structured templates for objects and actions; trans-frames carry the *origin/trajectory/destination* pattern that underwrites verbs and planning - **Polynemes / isonomes / micronemes / pronomes:** categories of inter-agent signals — the 'language' in which agencies speak to each other - **Papert's Principle:** genuine mental growth depends less on acquiring new skills than on acquiring better managerial agents that coordinate old ones - **Uniframes and the Exception Principle:** concepts are unified by exceptions-as-features, not by defining necessary-and-sufficient conditions - **The self as society:** personal identity is the persistent organisation of one's agencies, not a unitary soul or homunculus - **No sharp line between reasoning and perception:** they are the same agency-activation process with different inputs"},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — McCarthy's companion stance on design-stance mentalism - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] — Wooldridge & Jennings' weak/strong agency taxonomy - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] — Shoham's first-class \"agent\" abstraction descends from Minsky's - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[BDI]] - [[Mental State]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell's complementary stratification - [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] — Levin's scale-free generalisation of the individual-as-society idea - [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] — the complication-threshold thesis is a direct ancestor - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[MetaGPT Meta Programming for Multi-Agent Collaboration]] - [[CAMEL Communicative Agents for Mind Exploration of LLM Society]] - [[AutoGen - Multi-Agent Conversation Framework]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Ethical Governor]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Subsumption Architecture]] - [[Semantic Information Processing]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":53,"t":"- **Claim:** Minds — human or artificial — are built from many simple specialist agents whose organised interactions produce intelligence. There is no single locus of thought, understanding, or selfhood; all mental phenomena are *agency-level* properties that dissolve if you look for them at the single-agent level. - **Mechanism:** Thirty small chapters each arguing from introspective examples, developmental psychology, and computational thought-experiments to commit to a specific architectural hypothesis — K-lines for memory, trans-frames for action, pronomes/polynemes for inter-agent signalling, B-brains for introspection, Papert's principle for growth, the exception principle for concepts. No single chapter is decisive; the book's force is cumulative. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Society of Mind]], [[Agents (Minsky)]], [[Agencies]], [[K-Lines]], [[Trans-Frames]], [[Pronomes]], [[Polynemes]], [[Isonomes]], [[Micronemes]], [[B-brains]], [[Papert's Principle]], [[Uniframes]], [[Difference-Engines]], [[Frames (AI)]], [[Exception Principle]], [[Investment Principle]], [[Society-of-More]] - **Stance:** foundational / essay - **Relates to:** Minsky's book is the direct ancestor of the [[Multi-Agent Systems]] paradigm. [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]], [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] all inherit the agent-as-specialist framing. The modern LLM-agent revival ([[MetaGPT Meta Programming for Multi-Agent Collaboration]], [[CAMEL Communicative Agents for Mind Exploration of LLM Society]] — note the name! — [[AutoGen - Multi-Agent Conversation Framework]], [[The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents]]) explicitly returns to the Society-of-Mind idiom: competence emerges from *societies* of small specialists talking to each other, not from a single monolithic model. B-brains prefigure the runtime self-oversight loop of [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] and the [[Metacognitive Loop]] / [[Ethical Governor]]. The anti-unitarian account of the self sits beside [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] (Levin) and the scale-free-cognition programme. Read alongside [[The Knowledge Level]]: Newell describes *what* such a system means at the agent level; Minsky gives a candidate *how*."},{"h":"Tags","l":60,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #multi-agent #cognitive-architecture #minsky #society-of-mind #ai-classics","l":61,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1986":1,"5":1,"65713":1,"671":1,"a":25,"abstraction":1,"access":1,"account":1,"acquiring":2,"across":2,"action":1,"actions":2,"activatable":1,"activated":1,"activation":1,"active":1,"activity":1,"adaptive":1,"against":1,"agencies":10,"agency":3,"agent":27,"agents":21,"ai":4,"al":1,"all":5,"alongside":1,"also":2,"always":1,"an":1,"ancestor":2,"and":28,"another":1,"anti":2,"architectural":2,"architecture":4,"archive":1,"are":6,"arguing":1,"arouses":1,"artificial":1,"as":7,"ascribing":1,"at":2,"attachment":1,"autogen":3,"automata":1,"autonomous":1,"b":5,"based":2,"basis":1,"bdi":2,"behaviour":2,"beside":1,"better":1,"between":1,"book":4,"boundary":2,"brain":2,"brains":6,"built":2,"but":1,"by":5,"camel":3,"can":1,"candidate":1,"carry":1,"categories":1,"central":1,"centre":1,"chains":1,"chapter":1,"chapters":2,"cite":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"classics":1,"co":1,"coarse":1,"cognition":1,"cognitive":3,"collaboration":3,"collectively":1,"commit":1,"common":1,"communicative":2,"companion":1,"competence":1,"complementary":1,"complication":1,"computational":3,"concepts":3,"conceptual":1,"conditions":1,"conflicting":1,"connections":1,"conscious":1,"consciousness":1,"constituted":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":2,"coordinate":1,"cumulative":1,"decisive":1,"defining":1,"depends":1,"descend":1,"descends":1,"describes":1,"design":1,"destination":1,"details":1,"develop":1,"development":1,"developmental":1,"difference":1,"different":1,"direct":2,"dissolve":1,"do":3,"down":1,"each":6,"earlier":1,"emerges":1,"emotion":1,"engines":1,"ensuring":2,"error":1,"essay":1,"essays":1,"et":1,"ethical":4,"every":1,"examples":1,"exception":3,"exceptions":1,"executive":1,"experience":1,"experiments":1,"explicitly":2,"exploration":2,"fail":1,"features":1,"few":1,"file":1,"first":1,"for":15,"force":1,"form":1,"foundational":2,"frames":8,"framework":3,"frameworks":1,"framing":1,"free":2,"from":7,"fungi":1,"games":1,"generalisation":1,"genuine":1,"give":1,"gives":1,"goal":1,"governor":2,"grained":1,"growth":2,"has":1,"heterarchies":2,"hierarchies":2,"homunculus":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"hypothesis":1,"idea":2,"ideas":1,"identity":1,"idiom":1,"if":1,"illusion":1,"immediately":1,"in":5,"individual":1,"individuality":1,"information":1,"inherit":1,"inputs":1,"inspired":1,"intelligence":3,"intelligent":4,"inter":3,"interactions":1,"introduced":1,"introspection":3,"introspective":1,"investment":1,"is":18,"isbn":1,"isonomes":3,"it":2,"its":1,"itself":1,"jennings":2,"joint":1,"k":5,"key":1,"kinds":1,"knowledge":3,"knows":1,"landmark":1,"language":3,"learned":1,"learning":1,"less":1,"level":5,"levels":1,"levin":2,"line":2,"lines":4,"little":1,"llm":7,"locus":1,"logical":3,"look":1,"loop":3,"machines":1,"made":1,"managerial":1,"manifesto":1,"many":2,"marvin":2,"mccarthy":1,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":4,"mental":5,"mentalism":1,"meta":2,"metacognitive":2,"metagpt":3,"micronemes":3,"mind":10,"minds":1,"minsky":9,"model":1,"modern":2,"monolithic":1,"more":1,"multi":10,"multiagent":2,"mutual":1,"myconet":1,"name":1,"necessary":1,"negation":1,"networks":1,"new":1,"newell":2,"no":8,"not":5,"note":1,"numbered":1,"objects":1,"of":37,"often":1,"old":1,"on":5,"one":1,"ones":1,"only":1,"or":4,"org":1,"organisation":2,"organisational":1,"organised":1,"oriented":3,"origin":1,"other":2,"overlapping":1,"overlay":1,"oversight":1,"own":1,"pages":1,"papert":4,"paradigm":1,"parts":3,"pattern":1,"perception":1,"persistent":1,"personal":1,"phenomena":1,"philosophical":1,"picture":1,"planning":1,"polynemes":4,"potential":2,"practice":2,"precise":1,"prefigure":1,"principle":8,"prior":1,"process":1,"processing":1,"produce":1,"produced":1,"programme":1,"programming":5,"pronomes":4,"properties":1,"property":1,"proposal":1,"psychology":1,"pure":1,"pursuing":1,"qualities":1,"ranges":1,"re":1,"read":1,"reasoner":1,"reasoning":3,"reciprocity":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reproducing":1,"returns":1,"revival":1,"right":1,"rise":3,"robots":1,"runtime":1,"s":16,"same":2,"scale":2,"scenes":1,"schuster":1,"scripts":1,"self":9,"selfhood":1,"semantic":1,"sense":1,"set":1,"sets":1,"sharp":1,"shoham":2,"short":1,"signalling":1,"signals":2,"simon":1,"simple":2,"single":11,"sits":1,"skills":1,"small":3,"smaller":1,"so":1,"societies":1,"society":12,"something":1,"soul":1,"source":1,"speak":1,"specialist":3,"specialists":1,"specific":1,"stance":3,"state":2,"stratification":1,"strong":1,"structured":1,"subsection":1,"subsumption":1,"such":1,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"sycara":2,"synthesis":1,"system":1,"systematic":1,"systems":6,"tags":1,"talking":1,"taxonomy":1,"templates":1,"than":1,"that":9,"the":46,"them":1,"themselves":2,"theory":6,"there":2,"thesis":2,"they":1,"things":1,"thinker":1,"thinks":1,"thirty":2,"this":1,"thought":2,"threshold":1,"through":1,"to":9,"today":1,"together":1,"touchstone":1,"tradition":1,"trajectory":1,"trans":5,"trees":1,"trustworthy":2,"tunkel":1,"understanding":2,"understands":1,"underwrites":1,"unified":2,"uniframes":3,"unitarian":2,"unitary":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verbs":1,"very":1,"was":1,"wasif":1,"watches":1,"watching":2,"way":1,"weak":1,"wellspring":1,"were":1,"what":1,"when":2,"which":3,"whole":1,"wholes":2,"whose":2,"why":1,"with":2,"wooldridge":2,"work":1,"working":1,"world":1,"yet":1,"you":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":696,"n":"Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning","s":"papers/foundations/circumscription---a-form-of-nonmonotonic-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning (1980)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1980). \"Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning.\" *Artificial Intelligence* 13(1-2): 27-39. The author-hosted PDF (2004 reformatting) adds a 1996 addendum; file is `mccarthy-circumscription1980.pdf`. Disambiguated from the 1986 sequel [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] which introduces formula circumscription and the abnormality predicate. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/circumscription/circumscription.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy's landmark treatment of the *qualification problem*: any common-sense rule (e.g. \"a rowboat can be used to cross a river\") is subject to an open-ended list of possible defeaters (no oars, a leak, cannibals, a sea monster) that cannot plausibly be enumerated in advance. Standard first-order logic is monotonic — adding premises never removes conclusions — so it cannot support the everyday inference \"no defeater mentioned, therefore none present.\" Circumscription is a formally specified *rule of conjecture* that licenses jumping to the conclusion that the objects (or tuples) shown to satisfy a predicate P are the *only* ones that do. Adding a sentence \"There is a bridge upstream\" then legitimately retracts the original conclusion — non-monotonicity is thus built in at the rule-of-conjecture level, not by weakening the logic itself. The paper explains predicate circumscription, shows how domain circumscription (minimal inference) is a special case, works through the missionaries-and-cannibals puzzle to show how circumscription blocks sea-monster-style pedantry, and connects the technique to default reasoning (Reiter), to `THNOT` in MICROPLANNER (Sussman et al.), and to McCarthy's broader project of formalising common-sense knowledge in logic. Together with *Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines* and *First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions*, this is one of the three pillars of McCarthy's logicist programme. Its non-monotonic commitment is directly inherited by the CBCL proposal (partial-understanding messages) and by Elephant 2000's treatment of commitments and speech-act preconditions."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- The qualification problem: common-sense rules have unbounded implicit preconditions that cannot be enumerated. - Monotonicity of FOL is the obstacle; circumscription is a rule of conjecture over FOL, not a modification of its proof theory. - Predicate circumscription: the tuples shown to satisfy P are all the tuples that do. - Domain circumscription (minimal inference) subsumed as a special case. - Non-monotonicity at the level of conjecture rather than entailment — new facts retract conjectures without breaking soundness of FOL. - \"Common-sense knowledge must be expressed in a form that says a boat crosses rivers *unless* something prevents it\" — ontology must admit prevention-entities."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — philosophical companion; circumscription is the formal tool for the ascriptive logicist programme argued for there. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] — shares the methodology of extending expressive power without abandoning first-order logic. - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — Elephant's commitments and speech-act preconditions are governed by defeasible, common-sense rules of exactly the kind circumscription was designed to formalise. - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] — negation-as-failure in logic programming is a close cousin of circumscription. - [[Common Business Communication Language]] — CBCL's ADJECTIVE construct and partial-understanding fallback are predicated on non-monotonic reading."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Common-sense reasoning requires non-monotonic inference, and this can be supplied to ordinary first-order logic by a rule of conjecture (circumscription) without modifying the logic itself. - **Mechanism:** Predicate circumscription schema: from a set of facts A mentioning P, conjecture that the only tuples satisfying P are those whose satisfaction follows from A. Domain circumscription as minimal-model inference. Combination with ordinary FOL rules of inference. Explicit introduction into the ontology of prevention-entities (\"something wrong with the boat\"). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Circumscription]], [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]], [[Qualification Problem]], [[Default Reasoning]], [[Minimal Model]], [[Common Sense Reasoning]], [[Rule of Conjecture]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** One of the three McCarthy pillars alongside [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] and [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]; provides the defeasibility semantics that [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] needs for commitment revision and [[Common Business Communication Language]] needs for partial-understanding messaging."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #non-monotonic #common-sense #knowledge-representation #logic","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"13":1,"1980":2,"1986":1,"1996":1,"2":1,"2000":3,"2004":1,"27":1,"39":1,"a":24,"abandoning":1,"abnormality":1,"act":2,"acts":2,"addendum":1,"adding":2,"adds":1,"adjective":1,"admit":1,"advance":1,"al":1,"all":1,"alongside":1,"an":1,"and":15,"any":1,"applications":1,"are":5,"argued":1,"articles":1,"artificial":1,"as":3,"ascribing":3,"ascriptive":1,"at":2,"author":1,"based":2,"be":5,"blocks":1,"boat":2,"breaking":1,"bridge":1,"broader":1,"built":1,"business":2,"by":5,"can":2,"cannibals":2,"cannot":3,"case":2,"cbcl":2,"circumscription":20,"claim":1,"close":1,"combination":1,"commitment":2,"commitments":2,"common":12,"communication":2,"companion":1,"concepts":4,"conceptual":1,"conclusion":2,"conclusions":1,"conjecture":7,"conjectures":1,"connections":1,"connects":1,"construct":1,"contribution":1,"cousin":1,"cross":1,"crosses":1,"default":2,"defeasibility":1,"defeasible":1,"defeater":1,"defeaters":1,"designed":1,"directly":1,"disambiguated":1,"do":2,"domain":3,"e":1,"edu":1,"elephant":4,"ended":1,"entailment":1,"entities":2,"enumerated":2,"et":1,"everyday":1,"exactly":1,"explains":1,"explicit":1,"expressed":1,"expressive":1,"extending":1,"facts":2,"failure":1,"fallback":1,"file":1,"first":6,"fol":4,"follows":1,"for":4,"form":3,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"formalising":1,"formalizing":1,"formally":1,"formula":1,"foundational":2,"foundations":1,"from":3,"g":1,"governed":1,"have":1,"hosted":1,"how":2,"http":1,"ideas":1,"implicit":1,"in":6,"individual":3,"inference":6,"inherited":1,"intelligence":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"introduction":1,"is":13,"it":2,"its":2,"itself":2,"jmc":1,"john":1,"jumping":1,"key":1,"kind":1,"knowledge":5,"landmark":1,"language":4,"leak":1,"legitimately":1,"level":2,"licenses":1,"list":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":9,"logicist":2,"machines":3,"mccarthy":6,"mechanism":1,"mental":3,"mentioned":1,"mentioning":1,"messages":1,"messaging":1,"methodology":1,"microplanner":1,"minimal":4,"missionaries":1,"model":2,"modification":1,"modifying":1,"monotonic":8,"monotonicity":3,"monster":2,"must":2,"needs":2,"negation":1,"never":1,"new":1,"no":2,"non":9,"none":1,"not":2,"oars":1,"objects":1,"obstacle":1,"of":28,"on":3,"one":2,"ones":1,"only":2,"ontology":2,"open":1,"or":1,"order":6,"ordinary":2,"original":1,"over":1,"p":4,"paper":1,"partial":3,"pdf":2,"pedantry":1,"philosophical":1,"pillars":2,"plausibly":1,"possible":1,"power":1,"preconditions":3,"predicate":5,"predicated":1,"premises":1,"present":1,"prevention":2,"prevents":1,"problem":3,"programme":2,"programming":4,"project":1,"proof":1,"proposal":1,"propositions":3,"provides":1,"puzzle":1,"qualification":3,"qualities":3,"rather":1,"reading":1,"reasoning":8,"reference":1,"reformatting":1,"reiter":1,"relates":1,"removes":1,"representation":2,"requires":1,"retract":1,"retracts":1,"revision":1,"river":1,"rivers":1,"rowboat":1,"rule":6,"rules":3,"s":6,"satisfaction":1,"satisfy":2,"satisfying":1,"says":1,"schema":1,"sea":2,"semantics":1,"sense":10,"sentence":1,"sequel":1,"set":1,"shares":1,"show":1,"shown":2,"shows":1,"so":1,"something":2,"soundness":1,"special":2,"specified":1,"speech":4,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stanford":1,"style":1,"subject":1,"subsumed":1,"summary":1,"supplied":1,"support":1,"sussman":1,"tags":1,"technique":1,"than":1,"that":9,"the":31,"then":1,"theories":3,"theory":1,"there":2,"therefore":1,"this":2,"those":1,"three":2,"through":1,"thus":1,"to":16,"together":1,"tool":1,"treatment":2,"tuples":4,"unbounded":1,"understanding":3,"unless":1,"upstream":1,"url":1,"used":2,"was":1,"weakening":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"with":3,"without":3,"works":1,"wrong":1}},{"dl":787,"n":"A Framework for Representing Knowledge","s":"papers/foundations/a-framework-for-representing-knowledge","secs":[{"h":"A Framework for Representing Knowledge","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"- Minsky, Marvin (1974). \"A Framework for Representing Knowledge.\" MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, June 1974. Reprinted in P. Winston (Ed.), *The Psychology of Computer Vision*, McGraw-Hill 1975; shorter versions in Haugeland (ed.) *Mind Design*, MIT Press 1981, and in Collins & Smith (eds.) *Cognitive Science*, Morgan-Kaufmann 1992. - PDF: [courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Minsky%201974%20Framework%20for%20knowledge.pdf](https://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Minsky%201974%20Framework%20for%20knowledge.pdf) - MIT DSpace: [dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6089](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6089) - Local: `minsky1974_frames.pdf`"},{"h":"Summary","l":9,"t":"Minsky argues that the \"chunks\" of reasoning, language, memory, and perception must be larger and more structured than the fine-grained representations (logical predicates, production rules, semantic nets of atoms) favored by then-contemporary AI and psychology. He proposes the *frame* as a data structure for representing a stereotyped situation — being in a certain kind of living room, attending a birthday party, viewing a cube from an angle. A frame has fixed top-level facts about the situation plus *terminals* (slots) that must be filled by specific instances meeting marker conditions; slots carry *default assignments* that are easily displaced by better-fitting data. Frames are grouped into *frame-systems* whose members share terminals and whose transformations represent actions, cause-effect relations, or shifts of viewpoint (e.g., walking around a room: different visual frames share identity of the objects seen). Frame-systems are linked by an information-retrieval network that proposes replacement frames when matching fails. The theory covers visual scene analysis, linguistic understanding (discourse and story frames), memory and analogy, and default/non-monotonic reasoning — all as instances of selecting a frame, matching it against the situation, and repairing the match when surprises occur. The apology in the paper is explicit: Minsky proposes representations without fully specifying the processes that use them, and he admits the basic frame idea is in the Bartlett \"schema\" / Kuhn \"paradigm\" tradition. The novelty is the frame-*system* and the integration of defaults, expectations, markers, and a retrieval network into a single architecture for common-sense thought. The paper closes Part 1 with vision and imagery; later parts address language, memory, control, and an appendix arguing that traditional logic is unsuited to realistic approximations."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":16,"t":"- **Frame**: structured data-stereotype for a recurring situation, with fixed top-level and slotted terminals. - **Terminal markers**: constraints (person / object of sufficient value / sub-frame of a kind) on what may fill a slot. - **Default assignments**: terminals normally pre-filled, easily displaced; supports reasoning by example and non-monotonic inference. - **Frame-systems and shared terminals**: different frames of the same system describe a scene from different viewpoints; transformations among frames model action, perspective, causation. - **Matching and replacement**: an information-retrieval network offers alternative frames when the current frame fails; surprises drive learning. - **Top-down expectation over bottom-up data**: perception and language understanding are guided by expectations from proposed frames. - **Against purely logical representation**: common sense needs approximation and default reasoning, not quantified certainty."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Frames (AI)]] — this is the founding document. - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's later book generalizes the many-small-structures intuition; frames become agents. - [[Trans-Frames]] — later Minsky concept building on frame-system transformations for actions and causes. - [[Knowledge Representation]] — frames are one of the big three paradigms alongside logic and semantic nets. - [[Ontologies]], [[Handbook On Ontologies]] — class/slot/default structure of frames is ancestral to object-oriented ontology languages (KL-ONE, F-Logic, OWL classes). - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]], [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] — frame-style slot-and-filler vocabulary. - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] — shared terminals are conceptually parallel to shared performative slots. - [[Semantic Web]] — RDF/OWL frame-like class modelling traces to this paper. - Contrast with [[Intelligence Without Representation]] — Brooks's opposite pole on whether structured representations are even needed. - [[Abnormality Predicate]] — default reasoning formalized later by McCarthy."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":37,"t":"> Minsky replaces atomistic, logic-style representation with *pre-packaged chunks of expectation*. The conceptual shift — that understanding a novel situation is recognizing it as a variant of a stored stereotype, filling defaults, and repairing mismatches — gave AI and cognitive science a single scaffolding for perception, language, analogy, memory, and common sense. Every subsequent representational technology that lets you say \"a Meeting has an organizer, a list of attendees (default: empty), a location (default: office), and when attendees don't match, try the Teleconference frame\" is walking in Minsky's footprints. For agent communication, frames underwrite the assumption that speech-act types have slots with expected fillers and defaults, which is exactly the structure KQML and FIPA-ACL messages inherit."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"knowledge-representation #frames #Minsky #common-sense #default-reasoning #schema #foundational #cognitive-architecture","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":3,"1721":2,"1974":2,"1975":1,"1981":1,"1992":1,"2004spring":2,"201974":2,"20for":2,"20framework":2,"20knowledge":2,"306":1,"6089":2,"a":24,"abnormality":1,"about":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"act":1,"action":1,"actions":2,"address":1,"admits":1,"against":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"ai":4,"all":1,"alongside":1,"alternative":1,"among":1,"an":5,"analogy":2,"analysis":1,"ancestral":1,"and":29,"angle":1,"apology":1,"appendix":1,"approximation":1,"approximations":1,"architecture":2,"are":7,"argues":1,"arguing":1,"around":1,"as":3,"assignments":2,"assumption":1,"atomistic":1,"atoms":1,"attendees":2,"attending":1,"bartlett":1,"basic":1,"be":2,"become":1,"being":1,"better":1,"big":1,"birthday":1,"book":1,"bottom":1,"brooks":1,"building":1,"by":7,"carry":1,"causation":1,"cause":1,"causes":1,"certain":1,"certainty":1,"chunks":2,"class":2,"classes":1,"closes":1,"cognitive":3,"collins":1,"common":5,"communication":1,"computer":1,"concept":1,"conceptual":2,"conceptually":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"constraints":1,"contemporary":1,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"courses":2,"covers":1,"cube":1,"current":1,"data":4,"default":9,"defaults":3,"describe":1,"design":2,"different":3,"discourse":1,"displaced":2,"document":1,"don":1,"down":1,"drive":1,"dspace":3,"e":1,"easily":2,"ed":2,"eds":1,"edu":4,"effect":1,"empty":1,"even":1,"every":1,"exactly":1,"example":1,"expectation":2,"expectations":2,"expected":1,"explicit":1,"f":1,"facts":1,"fails":2,"favored":1,"fill":1,"filled":2,"filler":1,"fillers":1,"filling":1,"fine":1,"fipa":1,"fitting":1,"fixed":2,"footprints":1,"for":10,"formalized":1,"foundational":1,"founding":1,"frame":15,"frames":15,"framework":2,"from":3,"fully":1,"g":1,"gave":1,"generalizes":1,"grained":1,"grouped":1,"guided":1,"handbook":1,"handle":2,"has":2,"haugeland":1,"have":1,"he":2,"hill":1,"https":2,"idea":1,"ideas":1,"identity":1,"imagery":1,"in":7,"inference":1,"information":2,"inherit":1,"instances":2,"integration":1,"intelligence":1,"into":2,"intuition":1,"is":9,"it":2,"june":1,"kaufmann":1,"key":1,"kind":2,"kl":1,"knowledge":5,"kqml":1,"kuhn":1,"laboratory":1,"language":4,"languages":1,"larger":1,"later":4,"learning":1,"lets":1,"level":2,"like":1,"linguistic":1,"linked":1,"list":1,"living":1,"local":1,"location":1,"logic":4,"logical":2,"many":1,"marker":1,"markers":2,"marvin":1,"mas966":2,"match":2,"matching":3,"may":1,"mccarthy":1,"mcgraw":1,"media":2,"meeting":2,"members":1,"memo":1,"memory":4,"messages":1,"mind":2,"minsky":10,"mismatches":1,"mit":7,"model":1,"modelling":1,"monotonic":2,"more":1,"morgan":1,"must":2,"needed":1,"needs":1,"nets":2,"network":3,"non":2,"normally":1,"not":1,"novel":1,"novelty":1,"object":2,"objects":1,"occur":1,"of":19,"offers":1,"office":1,"on":4,"one":2,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":3,"ontology":3,"opposite":1,"or":1,"organizer":1,"oriented":1,"over":1,"owl":2,"p":1,"packaged":1,"paper":3,"paradigm":1,"paradigms":1,"parallel":1,"part":1,"parts":1,"party":1,"pdf":3,"perception":3,"performative":1,"person":1,"perspective":1,"plus":1,"pole":1,"portable":1,"pre":2,"predicate":1,"predicates":1,"press":1,"principles":1,"processes":1,"production":1,"proposed":1,"proposes":3,"psychology":2,"purely":1,"quantified":1,"rdf":1,"realistic":1,"reasoning":6,"recognizing":1,"recurring":1,"reference":1,"relations":1,"repairing":2,"replacement":2,"replaces":1,"represent":1,"representation":5,"representational":1,"representations":3,"representing":3,"reprinted":1,"retrieval":3,"room":2,"rules":1,"s":3,"same":1,"say":1,"scaffolding":1,"scene":2,"schema":2,"science":2,"seen":1,"selecting":1,"semantic":3,"sense":4,"share":2,"shared":3,"sharing":1,"shift":1,"shifts":1,"shorter":1,"single":2,"situation":5,"slot":3,"slots":4,"slotted":1,"small":1,"smith":1,"society":1,"specific":1,"specifications":1,"specifying":1,"speech":1,"stereotype":2,"stereotyped":1,"stored":1,"story":1,"structure":3,"structured":3,"structures":1,"style":2,"sub":1,"subsequent":1,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"supports":1,"surprises":2,"system":3,"systems":3,"t":1,"tags":1,"technology":1,"teleconference":1,"terminal":1,"terminals":6,"than":1,"that":9,"the":29,"them":1,"then":1,"theory":1,"this":2,"thought":1,"three":1,"to":4,"top":3,"toward":1,"traces":1,"tradition":1,"traditional":1,"trans":1,"transformations":3,"try":1,"types":1,"understanding":3,"underwrite":1,"unsuited":1,"up":1,"use":1,"used":1,"value":1,"variant":1,"versions":1,"viewing":1,"viewpoint":1,"viewpoints":1,"vision":2,"visual":2,"vocabulary":1,"walking":2,"web":1,"what":1,"when":4,"whether":1,"which":1,"whose":2,"winston":1,"with":5,"without":2,"you":1}},{"dl":809,"n":"Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge","s":"papers/foundations/circumscription---applications-to-formalizing-common-sense-knowledge","secs":[{"h":"Circumscription — Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1986). \"Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge.\" *Artificial Intelligence* 28(1): 89-116. Source file: `mccarthy-applications1986.pdf`. Sequel to the 1980 paper; see [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] for the original formulation and motivation. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/applications/applications.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The 1986 sequel that supersedes the technical machinery of McCarthy's 1980 *Circumscription* paper. Where the 1980 paper introduced *predicate* and *domain* circumscription as rules of conjecture for handling the qualification problem, this paper presents a new, more *symmetric* version — now called *formula circumscription* — and shows how it, together with a uniform abnormality predicate `ab`, can formalise a wide range of common-sense reasoning tasks: *is-a* hierarchies with exceptions, the unique-names hypothesis, the *frame problem* (via circumscribing abnormality-of-fluents rather than asserting individual frame axioms), and defeasible defaults. The central methodological move is to express a typical common-sense rule as \"normally, P\" — formalised as `∀x. ¬ab(aspect₁(x)) ⊃ P(x)` — and then *circumscribe `ab`* relative to the known facts, with certain other predicates and functions allowed to *vary* during the minimisation. Allowing predicates other than the one being minimised to vary was the key technical gap in the 1980 formulation; it is what lets circumscription express the frame problem properly (the `ab` predicate is circumscribed while the fluent values are varied), and what makes prioritised and parallel circumscriptions possible. Birds-fly/Tweety, blocks-on-blocks, and other benchmark examples are worked out in detail. Alongside [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] and [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]], this is the paper that consolidates McCarthy's logicist programme for common-sense knowledge into a concrete technical agenda: formalise in sorted first-order logic, add concepts-as-individuals where modality is needed, use circumscription (over `ab`) to handle defaults and the frame problem, and build large reusable common-sense databases. It is the paper cited in the ACL/agent-communication literature whenever \"McCarthy on circumscription\" is invoked as a foundation for defeasible agent reasoning."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- *Formula circumscription* generalises predicate circumscription: circumscribe a formula with some predicates and functions allowed to vary. - The *abnormality predicate* `ab` provides a uniform idiom: \"normally P\" becomes `¬ab(aspect(x)) ⊃ P(x)`, and the formalisation is combined with `ab` being circumscribed. - Solves the *frame problem* via circumscribing `ab(aspect, action, fluent, situation)` while letting the fluents vary — no more individual frame axioms per (action, fluent) pair. - Is-a hierarchies with exceptions: \"birds fly except when abnormal\", cancellation of inheritance via `ab`. - Unique-names hypothesis stated and circumscribed in the same framework. - *Prioritised circumscription* briefly explored: minimise one abnormality before another. - Supersedes the 1980 paper; references in the literature \"to this paper only would better refer to the latter paper in addition or to the latter paper only\" (quoting McCarthy on the 1980 paper's jmc.stanford.edu page)."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — the 1980 original, whose formalism this paper supersedes while retaining its motivation. - [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] — names the frame problem solved (or at least much reduced) here. - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Circumscription]] - [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Frame Problem]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":44,"t":"- **Claim:** Common-sense knowledge — including default rules, is-a hierarchies with exceptions, the unique-names hypothesis, and (most importantly) the frame problem — can be uniformly formalised by expressing \"normally P\" as `¬ab(aspect) ⊃ P`, then circumscribing `ab` while allowing other relevant predicates and functions to vary. This *formula circumscription* supersedes the 1980 predicate/domain circumscription. - **Mechanism:** Formula circumscription schema: given `A(P;Q)` with P minimised and Q varied, conjoin the second-order sentence stating that no smaller assignment to P (with Q varied accordingly) satisfies `A`. Reduce `A` to first-order form in cases where second-order quantifiers can be eliminated. Uniform use of `ab(aspectᵢ(x))` to carry all defeasibility. Prioritised circumscription for ordering defaults. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Formula Circumscription]], [[Abnormality Predicate]], [[Frame Problem]], [[Default Reasoning]], [[Is-a Hierarchy]], [[Unique Names Hypothesis]], [[Prioritised Circumscription]], [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]], [[Circumscription]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Supersedes [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]]; provides the defeasibility infrastructure on which [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] and [[Common Business Communication Language]] implicitly rely; one of the three McCarthy pillars alongside [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] and [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]; technically addresses the frame problem named in [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] and the default-reasoning open problems listed in [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":51,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #non-monotonic #common-sense #knowledge-representation #circumscription #frame-problem #1986","l":52,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"116":1,"1980":8,"1986":3,"2000":2,"28":1,"89":1,"a":19,"abnormal":1,"abnormality":5,"accordingly":1,"acl":1,"action":1,"acts":2,"add":1,"addition":1,"addresses":1,"agenda":1,"agent":2,"all":1,"allowed":2,"allowing":2,"alongside":2,"and":25,"another":1,"applications":4,"are":2,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"artificial":6,"as":6,"ascribing":3,"asserting":1,"assignment":1,"at":1,"axioms":2,"based":2,"be":2,"becomes":1,"before":1,"being":2,"benchmark":1,"better":1,"birds":2,"blocks":2,"briefly":1,"build":1,"business":2,"by":2,"called":1,"can":3,"cancellation":1,"carry":1,"cases":1,"central":1,"certain":1,"circumscribe":2,"circumscribed":3,"circumscribing":3,"circumscription":23,"circumscriptions":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"combined":1,"common":12,"communication":3,"compiler":1,"computation":2,"concepts":5,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conjecture":1,"conjoin":1,"connections":1,"consolidates":1,"contribution":1,"correctness":1,"databases":1,"default":3,"defaults":3,"defeasibility":2,"defeasible":2,"detail":1,"domain":2,"during":1,"edu":2,"elephant":2,"eliminated":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":2,"examples":1,"except":1,"exceptions":3,"explored":1,"express":2,"expressing":1,"expressions":2,"facts":1,"file":1,"first":5,"fluent":2,"fluents":2,"fly":2,"for":6,"form":4,"formal":1,"formalisation":1,"formalise":2,"formalised":2,"formalism":1,"formalizing":2,"formula":6,"formulation":2,"foundation":1,"foundational":2,"frame":12,"framework":1,"from":2,"functions":4,"gap":1,"generalises":1,"generality":1,"given":1,"handle":1,"handling":1,"here":1,"hierarchies":3,"hierarchy":1,"how":1,"http":1,"hypothesis":4,"ideas":1,"idiom":1,"implicitly":1,"importantly":1,"in":11,"including":1,"individual":5,"individuals":1,"infrastructure":1,"inheritance":1,"intelligence":6,"into":1,"introduced":2,"invoked":1,"is":12,"it":3,"its":1,"jmc":2,"john":1,"key":2,"knowledge":7,"known":1,"language":4,"large":1,"latter":2,"least":1,"lets":1,"letting":1,"level":1,"listed":1,"literature":2,"logic":2,"logicist":1,"machine":1,"machinery":1,"machines":3,"makes":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":7,"mechanism":1,"mental":3,"methodological":1,"mind":1,"minimisation":1,"minimise":1,"minimised":2,"modality":1,"monotonic":3,"more":2,"most":1,"motivation":2,"move":1,"much":1,"named":1,"names":5,"needed":1,"new":1,"no":2,"non":3,"nonmonotonic":3,"normally":3,"now":1,"of":22,"on":6,"one":3,"only":2,"open":1,"or":2,"order":7,"ordering":1,"original":2,"other":4,"out":1,"over":1,"p":5,"page":1,"pair":1,"paper":12,"parallel":1,"pdf":1,"per":1,"philosophical":2,"pillars":1,"possible":1,"predicate":7,"predicates":4,"presents":1,"prioritised":4,"problem":11,"problems":5,"programme":1,"programming":2,"programs":1,"properly":1,"propositions":3,"provides":2,"q":2,"qualification":1,"qualities":3,"quantifiers":1,"quoting":1,"range":1,"rather":1,"reasoning":10,"recursive":1,"reduce":1,"reduced":1,"refer":1,"reference":1,"references":1,"relates":1,"relative":1,"relevant":1,"rely":1,"representation":2,"retaining":1,"reusable":1,"rule":1,"rules":2,"s":3,"same":1,"satisfies":1,"schema":1,"science":1,"second":2,"see":1,"sense":10,"sentence":1,"sequel":2,"shows":1,"smaller":1,"society":1,"solved":1,"solves":1,"some":3,"sorted":1,"source":1,"speech":2,"stance":1,"standpoint":2,"stanford":2,"stated":1,"stating":1,"summary":1,"supersedes":5,"symbolic":1,"symmetric":1,"tags":1,"tasks":1,"technical":3,"technically":1,"than":2,"that":3,"the":45,"their":1,"then":2,"theories":3,"this":5,"three":1,"to":20,"together":1,"towards":1,"tweety":1,"typical":1,"uniform":3,"uniformly":1,"unique":4,"url":1,"use":2,"used":1,"values":1,"varied":3,"vary":5,"verification":1,"version":1,"via":3,"was":1,"what":2,"when":1,"whenever":1,"where":3,"which":1,"while":4,"whose":1,"wide":1,"with":10,"worked":1,"would":1}},{"dl":964,"n":"Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems","s":"papers/foundations/classes-of-recursively-enumerable-sets-and-their-decision-problems","secs":[{"h":"Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Rice, H. G. (1953). *Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems*. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 74(2), 358–366. [DOI 10.2307/1990888](https://doi.org/10.2307/1990888). Based on Rice's 1951 Princeton PhD thesis under Alonzo Church."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A nine-page paper that established one of the most consequential results in computability theory — now universally known as **[[Rice's Theorem]]**. Rice's question: given a class `C` of recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets, is there an effective procedure that, applied to a Gödel number (index) of an r.e. set `W`, decides whether `W ∈ C`? The paper's central result is that the answer is **no** whenever `C` is a *non-trivial* extensional property — i.e. whenever `C` is neither empty nor the whole collection of r.e. sets, and membership in `C` depends only on *which set* is described, not on *how* it is described. Every property of the computed function itself (as opposed to syntactic properties of the program text) is therefore undecidable. The proof is a reduction from the halting problem (Turing's `K`). Rice constructs, for an arbitrary index `i`, a machine whose r.e. set is either a fixed element of `C` or a fixed element of its complement depending on whether `φ_i(i)` halts; a decision procedure for `C` would then decide `K`, which is known impossible. The technique — parametric construction of \"switch\" machines that toggle semantic behaviour based on a halting oracle — is the template used throughout undecidability theory for subsequent results (Rogers' isomorphism theorem, the Myhill isomorphism, the theory of m-reducibility). Beyond the headline theorem, the paper classifies decision problems about r.e. sets by the logical complexity of the class `C`: some non-trivial classes are Σ₁-hard, others Π₁-hard, others fall at higher levels of the arithmetical hierarchy. This classification anticipates the later development of degree theory. The paper is short, elementary, and entirely foundational: it tells us, once and for all, that *semantic* questions about arbitrary programs cannot be answered by mechanical inspection. Every program-analysis, verification, and capability-bounding enterprise since has been organised around the frontier Rice drew — by restricting the class of programs considered, approximating (sound-but-incomplete), or proving properties syntactically rather than semantically."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Theorem B (Rice's Theorem):** for any non-trivial class `C` of r.e. sets, the problem of deciding whether a given r.e. set belongs to `C` is undecidable. - **Extensional vs. intensional properties:** `C` must depend on *what* is computed (the set), not on *how* (the index/program text). Intensional properties (program size, presence of a given opcode) can be decidable. - **Proof by reduction from the halting problem**, via a parametric \"switch\" construction that conditionally produces an element of `C` or its complement depending on whether a reference computation halts. - **Arithmetical hierarchy classification** of classes of r.e. sets by the quantifier complexity of their defining predicates, foreshadowing Kleene's and Rogers' later work. - Implicit corollary: every tool that claims to decide a non-trivial semantic property of arbitrary programs must either (i) restrict the input class, (ii) approximate, or (iii) violate computability."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Rice's Theorem]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[Computability]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[Recursive Function]] - [[Inductive Inference]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Static Analysis]] - [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Program Verification]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":34,"t":"- **Claim:** There is no uniform effective procedure that decides any non-trivial extensional property of recursively enumerable sets; equivalently, every non-trivial semantic property of the partial function computed by an arbitrary program is undecidable. - **Mechanism:** Given a hypothesised decision procedure for a non-trivial class `C`, and a distinguishing pair `A ∈ C`, `B ∉ C`, construct for each index `i` a machine `M_i` that simulates `φ_i(i)` and, if it halts, begins enumerating `A`; otherwise enumerates `B`. The set enumerated by `M_i` is in `C` iff `φ_i(i)` halts, so a decision procedure for `C` would decide the halting problem — contradiction. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Rice's Theorem]], [[Halting Problem]], [[Computability]], [[Recursive Function]], [[Universal Turing Machine]] - **Stance:** foundational theorem paper (computability theory) - **Relates to:** Generalises Turing's halting theorem from the specific property \"halts on input x\" to all non-trivial semantic properties; sets the decidability frontier that all subsequent work in [[Formal Verification]], [[Static Analysis]], and [[LangSec]] ([[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]], [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]]) must respect; directly underwrites the Rice's-theorem argument in [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] that Ethereum's gas mechanism cannot deliver a semantic safety guarantee."},{"h":"Bibliography (Rice 1953)","l":41,"t":"1. [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church, Alonzo. *An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory*, American Journal of Mathematics 58(2) (1936), 345–363. 2. [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] — Gödel, Kurt. *Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I*, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 (1931), 173–198. 3. [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene, Stephen C. *General recursive functions of natural numbers*, Mathematische Annalen 112 (1936), 727–766. 4. [[On Notation for Ordinal Numbers]] — Kleene, Stephen C. *On notation for ordinal numbers*, Journal of Symbolic Logic 3(4) (1938), 150–155. 5. [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] — Kleene, Stephen C. *Recursive predicates and quantifiers*, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 53 (1943), 41–73. 6. [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers]] — Mostowski, Andrzej. *On definable sets of positive integers*, Fundamenta Mathematicae 34 (1946), 81–112. 7. [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] — Post, Emil L. *Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems*, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 50 (1944), 284–316. 8. [[Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church]] — Rosser, J. Barkley. *Extensions of some theorems of Gödel and Church*, Journal of Symbolic Logic 1(3) (1936), 87–91."},{"h":"Tags","l":51,"t":""},{"h":"computability #undecidability #foundational #halting-problem #verification","l":52,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":2,"10":2,"112":2,"150":1,"155":1,"173":1,"1931":1,"1936":3,"1938":1,"1943":1,"1944":1,"1946":1,"1951":1,"1953":2,"198":1,"1990888":2,"2":3,"2307":2,"284":1,"3":3,"316":1,"34":1,"345":1,"358":1,"363":1,"366":1,"38":1,"4":2,"41":1,"5":1,"50":1,"53":1,"58":1,"6":1,"7":1,"727":1,"73":1,"74":1,"766":1,"8":1,"81":1,"87":1,"91":1,"a":21,"about":2,"all":3,"alonzo":2,"american":4,"an":7,"analysis":3,"and":16,"andrzej":1,"annalen":1,"answer":1,"answered":1,"anticipates":1,"any":2,"applications":2,"applied":1,"approximate":1,"approximating":1,"arbitrary":4,"are":1,"argument":1,"arithmetical":2,"around":1,"as":2,"assigning":1,"at":1,"b":1,"barkley":1,"based":2,"be":2,"been":1,"begins":1,"behaviour":1,"belongs":1,"beyond":1,"bibliography":1,"bounding":1,"bulletin":1,"but":1,"by":7,"c":3,"can":1,"cannot":2,"capability":1,"central":1,"church":4,"claim":1,"claims":1,"class":6,"classes":4,"classic":2,"classification":2,"classifies":1,"collection":1,"complement":2,"complexity":2,"computability":6,"computation":1,"computed":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conditionally":1,"connections":1,"consequential":1,"considered":1,"construct":1,"construction":2,"constructs":1,"contradiction":1,"contribution":1,"corollary":1,"decidability":1,"decidable":1,"decide":3,"decides":2,"deciding":1,"decision":8,"definable":2,"defining":1,"degree":1,"deliver":1,"depend":1,"depending":2,"depends":1,"der":2,"described":2,"development":1,"directly":1,"distinguishing":1,"doi":2,"drew":1,"e":9,"each":1,"effective":2,"either":2,"element":3,"elementary":3,"emil":1,"empty":1,"enterprise":1,"entirely":1,"enumerable":6,"enumerated":1,"enumerates":1,"enumerating":1,"equivalently":1,"established":1,"ethereum":3,"every":4,"extensional":3,"extensions":2,"fall":1,"fixed":2,"for":10,"foreshadowing":1,"formal":6,"foundational":3,"from":3,"frontier":2,"function":4,"functions":2,"fundamenta":1,"für":1,"g":1,"gas":1,"general":2,"generalises":1,"given":4,"guarantee":1,"gödel":4,"h":1,"halting":10,"halts":5,"hard":2,"has":1,"headline":1,"hierarchy":2,"higher":1,"house":2,"how":2,"https":1,"hypothesised":1,"i":4,"ideas":1,"if":1,"iff":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"implicit":1,"impossible":1,"in":7,"incomplete":1,"index":4,"inductive":1,"inference":1,"input":2,"insecurity":2,"inspection":1,"integers":4,"intensional":2,"introduced":1,"is":18,"isomorphism":2,"it":3,"its":2,"itself":1,"j":1,"journal":3,"key":1,"kleene":4,"known":2,"kurt":1,"l":1,"langsec":3,"language":2,"later":2,"levels":1,"logic":2,"logical":1,"m":1,"machine":4,"machines":1,"mathematica":2,"mathematicae":1,"mathematical":3,"mathematics":1,"mathematik":1,"mathematische":1,"meanings":1,"mechanical":1,"mechanism":2,"membership":1,"monatshefte":1,"most":1,"mostowski":1,"must":3,"myhill":1,"natural":2,"neither":1,"network":2,"nine":1,"no":2,"non":8,"nor":1,"not":2,"notation":2,"now":1,"number":3,"numbers":4,"of":48,"on":15,"once":1,"one":1,"only":1,"opcode":1,"opposed":1,"or":4,"oracle":1,"ordinal":2,"org":1,"organised":1,"others":2,"otherwise":1,"page":1,"pair":1,"paper":5,"parametric":2,"partial":1,"phd":1,"physik":1,"positive":4,"post":1,"predicates":3,"presence":1,"princeton":1,"principia":2,"problem":9,"problems":7,"procedure":5,"produces":1,"program":6,"programs":4,"proof":2,"properties":5,"property":6,"proving":1,"quantifier":1,"quantifiers":2,"question":1,"questions":1,"r":8,"rather":1,"recursive":6,"recursively":6,"reducibility":1,"reduction":2,"reference":2,"relates":1,"respect":1,"restrict":1,"restricting":1,"result":1,"results":2,"rice":11,"rock":2,"rogers":2,"rosser":1,"s":12,"safety":1,"security":2,"semantic":6,"semantically":1,"set":6,"sets":13,"short":1,"simulates":1,"since":1,"size":1,"so":1,"society":3,"some":3,"sound":1,"specific":1,"stack":2,"stance":1,"static":2,"stephen":3,"subsequent":2,"summary":1,"switch":2,"symbolic":2,"syntactic":1,"syntactically":1,"systeme":2,"sätze":2,"tags":1,"technique":1,"tells":1,"template":1,"text":2,"than":1,"that":11,"the":38,"their":5,"then":1,"theorem":10,"theorems":2,"theory":9,"there":2,"therefore":1,"thesis":1,"this":1,"throughout":1,"to":7,"toggle":1,"tool":1,"transactions":2,"trivial":8,"turing":4,"und":3,"undecidability":2,"undecidable":3,"under":1,"underwrites":1,"unentscheidbare":2,"uniform":1,"universal":2,"universally":1,"unsolvable":2,"us":1,"used":2,"verification":5,"verwandter":2,"via":1,"violate":1,"vs":1,"what":1,"whenever":2,"whether":4,"which":2,"whole":1,"whose":1,"work":2,"would":2,"x":1,"über":2,"π₁":1,"σ₁":1}},{"dl":831,"n":"Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence","s":"papers/foundations/epistemological-fault-lines-between-human-and-artificial-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Quattrociocchi, W., Capraro, V., & Perc, M. (2025). *Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence*. arXiv:2512.19466v1 [cs.CY]. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19466)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper argues that the surface-level alignment between LLM outputs and human judgment masks a deep **structural mismatch** in how the two arrive at their answers. Tracing a historical shift from symbolic AI and information-retrieval systems — which treated language as a vehicle for explicit propositional content — to large-scale generative transformers, the authors observe that LLMs do not \"reason under beliefs about the world\" but rather perform stochastic pattern-completion over high-dimensional embeddings of linguistic transitions. The appearance of rationality is a by-product of having absorbed the human linguistic record, not of having the cognitive machinery that originally produced it. To make the mismatch concrete, the authors decompose judgment into seven stages and show that at each stage the human and LLM pipelines follow fundamentally different trajectories: (1) sensory/social input vs. textual input; (2) perceptual-situational parsing vs. tokenization; (3) memory/intuitions/learned concepts vs. statistical pattern-recognition in embeddings; (4) emotions/motivations/goals vs. statistical inference via neural layers; (5) reasoning vs. textual context integration; (6) metacognitive calibration vs. forced confidence and hallucination; (7) value-sensitive judgment vs. probabilistic next-token prediction. Each pair corresponds to one of seven **epistemological fault lines**: Grounding, Parsing, Experience, Motivation, Causality, Metacognition, Value. These fault lines are structural, not bugs to be patched: they are consequences of the architecture itself, so fluency-on-the-surface keeps producing confidence-like outputs even where no justifying process exists. The central positive construct is **Epistemia**: a structural condition in which linguistic plausibility substitutes for epistemic evaluation. Under Epistemia, a system produces answers that are syntactically well-formed, semantically fluent, and rhetorically convincing without instantiating the processes by which beliefs are normally formed, tested, or revised. The harm is not that the system is factually wrong — it often is not — but that the user is placed in a position of epistemic passivity where justification is displaced by pre-packaged persuasion. The paper closes by arguing for epistemic evaluation beyond surface alignment (benchmarks that probe calibration, counterfactual sensitivity, and refusal, not just accuracy), epistemic governance beyond behavioural alignment (regulating categories of epistemic failure rather than individual outputs), and epistemic literacy beyond critical thinking (teaching users procedural safeguards against surrogate evaluation, not merely scepticism)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Human and LLM judgment pipelines diverge at every stage, not only at the output; the apparent similarity is a linguistic-plausibility artefact. - Seven epistemological fault lines — **Grounding, Parsing, Experience, Motivation, Causality, Metacognition, Value** — each corresponding to a structural divergence in the pipeline. - **Epistemia**: linguistic plausibility substitutes for epistemic evaluation; a regime in which answers arrive without the labour of justification. - Hallucination is not a bug but a structural consequence of a system that must always produce an output and lacks metacognition to suspend judgment. - LLMs have no causal, counterfactual, or value-grounded evaluation; they integrate textual context to produce surface-level plausible continuations. - Epistemia is not reducible to automation bias or over-trust — it is an architectural condition: users interact with systems that lack the internal machinery for forming, holding, or revising beliefs. - Three responses: epistemic evaluation beyond surface alignment; epistemic governance beyond behavioural alignment; epistemic literacy beyond critical thinking."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Chinese Room Argument]] - [[Minds Brains and Science]] - [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] - [[Intelligence Without Representation]] - [[The Extended Mind]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]] - [[Grounding in Human Language]] - [[Hallucination]] - [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[The Bitter Lesson]] - [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[LLM Agents]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"- **Claim:** Linguistic fluency in LLMs is not evidence of judgment; the two pipelines diverge along seven structural fault lines, and their surface similarity produces a systemic epistemic pathology — **Epistemia** — in which linguistic plausibility replaces the labour of evaluation. - **Mechanism:** Decompose judgment into seven stages (input → parsing → memory/concepts → motivation → reasoning → metacognition → value) and compare the human pipeline (sensory-social, grounded, embodied, metacognitively monitored, value-sensitive) with the LLM pipeline (textual, tokenized, statistically embedded, forced to output, probabilistic). Identify the divergence at each stage as a fault line; show each produces characteristic failures (grounding error, tokenization drift, spurious associations, missing motivational significance, counterfactual blindness, hallucination, absent accountability). Frame the aggregate as Epistemia — an architectural regime, not a user-side bias. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Epistemia]], [[Grounding]], [[Hallucination]], [[Chinese Room Argument]], [[Symbol Grounding Problem]], [[Intentional Stance]], [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - **Stance:** philosophical / critical-theoretic perspective on LLMs - **Relates to:** Extends [[Symbol Grounding Problem]] and the Searle/Dennett debates ([[Chinese Room Argument]], [[Minds Brains and Science]], [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]]) to the large-model era; sharpens critiques in [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]]; counterpoint to the scaling optimism of [[The Bitter Lesson]]; foundational framing for the \"what is an LLM judgment, actually?\" question that underlies [[LLM Agents]] evaluation."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"llm #epistemology #philosophy-of-ai #hallucination #grounding #judgment #foundational","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"19466":1,"19466v1":1,"2":1,"2025":1,"2512":2,"3":1,"4":1,"5":1,"6":1,"7":1,"a":16,"about":1,"abs":1,"absent":1,"absorbed":1,"accountability":1,"accuracy":1,"actually":1,"against":1,"agents":5,"aggregate":1,"ai":4,"alignment":5,"all":1,"along":1,"always":1,"an":4,"and":20,"answers":3,"apparent":1,"appearance":1,"architectural":2,"architecture":1,"are":4,"argues":1,"arguing":1,"argument":3,"arrive":2,"artefact":1,"artificial":2,"arxiv":2,"as":3,"associations":1,"at":5,"attention":1,"authors":2,"automation":1,"be":1,"behavioural":2,"beliefs":3,"believers":2,"benchmarks":1,"between":3,"beyond":6,"bias":2,"bitter":2,"blindness":1,"brains":2,"bug":1,"bugs":1,"but":3,"by":4,"calibration":2,"capraro":1,"categories":1,"causal":1,"causality":2,"central":1,"characteristic":1,"chinese":3,"claim":1,"closes":1,"cognitive":1,"communicate":2,"compare":1,"completion":1,"concepts":3,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"condition":2,"confidence":2,"connections":1,"consequence":1,"consequences":1,"construct":1,"content":1,"context":2,"continuations":1,"contribution":1,"convincing":1,"corresponding":1,"corresponds":1,"counterfactual":3,"counterpoint":1,"critical":3,"critiques":1,"cs":1,"cy":1,"debates":1,"decompose":2,"deep":1,"dennett":1,"different":1,"dimensional":1,"displaced":1,"diverge":2,"divergence":2,"do":1,"drift":1,"each":5,"embedded":1,"embeddings":2,"embodied":1,"emotions":1,"epistemia":7,"epistemic":11,"epistemological":4,"epistemology":1,"era":1,"error":1,"evaluation":8,"even":1,"every":1,"evidence":1,"exists":1,"experience":2,"explicit":1,"extended":1,"extends":1,"factually":1,"failure":1,"failures":1,"fault":7,"fluency":2,"fluent":1,"follow":1,"for":6,"forced":2,"formed":2,"forming":1,"foundational":2,"frame":1,"framing":1,"from":1,"fundamentally":1,"generative":1,"goals":1,"governance":2,"grounded":2,"grounding":9,"hallucination":6,"harm":1,"have":1,"having":2,"high":1,"historical":1,"holding":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":10,"ideas":1,"identify":1,"in":12,"individual":1,"inference":1,"information":1,"input":3,"instantiating":1,"integrate":1,"integration":1,"intelligence":3,"intelligent":1,"intentional":3,"interact":1,"internal":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"intuitions":1,"is":14,"it":5,"itself":1,"judgment":9,"just":1,"justification":2,"justifying":1,"keeps":1,"key":1,"labour":2,"lack":1,"lacks":1,"language":4,"large":2,"layers":1,"learned":1,"lesson":2,"level":2,"like":1,"line":1,"lines":6,"linguistic":7,"literacy":2,"llm":8,"llms":4,"m":1,"machinery":2,"make":1,"masks":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":2,"merely":1,"metacognition":4,"metacognitive":1,"metacognitively":1,"mind":1,"minds":2,"mismatch":2,"missing":1,"model":1,"monitored":1,"motivation":3,"motivational":1,"motivations":1,"must":1,"need":1,"neural":1,"next":1,"no":2,"normally":1,"not":12,"observe":1,"of":14,"often":1,"on":2,"one":1,"only":1,"optimism":1,"or":4,"org":1,"originally":1,"output":3,"outputs":3,"over":2,"packaged":1,"pair":1,"paper":2,"parsing":4,"passivity":1,"patched":1,"pathology":1,"pattern":2,"perc":1,"perceptual":1,"perform":1,"perspective":1,"persuasion":1,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":1,"pipeline":3,"pipelines":3,"placed":1,"plausibility":4,"plausible":1,"position":1,"positive":1,"practice":1,"pre":1,"prediction":1,"probabilistic":2,"probe":1,"problem":3,"procedural":1,"process":1,"processes":1,"produce":2,"produced":1,"produces":3,"producing":1,"product":1,"propositional":1,"quattrociocchi":1,"question":1,"rather":2,"rationality":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":2,"recognition":1,"record":1,"reducible":1,"reference":1,"refusal":1,"regime":2,"regulating":1,"relates":1,"replaces":1,"representation":1,"responses":1,"retrieval":1,"revised":1,"revising":1,"rhetorically":1,"room":3,"safeguards":1,"scale":1,"scaling":1,"scepticism":1,"science":2,"searle":1,"semantically":1,"sensitive":2,"sensitivity":1,"sensory":2,"seven":5,"sharpens":1,"shift":1,"show":2,"side":1,"significance":1,"similarity":2,"situational":1,"so":1,"social":2,"spurious":1,"stage":3,"stages":2,"stance":2,"statistical":2,"statistically":1,"stochastic":1,"strategy":2,"structural":6,"substitutes":2,"summary":1,"surface":6,"surrogate":1,"suspend":1,"symbol":3,"symbolic":1,"syntactically":1,"system":3,"systemic":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"teaching":1,"tested":1,"textual":4,"than":1,"that":11,"the":39,"their":2,"theoretic":1,"theory":1,"these":1,"they":2,"thinking":2,"three":1,"to":12,"token":1,"tokenization":2,"tokenized":1,"tracing":1,"trajectories":1,"transformers":1,"transitions":1,"treated":1,"true":2,"trust":1,"two":2,"under":2,"underlies":1,"url":1,"used":1,"user":2,"users":2,"v":1,"value":6,"vehicle":1,"via":1,"vs":7,"w":1,"well":1,"what":1,"where":2,"which":5,"why":4,"with":2,"without":3,"works":2,"world":1,"wrong":1,"you":1}},{"dl":773,"n":"Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems","s":"papers/foundations/recursively-enumerable-sets-of-positive-integers-and-their-decision-problems","secs":[{"h":"Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Post, Emil L. (1944). \"Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems.\" *Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society* 50(5), 284–316. Open scan: [projecteuclid.org](https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183506427) / [ams.org](https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1944-50-05/S0002-9904-1944-08111-1/)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Post's 1944 paper is the programmatic manifesto of modern recursion theory. Writing in a remarkable, informal expository voice, Post sets aside the technical frameworks of his predecessors and asks a simple structural question: among the **recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets** — those arising as ranges of partial recursive functions — which can be solved (are recursive) and which cannot, and what is the *structure* of the unsolvable ones? He introduces the central reducibility notions, exhibits several families of non-recursive r.e. sets of different kinds, and poses the question that dominated recursion theory for the next dozen years. Post defines **many-one reducibility** (`A ≤_m B`: a total recursive `f` with `x ∈ A ↔ f(x) ∈ B`), its injective restriction **one-one reducibility** (`A ≤_1 B`), and **truth-table reducibility**, alongside Turing's relative computability. He defines a set to be **creative** if, roughly, one can effectively produce, for any r.e. set `W_e` disjoint from the set, a witness outside both — showing that the complement cannot be enumerated. The halting problem `K` is creative; every creative set is m-complete for r.e. sets (i.e. \"maximally unsolvable\" under `≤_m`). To show that m-unsolvability is not the whole story, Post constructs **simple sets**: r.e. sets whose complements are infinite but contain no infinite r.e. subset. Simple sets are not creative and their construction uses the first real **priority argument** in the literature — finite-injury in embryo. The paper closes with **Post's problem**: does there exist a non-recursive r.e. set that is not Turing-complete — i.e. an r.e. Turing-degree strictly between `0` and `0'`? Post could not answer it. The problem was solved affirmatively by Friedberg and Muchnik in 1956 via the finite-injury priority method, launching modern degree theory. Every notion here — reducibility, creative sets, simple sets, the priority technique, the question of intermediate degrees — became foundational. Rice's 1953 theorem is a direct descendant: Rice's index sets are all m-complete for r.e. sets, hence creative, hence undecidable."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Recursively enumerable set**: range of a partial recursive function; equivalently Σ⁰_1. - **Many-one, one-one, and truth-table reducibilities**, distinct from Turing reducibility, organising r.e. sets into degree-like structures. - **Creative sets**: r.e. sets whose complements cannot be effectively enumerated in the strongest sense; equivalent to m-complete r.e. sets; `K` is creative. - **Simple sets**: r.e. sets with infinite complement containing no infinite r.e. subset — not m-complete, so \"less unsolvable\" than creative sets. - **Priority argument (embryonic)**: construction of simple sets by meeting infinitely many requirements with finite injury. - **Post's problem**: existence of an r.e. set of intermediate Turing degree — open in 1944, solved 1956. - Programmatic style: readable English prose, motivating the entire subject."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** The class of r.e. sets has rich internal structure under various reducibilities; there exist m-complete (creative) r.e. sets and non-m-complete non-recursive (simple) r.e. sets; whether there are r.e. sets of intermediate Turing degree is open. - **Mechanism:** Introduce m-, 1-, and tt-reducibilities; prove `K` is creative and creative sets are m-complete; construct simple sets by a finite-injury priority argument enumerating r.e. sets `W_e` and injecting a witness from each into the set while protecting the complement's infinity; raise the existence of intermediate Turing degrees as the central open problem. - **Concepts introduced/used:** r.e. set, many-one / one-one / truth-table reducibility, creative set, simple set, priority argument, Post's problem, [[Halting Problem]] - **Stance:** programmatic / foundational paper (recursion theory) - **Relates to:** Extends the undecidability of [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory|Church 1936]] and [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I|Gödel 1931]] into a *structural* theory of unsolvable problems; furnishes the reducibilities and completeness notions that [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]] uses; its priority argument is the engine of all subsequent degree theory."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"recursion-theory #foundational #r-e-sets #post #reducibility #creative-sets #simple-sets #priority-argument","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"05":1,"08111":1,"1":3,"1183506427":1,"1931":1,"1936":1,"1944":5,"1953":2,"1956":2,"284":1,"316":1,"5":1,"50":2,"9904":1,"a":11,"affirmatively":1,"all":2,"alongside":1,"american":1,"among":1,"ams":2,"an":4,"and":20,"answer":1,"any":1,"are":6,"argument":6,"arising":1,"as":2,"aside":1,"asks":1,"bams":1,"be":4,"became":1,"between":1,"both":1,"bull":1,"bulletin":1,"but":1,"by":3,"can":2,"cannot":3,"central":2,"church":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":2,"closes":1,"complement":3,"complements":2,"complete":8,"completeness":1,"computability":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"construct":1,"construction":2,"constructs":1,"contain":1,"containing":1,"contribution":1,"could":1,"creative":14,"decision":4,"definable":1,"defines":2,"degree":6,"degrees":2,"der":2,"descendant":1,"different":1,"direct":1,"disjoint":1,"distinct":1,"does":1,"dominated":1,"dozen":1,"e":24,"each":1,"effectively":2,"elementary":2,"embryo":1,"embryonic":1,"emil":1,"engine":1,"english":1,"entire":1,"enumerable":6,"enumerated":2,"enumerating":1,"equivalent":1,"equivalently":1,"euclid":1,"every":2,"exhibits":1,"exist":2,"existence":2,"expository":1,"extends":1,"families":1,"finite":4,"first":1,"for":4,"formal":2,"foundational":3,"frameworks":1,"friedberg":1,"from":3,"function":2,"functions":2,"furnishes":1,"general":1,"gödel":1,"halting":3,"has":1,"he":2,"hence":2,"here":1,"his":1,"https":2,"i":4,"ideas":1,"if":1,"in":6,"index":1,"infinite":4,"infinitely":1,"infinity":1,"informal":1,"injecting":1,"injective":1,"injury":4,"integers":3,"intermediate":4,"internal":1,"into":3,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":11,"it":1,"its":2,"journals":1,"key":1,"kinds":1,"l":1,"launching":1,"less":1,"like":1,"literature":1,"m":9,"machine":1,"manifesto":1,"many":4,"mathematica":2,"mathematical":1,"maximally":1,"mechanism":1,"meeting":1,"method":1,"modern":2,"motivating":1,"muchnik":1,"natural":1,"next":1,"no":2,"non":4,"not":5,"notion":1,"notions":2,"number":2,"numbers":1,"of":26,"on":1,"one":10,"ones":1,"open":4,"org":4,"organising":1,"outside":1,"paper":3,"partial":2,"poses":1,"positive":3,"post":10,"predecessors":1,"predicates":1,"principia":2,"priority":8,"problem":10,"problems":5,"produce":1,"programmatic":3,"projecteuclid":2,"prose":1,"protecting":1,"prove":1,"quantifiers":1,"question":3,"r":22,"raise":1,"range":1,"ranges":1,"readable":1,"real":1,"recursion":4,"recursive":10,"recursively":6,"reducibilities":4,"reducibility":8,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relative":1,"remarkable":1,"requirements":1,"restriction":1,"rice":3,"rich":1,"roughly":1,"s":8,"s0002":1,"scan":1,"sense":1,"set":11,"sets":34,"several":1,"show":1,"showing":1,"simple":10,"so":1,"society":1,"solved":3,"stance":1,"story":1,"strictly":1,"strongest":1,"structural":2,"structure":2,"structures":1,"style":1,"subject":1,"subsequent":1,"subset":2,"summary":1,"systeme":2,"sätze":2,"table":3,"tags":1,"technical":1,"technique":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":30,"their":5,"theorem":1,"theory":9,"there":3,"those":1,"to":4,"total":1,"truth":3,"tt":1,"turing":8,"und":2,"undecidability":1,"undecidable":1,"under":2,"unentscheidbare":2,"universal":1,"unsolvability":1,"unsolvable":6,"used":1,"uses":2,"various":1,"verwandter":2,"via":1,"voice":1,"was":1,"what":1,"whether":1,"which":2,"while":1,"whole":1,"whose":2,"with":4,"witness":2,"writing":1,"www":1,"years":1,"über":2,"σ⁰":1}},{"dl":657,"n":"Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I","s":"papers/foundations/über-formal-unentscheidbare-sätze-der-principia-mathematica-und-verwandter-systeme-i","secs":[{"h":"Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Gödel, Kurt (1931). \"Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der *Principia Mathematica* und verwandter Systeme I\" [\"On formally undecidable propositions of *Principia Mathematica* and related systems I\"]. *Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik* 38, 173–198. English translation in van Heijenoort (ed.), *From Frege to Gödel* (Harvard 1967), and in Gödel, *Collected Works* I (Oxford 1986). Scan: [monatshefte-fuer-mathematik @ archive.org](https://archive.org/details/MonatsheftefrMathematikUndPhysik-Gdel1931); English: [Meltzer/Braithwaite 1962](https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/files/413620/godel1931.pdf)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Gödel's 1931 paper proves the two **incompleteness theorems** that permanently reshaped mathematical logic. The **first theorem** states that for any ω-consistent, effectively axiomatised formal system `P` strong enough to formalise elementary arithmetic, there exists a sentence `G` in the language of `P` such that neither `G` nor `¬G` is provable in `P`. The **second theorem** states that if `P` is consistent, then `P` cannot prove its own consistency statement `Con(P)`. Together they show that Hilbert's programme — to secure classical mathematics by a finitary consistency proof of a sufficiently strong formal system — cannot succeed in its original form. The technical machinery is the one mathematicians still use. Gödel introduces **Gödel numbering**, an injective encoding of formulas and proofs as natural numbers, which allows syntactic notions (\"`x` is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula with Gödel number `y`\") to be expressed as arithmetic predicates. He then establishes the **representability** of all primitive recursive predicates in `P` and constructs, via a fixed-point / diagonal lemma, a sentence `G` that is in effect self-referential: `G` says \"I am not provable in `P`.\" An analysis of the two cases — `G` provable, `¬G` provable — using ω-consistency yields the first theorem. Formalising that analysis inside `P` itself yields the second. The paper is the mathematical origin of self-reference as a tool, of arithmetisation of syntax, and of the technique — later generalised by Tarski, Church, Turing, and Kleene — for transferring undecidability phenomena between formal systems. It also establishes the class of **primitive recursive functions** as the workhorse notion of effectivity in the paper, the direct ancestor of Kleene's general recursive functions. The incompleteness theorems remain the single most cited and philosophically consequential results of twentieth-century logic."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Gödel numbering**: arithmetisation of syntax, turning formulas and proofs into natural numbers. - **First incompleteness theorem**: every ω-consistent, effectively axiomatised, sufficiently expressive theory contains a true-but-unprovable sentence. - **Second incompleteness theorem**: no such theory can prove its own consistency. - **Diagonal / fixed-point lemma**: every arithmetic predicate has a self-referential instance. - **Primitive recursive functions** as the effective-syntax layer (precursor to general recursive functions). - **Representability**: every primitive recursive relation is definable in `P`. - The shattering of Hilbert's programme in its finitist form."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Consistency and Completeness]] - [[First-Order Logic]] - [[Computability]] - [[Recursive Function]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] - [[Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** No effectively axiomatised, ω-consistent theory that interprets arithmetic is complete; no such consistent theory proves its own consistency. - **Mechanism:** Encode syntax as natural numbers (Gödel numbering). Represent primitive recursive predicates (including the proof relation `Bew`) inside the theory. Construct a self-referential sentence `G ≡ ¬∃y. Bew(y, ⌜G⌝)` via a diagonal lemma; analyse cases using ω-consistency for theorem I; formalise that analysis to obtain theorem II. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Gödel numbering, primitive recursive functions, representability, diagonal lemma, ω-consistency, [[Consistency and Completeness]], [[First-Order Logic]] - **Stance:** foundational theorem paper (mathematical logic) - **Relates to:** The methodological parent of [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory|Church 1936]] and Turing 1936; sharpened by [[Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church|Rosser 1936]] (dropping ω-consistency); the arithmetisation technique underwrites all later work on effectively axiomatised theories, including the hierarchies of [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers|Kleene 1943]] and [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers|Mostowski 1946]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #incompleteness #godel #mathematical-logic #arithmetisation #self-reference","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"173":1,"1931":2,"1936":3,"1943":1,"1946":1,"1962":1,"1967":1,"198":1,"1986":1,"38":1,"413620":1,"a":11,"ac":1,"all":2,"allows":1,"also":1,"am":1,"an":4,"analyse":1,"analysis":3,"ancestor":1,"and":17,"any":1,"archive":2,"arithmetic":4,"arithmetisation":4,"as":6,"axiomatised":4,"be":1,"between":1,"braithwaite":1,"but":1,"by":3,"can":1,"cannot":2,"cases":2,"century":1,"church":4,"cited":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classical":1,"collected":1,"complete":1,"completeness":2,"computability":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consequential":1,"consistency":10,"consistent":5,"construct":1,"constructs":1,"contains":1,"contribution":1,"decision":1,"definable":2,"der":2,"details":1,"diagonal":4,"direct":1,"dropping":1,"ed":2,"effect":1,"effective":1,"effectively":4,"effectivity":1,"elementary":3,"encode":1,"encoding":1,"english":2,"enough":1,"enumerable":1,"establishes":2,"every":3,"exists":1,"expressed":1,"expressive":1,"extensions":2,"files":1,"finitary":1,"finitist":1,"first":5,"fixed":2,"for":3,"form":2,"formal":5,"formalise":2,"formalising":1,"formally":1,"formula":1,"formulas":2,"foundational":2,"frege":1,"from":1,"fuer":1,"function":1,"functions":6,"für":1,"gdel1931":1,"general":3,"generalised":1,"godel":1,"godel1931":1,"gödel":13,"halting":1,"harvard":1,"has":1,"he":1,"heijenoort":1,"hierarchies":1,"hilbert":2,"https":2,"i":6,"ideas":1,"if":1,"ii":1,"in":11,"including":2,"incompleteness":5,"injective":1,"inside":2,"instance":1,"integers":2,"interprets":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":8,"it":1,"its":5,"itself":1,"key":1,"kleene":3,"kurt":1,"language":1,"later":2,"layer":1,"lemma":4,"logic":6,"machinery":1,"mathematica":3,"mathematical":4,"mathematicians":1,"mathematics":1,"mathematik":2,"mechanism":1,"meltzer":1,"methodological":1,"monatshefte":2,"monatsheftefrmathematikundphysik":1,"most":1,"mostowski":1,"natural":4,"neither":1,"no":3,"nor":1,"not":1,"notion":1,"notions":1,"number":4,"numbering":4,"numbers":4,"obtain":1,"of":29,"on":3,"one":1,"order":2,"org":2,"origin":1,"original":1,"own":3,"oxford":1,"paper":4,"parent":1,"pdf":1,"permanently":1,"phenomena":1,"philosophically":1,"physik":1,"point":2,"positive":2,"precursor":1,"predicate":1,"predicates":5,"primitive":6,"principia":3,"problem":3,"problems":1,"programme":2,"proof":3,"proofs":2,"propositions":1,"provable":4,"prove":2,"proves":2,"quantifiers":2,"recursive":12,"recursively":1,"reference":3,"referential":3,"related":1,"relates":1,"relation":2,"remain":1,"represent":1,"representability":3,"research":1,"reshaped":1,"results":1,"rosser":1,"s":4,"says":1,"scan":1,"second":3,"secure":1,"self":5,"sentence":4,"sets":2,"sharpened":1,"shattering":1,"show":1,"single":1,"some":2,"stance":1,"statement":1,"states":2,"still":1,"strong":2,"succeed":1,"such":3,"sufficiently":2,"summary":1,"syntactic":1,"syntax":4,"system":2,"systeme":2,"systems":2,"sätze":2,"tags":1,"tarski":1,"technical":1,"technique":2,"that":9,"the":28,"their":1,"then":2,"theorem":8,"theorems":4,"theories":1,"theory":7,"there":1,"they":1,"to":7,"together":1,"tool":1,"transferring":1,"translation":1,"true":1,"turing":2,"turning":1,"twentieth":1,"two":2,"uk":1,"und":3,"undecidability":1,"undecidable":1,"underwrites":1,"unentscheidbare":2,"unprovable":1,"unsolvable":2,"use":1,"used":1,"using":2,"van":1,"verwandter":2,"via":2,"which":1,"with":1,"work":1,"workhorse":1,"works":1,"www":1,"yields":2,"über":2,"ω":7}},{"dl":678,"n":"Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers","s":"papers/foundations/recursive-predicates-and-quantifiers","secs":[{"h":"Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Kleene, Stephen C. (1943). \"Recursive predicates and quantifiers.\" *Transactions of the American Mathematical Society* 53(1), 41–73. [DOI 10.2307/1990131](https://doi.org/10.2307/1990131). Open scan: [ams.org / archive.org](https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1943-053-01/S0002-9947-1943-0007371-8/)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper is the single most influential structural paper of classical recursion theory. Kleene defines what is now called the **arithmetical hierarchy**: a stratification of sets and predicates on `ℕ` by the number and alternation of number-quantifiers prefixed to a decidable (recursive) matrix. A predicate is Σ⁰_n if it can be written `∃x₁ ∀x₂ ∃x₃ … R` with `n` alternations and `R` recursive; Π⁰_n is the dual; Δ⁰_n = Σ⁰_n ∩ Π⁰_n. The recursive sets are precisely Δ⁰_1; the recursively enumerable sets are precisely Σ⁰_1. Each level of the hierarchy is strictly larger than the preceding one — the **hierarchy theorem** — and Kleene gives universal / complete predicates at each level. The technical engine is a generalised **normal form theorem**: any Σ⁰_n predicate can be written with a single bounded block of quantifiers over a primitive recursive matrix, using Kleene's **T-predicate** `T_n` for n-ary partial recursive functions and result-extractor `U`. The T-predicate first appears here in its mature form. Kleene then proves the **enumeration theorem** (there is a universal Σ⁰_1 predicate), the **s-m-n theorem** (recursive parameterisation of indices), and the **hierarchy theorem** (each level is strictly included in the next), and relates the hierarchy to the jump operator: `A'` (the halting problem relativised to `A`) moves one level up. After 1943 every textbook treatment of computability theory — Rogers, Soare, Odifreddi — is organised around this hierarchy. [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]]'s classification of non-trivial index sets is a direct application: the index set of any non-trivial property is at least Σ⁰_1-hard or Π⁰_1-hard, and Rice–Shapiro and later refinements pin them to specific levels."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Arithmetical hierarchy**: Σ⁰_n, Π⁰_n, Δ⁰_n defined by alternation depth of number-quantifiers over a recursive matrix. - **Recursive = Δ⁰_1; recursively enumerable = Σ⁰_1**: the two \"effective\" classes located inside the hierarchy. - **T-predicate** `T_n(e, x₁,…,x_n, y)`: primitive recursive \"y codes a computation of `{e}(x₁,…,x_n)`\"; canonical tool of the subject. - **Normal form theorem** at each level: one bounded matrix of primitive recursive content under `n` alternating quantifiers. - **Enumeration theorem**: universal predicate at each Σ⁰_n level. - **s-m-n theorem**: effective parameterisation of indices. - **Hierarchy theorem**: strict inclusions Σ⁰_n ⊊ Σ⁰_{n+1}; complete sets exist at each level (e.g. `∅^{(n)}`, the nth jump)."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[On Notation for Ordinal Numbers]] - [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** The first-order definable subsets of `ℕ` are organised into a strict hierarchy by quantifier-alternation depth over a recursive matrix; recursive and r.e. sets are its first two levels. - **Mechanism:** Define Σ⁰_n / Π⁰_n / Δ⁰_n by prefixing `n` alternating number-quantifiers to recursive matrices; prove normal form via the T-predicate and unbounded search; prove enumeration, s-m-n, and hierarchy theorems by diagonalisation and the jump operator. - **Concepts introduced/used:** arithmetical hierarchy, T-predicate, s-m-n theorem, enumeration theorem, jump operator, [[Halting Problem]], [[Recursive Function]] - **Stance:** foundational technical paper (recursion theory) - **Relates to:** Takes the normal form of [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers|Kleene 1936]] and uses it to build the structural scaffolding that organises all of recursion theory; supplies the classification into which [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems|Post 1944]] places simple and creative sets and which [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]] uses to classify non-trivial index sets; second-order analogue developed by [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers|Mostowski 1946]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"computability #recursion-theory #arithmetical-hierarchy #foundational #kleene #t-predicate","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"0007371":1,"01":1,"053":1,"1":9,"10":2,"1936":1,"1943":4,"1944":1,"1946":1,"1953":2,"1990131":2,"2307":2,"41":1,"53":1,"73":1,"8":1,"9947":1,"a":12,"after":1,"all":1,"alternating":2,"alternation":3,"alternations":1,"american":1,"ams":2,"an":1,"analogue":1,"and":23,"any":2,"appears":1,"application":1,"archive":1,"are":4,"arithmetical":4,"around":1,"ary":1,"at":5,"be":2,"block":1,"bounded":2,"build":1,"by":6,"c":1,"called":1,"can":2,"canonical":1,"claim":1,"classes":4,"classical":1,"classification":2,"classify":1,"codes":1,"complete":2,"computability":3,"computation":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"creative":1,"decidable":1,"decision":5,"definable":3,"define":1,"defined":1,"defines":1,"depth":2,"developed":1,"diagonalisation":1,"direct":1,"doi":2,"dual":1,"e":2,"each":6,"effective":2,"elementary":1,"engine":1,"enumerable":7,"enumeration":4,"every":1,"exist":1,"extractor":1,"first":3,"for":2,"form":5,"foundational":2,"function":2,"functions":3,"g":1,"general":2,"generalised":1,"gives":1,"halting":3,"hard":2,"here":1,"hierarchy":13,"https":2,"ideas":1,"if":1,"in":2,"included":1,"inclusions":1,"index":3,"indices":2,"influential":1,"inside":1,"integers":4,"into":2,"introduced":1,"is":11,"it":2,"its":2,"journals":1,"jump":4,"key":1,"kleene":7,"larger":1,"later":1,"least":1,"level":7,"levels":2,"located":1,"m":4,"machine":1,"mathematical":1,"matrices":1,"matrix":5,"mature":1,"mechanism":1,"most":1,"mostowski":1,"moves":1,"n":20,"natural":2,"next":1,"non":3,"normal":4,"notation":1,"now":1,"nth":1,"number":5,"numbers":3,"odifreddi":1,"of":28,"on":4,"one":3,"open":1,"operator":3,"or":1,"order":2,"ordinal":1,"org":4,"organised":2,"organises":1,"over":3,"paper":3,"parameterisation":2,"partial":1,"pin":1,"places":1,"positive":4,"post":1,"preceding":1,"precisely":2,"predicate":10,"predicates":4,"prefixed":1,"prefixing":1,"primitive":3,"problem":4,"problems":5,"property":1,"prove":2,"proves":1,"quantifier":1,"quantifiers":7,"r":1,"recursion":4,"recursive":19,"recursively":7,"reference":1,"refinements":1,"relates":2,"relativised":1,"result":1,"rice":3,"rogers":1,"s":6,"s0002":1,"scaffolding":1,"scan":1,"search":1,"second":1,"set":1,"sets":15,"shapiro":1,"simple":1,"single":2,"soare":1,"society":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"stephen":1,"stratification":1,"strict":2,"strictly":2,"structural":2,"subject":1,"subsets":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"t":6,"tags":1,"takes":1,"technical":2,"textbook":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":30,"their":5,"them":1,"then":1,"theorem":11,"theorems":1,"theory":6,"there":1,"this":2,"to":8,"tool":1,"tran":1,"transactions":1,"treatment":1,"trivial":3,"turing":1,"two":2,"unbounded":1,"under":1,"universal":4,"unsolvable":1,"up":1,"used":1,"uses":2,"using":1,"via":1,"what":1,"which":2,"with":2,"written":2,"www":1,"y":1,"δ⁰":5,"π⁰":5,"σ⁰":12}},{"dl":469,"n":"Studies in the Way of Words","s":"papers/foundations/studies-in-the-way-of-words","secs":[{"h":"Studies in the Way of Words","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Grice, H. P. (1989). *Studies in the Way of Words*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-85270-2. Source file: `grice-1989-studies-way-of-words-excerpt.pdf` (partial: \"Logic and Conversation\" and \"Further Notes\", scanned from the 1989 edition; full book not openly available). Cited by [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] (McCarthy 1989)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Grice's collected essays - centred on the 1967 William James Lectures \"Logic and Conversation\" - are the other foundational pillar (alongside Austin and Searle) of contemporary pragmatics. The volume presents the *Cooperative Principle* and its four maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner) as the engine driving *conversational implicature*: hearers reason from the assumption that speakers are cooperating to infer what is meant beyond what is literally said. The essays on utterer's meaning and speaker intention build a reductive account of non-natural meaning in terms of nested intentions - the semantic basis for intention-based theories of communication used in mentalist ACL semantics ([[FIPA-ACL]]) and critiqued by commitment-based alternatives. McCarthy cites Grice in Elephant 2000 as one of the philosophical sources for treating machine utterances as meaningful speech acts."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":8,"t":"- **Cooperative Principle**: make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of the talk exchange. - **Four maxims**: Quantity (informativeness), Quality (truthfulness), Relation (relevance), Manner (perspicuity). - **Conversational implicature**: what is meant beyond what is said, derived by hearer's reasoning about speaker adherence to (or flouting of) the maxims. - **Conventional vs conversational implicature**: some implicatures attach to specific words (\"but\", \"therefore\"); most arise from cooperative reasoning. - **Utterer's meaning / non-natural meaning (meaning-NN)**: analysed via nested speaker-intentions that the hearer recognise the intention and respond accordingly. - **Further Notes** refines the theory: distinguishing what is said, what is conventionally implicated, and what is conversationally implicated."},{"h":"Connections","l":16,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Communication is driven by cooperation: hearers derive what a speaker means by assuming the speaker is observing the Cooperative Principle and its maxims, which explains implicature without complicating the semantics. - **Mechanism:** Cooperative Principle plus four maxims; what is said vs what is implicated; conventional vs conversational implicature; meaning-NN analysed as reflexive speaker-intention recognised by the hearer. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Cooperative Principle, Conversational Implicature, Maxims of Conversation, Utterer's Meaning, Meaning-NN, Speaker Intention - **Stance:** foundational / pragmatics / intention-based semantics - **Relates to:** The intention-recognition account underlies the mentalistic feasibility/sincerity preconditions in [[FIPA-ACL]] cited by [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]; the cooperative-principle framing appears implicitly whenever ACL designers assume benevolent agents, a target of the critique in [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] and [[Commitment-based Semantics]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"pragmatics #grice #implicature #philosophy-of-language #foundational","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1967":1,"1989":3,"2":1,"2000":3,"674":1,"85270":1,"a":5,"about":1,"accepted":1,"accordingly":1,"account":2,"acl":5,"act":1,"acts":4,"adherence":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"alongside":1,"alternatives":1,"analysed":2,"and":12,"appears":1,"are":2,"arise":1,"as":5,"assume":1,"assuming":1,"assumption":1,"at":2,"attach":1,"austin":1,"available":1,"based":7,"basis":1,"benevolent":1,"beyond":2,"book":1,"build":1,"but":1,"by":8,"cambridge":1,"centred":1,"cited":2,"cites":1,"claim":1,"collected":1,"commitment":3,"communication":3,"complicating":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contemporary":1,"contribution":2,"conventional":2,"conventionally":1,"conversation":3,"conversational":5,"conversationally":1,"cooperating":1,"cooperation":1,"cooperative":7,"critique":1,"critiqued":1,"derive":1,"derived":1,"designers":1,"distinguishing":1,"driven":1,"driving":1,"edition":1,"elephant":3,"engine":1,"essays":2,"exchange":1,"explains":1,"feasibility":1,"file":1,"fipa":2,"flouting":1,"for":2,"foundational":3,"foundations":1,"four":3,"framing":1,"from":3,"full":1,"further":2,"grice":4,"h":1,"harvard":1,"hearer":3,"hearers":2,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":1,"implicated":3,"implicature":7,"implicatures":1,"implicitly":1,"in":7,"infer":1,"informativeness":1,"institutional":2,"intention":7,"intentions":2,"introduced":1,"is":12,"isbn":1,"it":1,"its":2,"james":1,"key":1,"language":3,"lectures":1,"literally":1,"logic":3,"ma":1,"machine":1,"make":1,"manner":2,"maxims":6,"mccarthy":2,"meaning":8,"meaningful":1,"means":1,"meant":2,"mechanism":1,"mentalist":1,"mentalistic":1,"most":1,"natural":2,"nested":2,"nn":3,"non":2,"not":1,"notes":2,"observing":1,"occurs":1,"of":13,"on":4,"one":1,"openly":1,"or":1,"other":1,"p":1,"partial":1,"performatives":1,"perspicuity":1,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":1,"pillar":1,"plus":1,"pragmatics":3,"preconditions":1,"presents":1,"press":1,"principle":6,"principles":1,"programming":2,"purpose":1,"quality":2,"quantity":2,"reality":2,"reason":1,"reasoning":2,"recognise":1,"recognised":1,"recognition":1,"reductive":1,"reference":1,"refines":1,"reflexive":1,"relates":1,"relation":2,"relevance":1,"required":1,"respond":1,"rethinking":1,"s":5,"said":4,"scanned":1,"searle":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":5,"sincerity":1,"some":1,"source":1,"sources":1,"speaker":7,"speakers":1,"specific":1,"speech":5,"stage":1,"stance":1,"studies":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"talk":1,"target":1,"terms":1,"that":2,"the":27,"theories":1,"theory":2,"therefore":1,"to":4,"treating":1,"truthfulness":1,"underlies":1,"university":1,"used":2,"utterances":1,"utterer":3,"via":1,"volume":1,"vs":3,"way":2,"what":10,"whenever":1,"which":2,"william":1,"without":1,"words":3,"your":1}},{"dl":376,"n":"Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi","s":"papers/foundations/algorithmic-information-theory---grunwald-vitanyi","secs":[{"h":"Algorithmic Information Theory","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Peter D. Grünwald and Paul M.B. Vitányi (2008). *arXiv:0809.2754v2 (book chapter, Handbook of Philosophy of Information)*. Source file: `0809.2754v2 (1).pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2754)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A tutorial survey of algorithmic information theory (Kolmogorov complexity) and its relationship to Shannon information theory. The authors explain how the amount of information in an individual object can be measured by the length of the shortest program that produces it, and how this quantity — invariant up to an additive constant — supports a non-probabilistic theory of information. The chapter covers the invariance theorem, uncomputability, relation to entropy, mutual information, the Kolmogorov structure function (separating meaningful/structural from random information), Minimum Description Length, normalized compression distance, and the philosophical implications for Occam's razor and inductive inference."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Kolmogorov complexity K(x) as length of shortest program outputting x - Invariance theorem makes K objective up to an additive constant - Structure function separates meaningful (model) from random content - MDL as a practical approximation of ideal algorithmic inference - Entropy is expected Kolmogorov complexity under computable distributions"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** The information content of an individual object is objectively measured by the length of the shortest program that prints it — Kolmogorov complexity — and this gives a formal basis for Occam's razor, randomness, and \"meaningful\" vs \"random\" information. - **Mechanism:** Define K(x) via a universal Turing machine (invariance up to additive constant); extend via prefix codes, the Kolmogorov structure function (separating structural/model part from random/noise part), and the Minimum Description Length principle for inductive inference. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Kolmogorov Complexity]], [[Minimum Description Length]], [[Kolmogorov Structure Function]], [[Shannon Information]], [[Shannon Entropy]], [[Occam's Razor]], [[Universal Turing Machine]], [[Invariance Theorem]], [[Normalized Compression Distance]], [[Inductive Inference]], [[Prefix Codes]] - **Stance:** formal-mathematical / foundational - **Relates to:** Provides the information-theoretic backdrop for why compact emergent codes arise in [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] and [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]]; and for the description-length intuition behind compositional protocol negotiation in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]. Complements Chomsky's grammar-based view in [[Three Models for the Description of Language]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"information-theory #kolmogorov-complexity #mdl #foundations","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"0809":2,"2008":1,"2754":1,"2754v2":1,"a":6,"abs":1,"additive":3,"agent":2,"algorithmic":3,"amount":1,"an":4,"and":11,"approximation":1,"arise":1,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"authors":1,"b":1,"backdrop":1,"based":1,"basis":1,"be":1,"behind":1,"book":1,"by":2,"can":1,"chapter":2,"chomsky":1,"claim":1,"codes":3,"communication":1,"compact":1,"complements":1,"complexity":6,"compositional":2,"compression":2,"computable":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constant":3,"content":2,"contribution":1,"cooperation":1,"covers":1,"d":1,"define":1,"description":6,"distance":2,"distributions":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":1,"entropy":3,"expected":1,"explain":1,"extend":1,"file":1,"for":8,"formal":2,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"from":3,"function":4,"gives":1,"gossip":1,"grammar":1,"grounded":1,"grünwald":1,"handbook":1,"how":2,"https":1,"ideal":1,"ideas":1,"implications":1,"in":5,"individual":2,"inductive":3,"inference":4,"information":13,"introduced":1,"intuition":1,"invariance":4,"invariant":1,"is":2,"it":2,"its":1,"k":3,"key":1,"kolmogorov":9,"language":4,"length":7,"llms":1,"m":1,"machine":2,"makes":1,"mathematical":1,"mdl":2,"meaningful":3,"measured":2,"mechanism":1,"minimum":3,"model":2,"models":2,"multi":2,"mutual":1,"natural":1,"negotiation":1,"networks":1,"noise":1,"non":1,"normalized":2,"object":2,"objective":1,"objectively":1,"occam":3,"of":15,"ontologies":1,"org":1,"outputting":1,"part":2,"paul":1,"peter":1,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":1,"populations":1,"practical":1,"prefix":2,"principle":1,"prints":1,"probabilistic":1,"produces":1,"program":3,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"quantity":1,"random":4,"randomness":1,"razor":3,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relation":1,"relationship":1,"s":4,"scalable":1,"separates":1,"separating":2,"shannon":3,"shortest":3,"source":1,"stance":1,"structural":2,"structure":4,"summary":1,"supports":1,"survey":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":18,"theorem":3,"theoretic":1,"theory":5,"this":2,"three":2,"to":6,"turing":2,"tutorial":1,"uncomputability":1,"under":1,"universal":2,"up":3,"url":1,"used":1,"via":2,"view":1,"vitányi":1,"vs":1,"why":1,"x":3}},{"dl":455,"n":"Minds Brains and Science","s":"papers/foundations/minds-brains-and-science","secs":[{"h":"Minds, Brains and Science","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Searle, J. R. (1984). *Minds, Brains and Science* (The 1984 Reith Lectures). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-57633-0. Source file: `searle-1984-minds-brains-science.pdf`. Cited by [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] (McCarthy 1989)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Searle's 1984 BBC Reith Lectures, lightly revised for print, compress his philosophy of mind into six accessible chapters: the mind-body problem, \"Can Computers Think?\", cognitive science, the structure of action, prospects for the social sciences, and the freedom of the will. Chapter 2 contains the popular restatement of the [[Chinese Room Argument]] against strong AI: syntactic manipulation of symbols (what a program does) is neither sufficient for nor constitutive of semantics (what a mind has), so \"appropriately programmed computer\" cannot *literally* understand. Chapter 4 develops intentional action and prior intentions, and chapter 5 applies the same framework to collective/institutional phenomena - the seed of Searle's later work on [[Institutional Reality]]. McCarthy cites this book in Elephant 2000 as the canonical target of his counter-position: programs *can* usefully be regarded as performing speech acts and having intentional states, if only in a deflationary \"as-if\" sense."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":8,"t":"- **Biological naturalism**: mental phenomena are caused by and realised in brain processes; mind is neither reducible to nor separate from biology. - **Strong vs weak AI**: simulating a mind is not having one; syntax does not suffice for semantics (Chinese Room). - **Intentionality and the background**: intentional states presuppose a non-representational background of capacities and practices. - **Structure of action**: prior intention vs intention-in-action; causal self-referentiality of intention. - **Social facts and collective intentionality**: institutional reality rests on shared we-intentions (developed more fully later in [[Institutional Reality]])."},{"h":"Connections","l":15,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Institutional Reality]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Performatives]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Minds are biological; programs running on machines lack intrinsic intentionality because syntactic symbol manipulation does not yield semantic content. Yet the same intentional vocabulary used for minds also grounds action theory and social reality. - **Mechanism:** Chinese Room thought experiment; distinction between intrinsic, derived, and as-if intentionality; action-theoretic analysis of intention-in-action; collective-intentionality sketch for social facts. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Biological Naturalism, [[Chinese Room Argument]], Intrinsic Intentionality, Background, Collective Intentionality, [[Institutional Reality]] - **Stance:** anti-computationalist / philosophy-of-mind - **Relates to:** McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] explicitly rejects Searle's conclusion and treats programs *as* speech-act performers; Searle's action theory here is the philosophical ancestor of the mentalistic semantics used in [[FIPA-ACL]] and critiqued in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] and [[Commitment-based Semantics]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"philosophy-of-mind #searle #chinese-room #intentionality #speech-acts","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":2,"1984":3,"1989":1,"2":1,"2000":4,"4":1,"5":1,"57633":1,"674":1,"a":8,"accessible":1,"acl":1,"act":2,"action":8,"acts":6,"against":1,"agent":1,"ai":2,"also":1,"analysis":1,"ancestor":1,"and":16,"anti":1,"applies":1,"appropriately":1,"are":2,"argument":2,"as":5,"background":3,"based":5,"bbc":1,"be":1,"because":1,"between":1,"biological":3,"biology":1,"body":1,"book":1,"brain":1,"brains":2,"by":2,"cambridge":1,"can":2,"cannot":1,"canonical":1,"capacities":1,"causal":1,"caused":1,"chapter":3,"chapters":1,"chinese":5,"cited":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"cognitive":1,"collective":4,"commitment":2,"communication":1,"compress":1,"computationalist":1,"computer":1,"computers":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conclusion":1,"connections":1,"constitutive":1,"contains":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"counter":1,"critiqued":1,"deflationary":1,"derived":1,"developed":1,"develops":1,"distinction":1,"does":3,"elephant":4,"experiment":1,"explicitly":1,"facts":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":6,"foundations":1,"framework":1,"freedom":1,"from":1,"fully":1,"grounds":1,"harvard":1,"has":1,"having":2,"here":1,"his":2,"ideas":1,"if":3,"illocutionary":1,"in":8,"institutional":7,"intention":4,"intentional":4,"intentionality":8,"intentions":2,"into":1,"intrinsic":3,"introduced":1,"is":4,"isbn":1,"j":1,"key":1,"lack":1,"language":3,"later":2,"lectures":2,"lightly":1,"literally":1,"logic":1,"ma":1,"machines":1,"manipulation":2,"mccarthy":3,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"mind":7,"minds":4,"more":1,"naturalism":2,"neither":2,"non":1,"nor":2,"not":3,"of":16,"on":6,"one":1,"only":1,"performatives":1,"performers":1,"performing":1,"phenomena":2,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":3,"popular":1,"position":1,"practices":1,"press":1,"presuppose":1,"print":1,"prior":2,"problem":1,"processes":1,"program":1,"programmed":1,"programming":3,"programs":3,"prospects":1,"r":1,"realised":1,"reality":7,"reducible":1,"reference":1,"referentiality":1,"regarded":1,"reith":2,"rejects":1,"relates":1,"representational":1,"restatement":1,"rests":1,"revised":1,"room":5,"running":1,"s":5,"same":2,"science":3,"sciences":1,"searle":6,"seed":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":5,"sense":1,"separate":1,"shared":1,"simulating":1,"six":1,"sketch":1,"so":1,"social":4,"source":1,"speech":8,"stance":1,"states":2,"strong":2,"structure":2,"suffice":1,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"syntactic":2,"syntax":1,"tags":1,"target":1,"the":15,"theoretic":1,"theory":3,"think":1,"this":1,"thought":1,"to":3,"treats":1,"understand":1,"university":1,"used":3,"usefully":1,"vocabulary":1,"vs":2,"we":1,"weak":1,"what":2,"will":1,"work":1,"yet":1,"yield":1}},{"dl":469,"n":"Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata","s":"papers/foundations/theory-of-self-reproducing-automata","secs":[{"h":"Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata (Fourth Lecture: The Role of High and of Extremely High Complication)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** von Neumann, J. (edited and completed by Arthur W. Burks) (1966). *University of Illinois Press*. Source file: `VonNeumann.pdf`. [URL](https://archive.org/details/theoryofselfrepr00vonn_0)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This excerpt is the Fourth Lecture of von Neumann's posthumously edited *Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata*. Von Neumann compares natural automata (nervous systems) with artificial computing machines across size, speed, energy dissipation per elementary act of information, and error characteristics. He observes that although vacuum tubes are vastly larger and less energy-efficient than neurons, both are far above the thermodynamic minimum — suggesting physics does not fully explain the size gap; reliability likely does. The core argument concerns complication: below a threshold, a system cannot perform certain tasks at all; above it, qualitatively new behaviors (including self-reproduction and evolution) become possible. Natural automata tolerate errors locally rather than halting on any single fault, an architectural stance he contrasts with the \"single-error\" fragility of contemporary computers. The discussion foreshadows modern views on redundancy, fault tolerance, and emergent capabilities with scale."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Complication threshold enables qualitatively new behavior. - Natural automata survive local errors; artificial automata halt. - Analog-digital mixture characterizes biological computation. - Size and reliability trade-offs shape architecture. - Precursor to self-reproducing and evolvable systems theory."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[Large Population Models]] - [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] — modern self-replicating agent, direct lineal descendant - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] — biological self-organisation - [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] — selfhood extended to scale-free cognition - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] — engineered local-error-tolerance"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** There exists a threshold of \"complication\" below which automata can only degrade and above which qualitatively new capacities (self-reproduction, evolvable organisation) become possible; biological automata survive precisely because their architecture tolerates local error rather than halting on any single fault. - **Mechanism:** Von Neumann juxtaposes nervous systems and vacuum-tube computers along size, energy-per-information-act, speed, and error characteristics, noting both far exceed thermodynamic minima so the gap must be architectural. He then argues that digital-analog hybrids with distributed redundancy exhibit error-tolerant behaviour that Turing-style halting-on-first-error machines cannot match, and frames this as a prerequisite for crossing the complication threshold that enables open-ended evolution. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Complication Threshold]], [[Self-Reproducing Automata]], [[Fault Tolerance]], [[Redundancy]], [[Digital-Analog Hybrid]], [[Error Halting]], [[Natural vs Artificial Automata]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** A philosophical wellspring for the \"let it crash\" supervision of [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]], the fault-tolerance patterns of [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]], the robustness concerns of [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]], and the emergent-complexity framing behind [[Computational Boundary of a Self]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"automata #complexity #fault-tolerance #foundational","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":1,"1966":1,"a":7,"above":3,"across":2,"act":2,"adaptive":1,"agent":3,"all":1,"along":1,"although":1,"an":1,"analog":3,"and":13,"any":2,"architectural":3,"architecture":2,"archive":1,"are":3,"argues":1,"argument":1,"arthur":1,"artificial":3,"as":1,"at":1,"attacks":1,"automata":11,"be":1,"because":1,"become":2,"behavior":1,"behaviors":1,"behaviour":1,"behind":1,"below":2,"biological":3,"both":2,"boundary":2,"burks":1,"by":1,"can":1,"cannot":2,"capabilities":1,"capacities":1,"certain":1,"characteristics":2,"characterizes":1,"claim":1,"clawworm":1,"cognition":1,"communication":1,"compares":1,"completed":1,"complexity":2,"complication":6,"computation":1,"computational":2,"computers":2,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":2,"connections":1,"contemporary":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"crash":1,"crossing":1,"degrade":1,"dependable":1,"descendant":1,"details":1,"digital":3,"direct":1,"discussion":1,"dissipation":1,"distributed":1,"does":2,"ecosystems":1,"edge":1,"edited":2,"edition":2,"efficient":1,"elementary":1,"emergent":2,"enables":2,"ended":1,"energy":3,"engineered":1,"erlang":2,"error":8,"errors":2,"evolution":2,"evolvable":2,"exceed":1,"excerpt":1,"exhibit":1,"exists":1,"explain":1,"extended":1,"extremely":1,"failures":1,"far":2,"fault":6,"file":1,"first":1,"for":3,"foreshadows":1,"foundational":2,"fourth":2,"fragility":1,"frames":1,"framing":1,"free":1,"fully":1,"fungi":1,"gap":2,"halt":1,"halting":4,"he":3,"high":2,"https":1,"hybrid":1,"hybrids":1,"ideas":1,"illinois":1,"including":1,"information":2,"inspired":1,"intelligence":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"it":2,"j":1,"juxtaposes":1,"key":1,"large":1,"larger":1,"lecture":2,"less":1,"let":1,"likely":1,"lineal":1,"llm":1,"local":3,"locally":1,"machines":2,"match":1,"mechanism":1,"minima":1,"minimum":1,"mixture":1,"models":1,"modern":2,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"must":1,"myconet":1,"natural":4,"nervous":2,"neumann":4,"neurons":1,"new":3,"not":1,"noting":1,"observes":1,"of":14,"offs":1,"on":4,"only":1,"open":1,"org":1,"organisation":2,"overlay":1,"patterns":2,"per":2,"perform":1,"philosophical":1,"physics":1,"population":1,"possible":2,"posthumously":1,"precisely":1,"precursor":1,"prerequisite":1,"press":1,"programming":2,"propagating":1,"qualitatively":3,"rather":2,"redundancy":3,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliability":2,"replicating":1,"reproducing":4,"reproduction":2,"resilient":1,"robustness":1,"role":1,"s":1,"scale":2,"second":2,"self":12,"selfhood":1,"shape":1,"single":3,"size":4,"so":1,"software":1,"sol":1,"source":1,"speed":2,"stance":2,"style":1,"suggesting":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"supervision":1,"survive":2,"system":1,"systems":7,"tags":1,"tasks":1,"than":3,"that":4,"the":13,"their":1,"then":1,"theory":3,"theoryofselfrepr00vonn":1,"there":1,"thermodynamic":2,"this":2,"threshold":5,"to":4,"tolerance":5,"tolerant":1,"tolerate":1,"tolerates":1,"trade":1,"tube":1,"tubes":1,"turing":1,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vacuum":2,"vastly":1,"views":1,"von":4,"vs":1,"w":1,"wellspring":1,"which":2,"with":4}},{"dl":567,"n":"Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church","s":"papers/foundations/extensions-of-some-theorems-of-gödel-and-church","secs":[{"h":"Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Rosser, J. Barkley (1936). \"Extensions of some theorems of Gödel and Church.\" *Journal of Symbolic Logic* 1(3), 87–91. [DOI 10.2307/2269028](https://doi.org/10.2307/2269028). Open scan: [JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2269028)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A five-page paper that sharpens Gödel's first incompleteness theorem and Church's undecidability theorem by replacing the hypothesis of **ω-consistency** with the weaker hypothesis of **simple consistency**. Gödel 1931 constructed, for an ω-consistent, effectively axiomatised theory `P` interpreting arithmetic, a sentence `G ≡ \"I am not provable in P\"`; Gödel could prove `G` is unprovable from simple consistency alone, but needed ω-consistency to exclude `¬G` being provable. Rosser shows that by a clever modification of the self-referential sentence one can drop this stronger hypothesis. The technical device — now universally known as the **Rosser trick** — replaces the Gödel sentence with a **Rosser sentence** `R` that says, informally, \"for every proof of me, there is a smaller proof of my negation.\" Formally, if `Bew(y, x)` is the proof predicate, `R` encodes `∀y. Bew(y, ⌜R⌝) → ∃z ≤ y. Bew(z, ⌜¬R⌝)`. Analysing the two cases — `R` provable or `¬R` provable — now requires only simple consistency: from either provability claim together with consistency one extracts a contradiction by a primitive recursive comparison of proof lengths. Hence for any consistent, effectively axiomatised, sufficiently strong theory, `R` is independent. The same idea extends Church's 1936 result: the set of theorems is not recursive, given only simple consistency. Rosser's paper is short, elegant, and methodologically paradigmatic: replacing an *ω*-style hypothesis by a *simple* hypothesis via a bounded-quantifier device is now a stock move in proof theory and recursion theory. The Rosser sentence itself is the standard presentation of the first incompleteness theorem in modern textbooks; Gödel's original form is cited for historical reasons but Rosser's is what students actually prove."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Rosser sentence** `R`: \"every proof of me is matched by a smaller proof of my negation.\" - **Weakening hypothesis** from ω-consistency to simple consistency in Gödel's first theorem. - **Rosser trick**: bounded quantifiers comparing proof lengths resolve the two cases without ω-consistency. - Corresponding **sharpening of Church's undecidability theorem**: theoremhood is not recursive under simple consistency alone. - Methodological template: `ω`-style hypotheses can often be replaced by `simple` hypotheses via bounded-quantifier comparisons."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Consistency and Completeness]] - [[First-Order Logic]] - [[Computability]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** Gödel's first incompleteness theorem and Church's theorem on the undecidability of first-order logic hold under the weaker hypothesis of simple consistency; ω-consistency is not needed. - **Mechanism:** Replace the Gödel sentence `G ≡ ¬∃y. Bew(y, ⌜G⌝)` with the Rosser sentence `R ≡ ∀y. Bew(y, ⌜R⌝) → ∃z ≤ y. Bew(z, ⌜¬R⌝)`. Using only simple consistency, analyse supposed proofs of `R` or `¬R` by comparing proof-length witnesses via bounded quantifiers; derive a contradiction in each case. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Rosser sentence, Rosser trick, simple vs. ω-consistency, bounded-quantifier self-reference, [[Consistency and Completeness]] - **Stance:** foundational technical paper (mathematical logic) - **Relates to:** Directly strengthens [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I|Gödel 1931]] and [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory|Church 1936]]; the bounded-quantifier device is a methodological template reused throughout recursion theory and [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers|Kleene 1943]]'s hierarchy work."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #incompleteness #rosser #mathematical-logic #consistency #self-reference","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"10":2,"1931":2,"1936":3,"1943":1,"2269028":3,"2307":2,"3":1,"87":1,"91":1,"a":13,"actually":1,"alone":2,"an":4,"analyse":1,"analysing":1,"and":14,"any":1,"arithmetic":1,"as":1,"axiomatised":2,"barkley":1,"be":1,"being":1,"bounded":6,"but":2,"by":7,"can":2,"case":1,"cases":2,"church":7,"cited":1,"claim":2,"classes":1,"clever":1,"comparing":2,"comparison":1,"comparisons":1,"completeness":2,"computability":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consistency":18,"consistent":2,"constructed":1,"contradiction":2,"contribution":1,"corresponding":1,"could":1,"decision":2,"der":2,"derive":1,"device":3,"directly":1,"doi":2,"drop":1,"each":1,"effectively":2,"either":1,"elegant":1,"elementary":2,"encodes":1,"enumerable":2,"every":2,"exclude":1,"extends":1,"extensions":2,"extracts":1,"first":6,"five":1,"for":4,"form":1,"formal":2,"formally":1,"foundational":2,"from":3,"given":1,"gödel":11,"halting":1,"hence":1,"hierarchy":1,"historical":1,"hold":1,"https":2,"hypotheses":2,"hypothesis":7,"i":2,"idea":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"in":4,"incompleteness":4,"independent":1,"informally":1,"integers":1,"interpreting":1,"introduced":1,"is":14,"itself":1,"j":1,"journal":1,"jstor":2,"key":1,"kleene":1,"known":1,"length":1,"lengths":2,"logic":5,"matched":1,"mathematica":2,"mathematical":2,"me":2,"mechanism":1,"methodological":2,"methodologically":1,"modern":1,"modification":1,"move":1,"my":2,"needed":2,"negation":2,"not":3,"now":3,"number":2,"of":23,"often":1,"on":1,"one":2,"only":3,"open":1,"or":2,"order":2,"org":2,"original":1,"page":1,"paper":3,"paradigmatic":1,"positive":1,"predicate":1,"predicates":2,"presentation":1,"primitive":1,"principia":2,"problem":3,"problems":2,"proof":9,"proofs":1,"provability":1,"provable":3,"prove":2,"quantifier":4,"quantifiers":4,"reasons":1,"recursion":2,"recursive":5,"recursively":2,"reference":3,"referential":1,"relates":1,"replace":1,"replaced":1,"replaces":1,"replacing":2,"requires":1,"resolve":1,"result":1,"reused":1,"rosser":13,"s":11,"same":1,"says":1,"scan":1,"self":3,"sentence":9,"set":1,"sets":2,"sharpening":1,"sharpens":1,"short":1,"shows":1,"simple":10,"smaller":2,"some":2,"stable":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stock":1,"strengthens":1,"strong":1,"stronger":1,"students":1,"style":2,"sufficiently":1,"summary":1,"supposed":1,"symbolic":1,"systeme":2,"sätze":2,"tags":1,"technical":2,"template":2,"textbooks":1,"that":3,"the":19,"their":2,"theorem":7,"theoremhood":1,"theorems":3,"theory":7,"there":1,"this":1,"throughout":1,"to":3,"together":1,"trick":3,"two":2,"und":2,"undecidability":3,"under":2,"unentscheidbare":2,"universally":1,"unprovable":1,"unsolvable":2,"used":1,"using":1,"verwandter":2,"via":3,"vs":1,"weakening":1,"weaker":2,"what":1,"with":4,"without":1,"witnesses":1,"work":1,"www":1,"über":2,"ω":8}},{"dl":613,"n":"Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style","s":"papers/foundations/can-programming-be-liberated-from-the-von-neumann-style","secs":[{"h":"Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Backus, J. (1978). \"Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs.\" 1977 ACM Turing Award Lecture. *Communications of the ACM*, 21(8), 613-641. [URL](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Backus78.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"In his Turing Award lecture, Backus — the inventor of Fortran — delivers a startling self-critique of conventional programming languages. He argues that languages from Fortran through Algol to Pascal are all essentially **von Neumann languages**: they inherit the word-at-a-time, stored-program architecture's assumptions (variables, assignment, statement sequencing, control flow through a single instruction pointer) and therefore suffer its bottlenecks. Programs written in this style are fat, inelegant, resist composition, and cannot be reasoned about algebraically because their meaning depends on an ever-changing hidden state. As an alternative, Backus proposes **FP** — a functional programming language built from a small set of primitive functions and a handful of higher-order combining forms (composition, construction, condition, apply-to-all, insert). Programs are *expressions* that compose functions without mentioning variables or state. Crucially, FP comes equipped with an **algebra of programs**: equational laws that let one transform programs by substitution, exactly as one transforms algebraic expressions. A worked inner-product example shows the dramatic size and transparency gains: the FP version is a line of combinators; the Fortran version is a loop with state-manipulating assignments. The lecture's impact has been enduring and multifaceted. FP itself did not become mainstream, but its argument animated Haskell, ML, and the broader functional turn; its algebraic equations seeded Bird-Meertens \"squiggol\" formalism and the point-free programming style; its critique of the von Neumann bottleneck anticipated dataflow, array languages (APL/J/K), and GPU/SIMD programming. Backus's central thesis — that programming needs a *mathematical theory* within which programs can be manipulated — is echoed in every modern effort to make software more composable, verifiable, and parallelizable."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Von Neumann bottleneck**: word-at-a-time traffic between CPU and store is inherited by conventional programming languages, making them conceptually as well as physically slow. - **State and assignment as original sin**: they block algebraic reasoning and force programmers to think like the machine. - **FP (Functional Programming)**: a variable-free, point-free language of functions and combining forms. - **Combining forms**: composition, construction, condition, apply-to-all (map), insert (fold/reduce), while. - **Algebra of programs**: equational laws enabling syntactic program transformation and optimization. - **Two kinds of functions**: ordinary (first-order, operate on values) vs. combining forms (build new functions). - **Program = expression**: no statements, no mutable variables, no sequencing — just function composition. - **Mathematical semantics**: each program denotes a function; equivalence is extensional equality."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Code as Data]] - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] — McCarthy's LISP is the other founding functional work. - [[Algorithm = Logic + Control]] — Kowalski's parallel argument for separating meaning from machinery. - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — another push beyond stored-program orthodoxy."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":34,"t":"> Conventional programming languages inherit the architectural limits of the von Neumann machine — word-at-a-time state mutation — and pay for it in verbosity, error-proneness, and an inability to be manipulated algebraically. A functional style, freed of variables and assignment and equipped with a small set of combining forms, turns programs into objects of a *mathematical algebra* that can be transformed, optimized, and reasoned about by equational rewriting. The path to better software runs through better mathematics, not faster instruction pipelines."},{"h":"Tags","l":38,"t":""},{"h":"functional-programming #backus #turing-lecture #von-neumann #algebra-of-programs #FP #foundational #program-transformation","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"1977":1,"1978":1,"21":1,"613":1,"641":1,"8":1,"819":1,"a":20,"about":2,"acm":2,"actor":1,"algebra":6,"algebraic":3,"algebraically":2,"algol":1,"algorithm":1,"all":3,"alternative":1,"an":4,"and":22,"animated":1,"another":1,"anticipated":1,"apl":1,"apply":2,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":3,"argues":1,"argument":2,"array":1,"artificial":1,"as":6,"assignment":3,"assignments":1,"assumptions":1,"at":3,"award":2,"backus":5,"backus78":1,"be":6,"because":1,"become":1,"been":1,"better":2,"between":1,"beyond":1,"bird":1,"block":1,"bottleneck":2,"bottlenecks":1,"broader":1,"build":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":4,"can":4,"cannot":1,"central":1,"changing":1,"cmu":1,"code":1,"combinators":1,"combining":5,"comes":1,"communications":1,"composable":1,"compose":1,"composition":4,"computation":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptually":1,"condition":2,"connections":1,"construction":2,"contribution":1,"control":2,"conventional":3,"cpu":1,"crary":1,"critique":2,"crucially":1,"cs":1,"data":1,"dataflow":1,"delivers":1,"denotes":1,"depends":1,"did":1,"dramatic":1,"each":1,"echoed":1,"edu":1,"effort":1,"enabling":1,"enduring":1,"equality":1,"equational":3,"equations":1,"equipped":2,"equivalence":1,"error":1,"essentially":1,"ever":1,"every":1,"exactly":1,"example":1,"expression":1,"expressions":3,"extensible":1,"extensional":1,"f09":1,"faster":1,"fat":1,"first":1,"flow":1,"fold":1,"for":3,"force":1,"formalism":2,"forms":5,"fortran":3,"foundational":1,"founding":1,"fp":6,"free":3,"freed":1,"from":5,"function":2,"functional":8,"functions":6,"gains":1,"gpu":1,"graham":1,"handful":1,"has":1,"haskell":1,"he":1,"hidden":1,"higher":1,"his":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"impact":1,"in":4,"inability":1,"inelegant":1,"inherit":2,"inherited":1,"inner":1,"insert":2,"instruction":2,"intelligence":1,"into":1,"inventor":1,"is":6,"it":1,"its":6,"itself":1,"j":2,"just":1,"k":1,"key":1,"kinds":1,"kowalski":1,"language":3,"languages":6,"laws":2,"lecture":4,"let":1,"liberated":2,"like":1,"limits":1,"line":1,"lisp":1,"logic":1,"loop":1,"machine":3,"machinery":1,"mainstream":1,"make":1,"making":1,"manipulated":2,"manipulating":1,"map":1,"mathematical":3,"mathematics":1,"mccarthy":1,"meaning":2,"meertens":1,"mentioning":1,"ml":1,"modern":1,"modular":1,"more":1,"multifaceted":1,"mutable":1,"mutation":1,"needs":1,"neumann":7,"new":1,"no":3,"not":2,"objects":1,"of":19,"on":2,"one":2,"operate":1,"optimization":1,"optimized":1,"or":1,"order":2,"ordinary":1,"original":1,"orthodoxy":1,"other":1,"parallel":1,"parallelizable":1,"pascal":1,"path":1,"pay":1,"pdf":1,"physically":1,"pipelines":1,"point":2,"pointer":1,"primitive":1,"product":1,"program":6,"programmers":1,"programming":11,"programs":10,"proneness":1,"proposes":1,"push":1,"reasoned":2,"reasoning":1,"recursive":1,"reduce":1,"reference":1,"resist":1,"rewriting":1,"runs":1,"s":5,"seeded":1,"self":1,"semantics":1,"separating":1,"sequencing":2,"set":2,"shows":1,"simd":1,"sin":1,"single":1,"size":1,"slow":1,"small":2,"software":2,"squiggol":1,"startling":1,"state":5,"statement":1,"statements":1,"store":1,"stored":2,"style":7,"substitution":1,"suffer":1,"summary":1,"symbolic":1,"syntactic":1,"tags":1,"that":5,"the":18,"their":2,"them":1,"theory":1,"therefore":1,"thesis":1,"they":2,"think":1,"this":1,"through":3,"time":3,"to":7,"traffic":1,"transform":1,"transformation":2,"transformed":1,"transforms":1,"transparency":1,"turing":3,"turn":1,"turns":1,"two":1,"universal":1,"url":1,"values":1,"variable":1,"variables":4,"verbosity":1,"verifiable":1,"version":2,"von":7,"vs":1,"well":1,"which":1,"while":1,"with":3,"within":1,"without":1,"word":3,"work":1,"worked":1,"written":1,"www":1}},{"dl":542,"n":"A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence","s":"papers/foundations/a-universal-modular-actor-formalism-for-artificial-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Hewitt, C., Bishop, P., & Steiger, R. (1973). \"A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence.\" *Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)*, 235-245. [URL](https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/73/Papers/027B.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Hewitt, Bishop, and Steiger introduce the **Actor** — a universal computational primitive that unifies data, procedure, and process under a single kind of object. An actor is an active agent with behavior defined entirely by the messages it sends and receives. All computational structures — numbers, functions, semaphores, cells, queues, interpreters — are modeled uniformly as actors that respond to messages. Control flow and data flow are *inseparable*; sending a message replaces goto, call-return, interrupt, and semaphore operations with a single mechanism. The paper grew out of the PLANNER project and explicit dissatisfaction with the von Neumann / stored-program paradigm dominant in AI languages. In place of \"program counter + global memory + interrupts,\" the actor model offers local state per actor, inherent concurrency via simultaneous message sends, and a coherent account of parallelism that scales from fine-grained numeric computation to large, autonomous agents. The authors emphasize **intentions** as first-class properties — an actor's intention is the contract it guarantees to satisfy for its senders, supporting a form of declarative meta-evaluation and debugging. Hewitt's framework anticipated and influenced a long arc of subsequent work: Smalltalk's message-passing object model, Agha's formalization of actor semantics, Erlang/OTP's supervised processes and let-it-crash philosophy, the Akka framework, CSP (Hoare) which formalized a closely related but channel-centric style, and contemporary actor-based agentic systems. The paper's insistence that \"creation, control, and communication\" are one mechanism remains the defining alternative to shared-memory concurrency."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Actor = message-receiving agent**: a single primitive subsumes data, procedures, processes. - **Message passing only**: no shared memory, no goto, no interrupt, no semaphore. - **Inseparability of control and data**: computation is intrinsic — \"ask not what you can do to an object; ask what the actor will do for you.\" - **Inherent concurrency**: every message send is potentially parallel. - **Intentions / contracts**: each actor publishes obligations; meta-evaluators check that behavior satisfies intentions. - **Modularity via encapsulation**: actors expose only message interfaces; internal state is private. - **Universality**: the formalism expresses every computational construct needed for AI programming without primitive aggregates. - **Hierarchies of scheduling, intention, monitoring, binding, resource management**: supervisory structures emerge naturally."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[Actor Model]] - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] — the most successful large-scale realization. - [[Let It Crash]] - [[Supervision Tree]] - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's agent-of-agents shares the intuition. - [[Communicating Sequential Processes]] — Hoare's contemporary rival formulation. - [[Hoare Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":37,"t":"> Computation can be built from a single primitive — the actor, an active entity defined wholly by its message-response behavior — and every classical construct (data, procedure, process, lock, interrupt) is an instance of this primitive. Concurrency becomes native rather than bolted-on; modularity is enforced by message-passing; and programs become societies of agents with stated intentions, supervisable and reorganizable without rewriting the whole. This is the conceptual foundation beneath every modern message-passing, fault-isolating concurrent system."},{"h":"Tags","l":41,"t":""},{"h":"actor-model #hewitt #concurrency #message-passing #AI-foundations #modularity #PLANNER #foundational","l":43,"t":""}],"tf":{"027b":1,"1973":1,"235":1,"245":1,"3rd":1,"73":1,"a":13,"account":1,"active":2,"actor":15,"actors":2,"agent":3,"agentic":1,"agents":3,"aggregates":1,"agha":1,"ai":3,"akka":1,"all":1,"alternative":1,"an":6,"and":16,"anticipated":1,"approach":1,"arc":1,"are":3,"artificial":3,"as":2,"ask":2,"authors":1,"autonomous":1,"based":2,"be":1,"become":1,"becomes":1,"behavior":3,"beneath":1,"binding":1,"bishop":2,"bolted":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":3,"c":1,"call":1,"can":2,"cells":1,"centric":1,"channel":1,"check":1,"class":1,"classical":1,"closely":1,"coherent":1,"communicating":1,"communication":1,"computation":3,"computational":3,"conceptual":2,"concurrency":5,"concurrent":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"construct":2,"contemporary":2,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"contribution":1,"control":3,"counter":1,"crash":2,"creation":1,"csp":1,"data":5,"ddos":1,"debugging":1,"declarative":1,"defined":2,"defining":1,"dissatisfaction":1,"do":2,"dominant":1,"each":1,"edition":1,"emerge":1,"emphasize":1,"encapsulation":1,"enforced":1,"entirely":1,"entity":1,"erlang":2,"evaluation":1,"evaluators":1,"every":4,"explicit":1,"expose":1,"expresses":1,"fault":1,"fine":1,"first":1,"flow":2,"for":5,"form":1,"formalism":3,"formalization":1,"formalized":1,"formulation":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"framework":2,"from":2,"functions":1,"global":1,"goto":2,"grained":1,"grew":1,"guarantees":1,"hewitt":4,"hierarchies":1,"hoare":3,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ijcai":2,"in":2,"influenced":1,"inherent":2,"inseparability":1,"inseparable":1,"insistence":1,"instance":1,"intelligence":3,"intention":2,"intentions":4,"interfaces":1,"internal":1,"international":1,"interpreters":1,"interrupt":3,"interrupts":1,"intrinsic":1,"introduce":1,"intuition":1,"is":8,"isolating":1,"it":4,"its":2,"joint":1,"key":1,"kind":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"large":2,"let":2,"local":1,"lock":1,"logic":1,"long":1,"management":1,"mechanism":2,"memory":3,"message":11,"messages":2,"meta":2,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"model":4,"modeled":1,"modern":1,"modular":2,"modularity":3,"monitoring":1,"most":1,"native":1,"naturally":1,"needed":1,"neumann":1,"no":4,"not":1,"numbers":1,"numeric":1,"object":3,"obligations":1,"of":14,"offers":1,"on":2,"one":1,"only":2,"operations":1,"org":1,"otp":1,"out":1,"p":1,"paper":2,"papers":1,"paradigm":1,"parallel":1,"parallelism":1,"passing":5,"pdf":1,"per":1,"philosophy":1,"place":1,"planner":2,"potentially":1,"prevent":1,"primitive":5,"private":1,"procedure":2,"procedures":1,"proceedings":2,"process":2,"processes":3,"program":2,"programming":2,"programs":1,"project":1,"properties":1,"publishes":1,"queues":1,"r":1,"rather":1,"realization":1,"receives":1,"receiving":1,"reference":1,"related":1,"remains":1,"reorganizable":1,"replaces":1,"resource":1,"respond":1,"response":1,"return":1,"rewriting":1,"rival":1,"s":8,"satisfies":1,"satisfy":1,"scale":1,"scales":1,"scheduling":1,"second":1,"semantics":1,"semaphore":2,"semaphores":1,"send":1,"senders":1,"sending":1,"sends":2,"sequential":1,"shared":2,"shares":1,"simultaneous":1,"single":4,"smalltalk":1,"societies":1,"society":1,"state":2,"stated":1,"steiger":2,"stored":1,"structures":2,"style":1,"subsequent":1,"subsumes":1,"successful":1,"summary":1,"supervisable":1,"supervised":1,"supervision":1,"supervisory":1,"supporting":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":20,"this":2,"to":6,"tree":1,"under":1,"unifies":1,"uniformly":1,"universal":3,"universality":1,"url":1,"via":2,"von":1,"what":2,"which":1,"whole":1,"wholly":1,"will":1,"with":4,"without":2,"work":1,"www":1,"you":2}},{"dl":840,"n":"Programs with Common Sense","s":"papers/foundations/programs-with-common-sense","secs":[{"h":"Programs with Common Sense","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1959). \"Programs with Common Sense.\" In *Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes*, pp. 75-91. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Reprinted in Marvin Minsky (ed.), *Semantic Information Processing*, MIT Press, 1968, and in McCarthy's *Formalizing Common Sense* (Ablex, 1990). Source file: `mccarthy-mcc59.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/mcc59/mcc59.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The founding manifesto for knowledge representation and for logic-based AI. McCarthy proposes the *advice taker* — a program that reasons by manipulating sentences in a formal language (essentially predicate calculus), takes in *advice* in the form of declarative sentences, and deduces its actions from its premises together with imperative sentences about what is wanted. The central criterion he names is that the program \"will have common sense\" just in case it automatically deduces for itself a sufficiently wide class of immediate consequences of anything it is told and of what it already knows. The paper distinguishes teaching a machine by imperative sentences (fast, no prior knowledge needed) from teaching by declarative sentences (exploits prior knowledge, robust to order, robust to context changes), and stakes AI on the declarative side. It lists five conditions for human-level intelligence — generality of representation, simple expression of behavior changes, improvability of the improving mechanism, concepts of partial success, and the ability to form reusable subroutines — and then sketches the advice taker as a concrete attempt at the second. The paper closes with a famous worked example: getting from home to the airport, formalised in a predicate-calculus-like language with premises such as `at(I, desk)`, `at(desk, home)`, and action axioms, so that the advice taker can chain them into a plan. A discussion appendix (Bar-Hillel, Oliver Selfridge, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel again, McCarthy's replies) is one of the earliest recorded methodological debates in AI. Every subsequent McCarthy paper — *Recursive Functions* (1960), *Situation Calculus* (1969), *Epistemological Problems* (1977), *Circumscription* (1980), *Ascribing Mental Qualities* (1979) — is in some sense an attempt to repair, extend, or defend a weakness of the advice-taker programme first stated here. It is also the point of origin for the entire declarative / symbolic tradition that the ACL design literature inherits."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- A program has *common sense* iff it automatically deduces a sufficiently wide class of immediate consequences of what it is told plus what it already knows. - Knowledge should be represented as *sentences in a formal language* (predicate calculus), not baked into procedures. - Declarative vs imperative instruction: declarative scales, imperative is fast; the advice taker chooses declarative. - To learn something, a program must first be capable of being *told* it. - Five pre-conditions for general intelligence: arbitrary behavior representable, simple expressibility of changes, improvable improvement mechanism, partial-success concepts, reusable subroutines. - Worked airport example — the first substantive formalisation of a situated plan in logic."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] — Lisp, the implementation vehicle proposed for the advice taker. - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] — 1969 elaboration, introducing situation calculus to repair the action formalisation. - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] — 1977 diagnosis of what has and has not worked. - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — needed to make advice-taker inference non-monotonic. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell's characterisation of the advice-taker programme as operating at the knowledge level. - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's later (and more sceptical) response to the logicist programme. - [[Epistemic Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":38,"t":"- **Claim:** An intelligent agent can be built by representing its world as sentences in a formal (predicate-calculus) language, letting it take *advice* in declarative form, and deducing actions as logical consequences of its premises together with sentences about what it wants — the criterion of intelligence being how wide a class of immediate consequences it can automatically derive. - **Mechanism:** The *advice taker* architecture: formal-language knowledge base; declarative input (\"I am at my desk\"); imperative input (\"I want to be at the airport\"); rules of inference (predicate-calculus-style); action-producing deductions; interaction with humans that add or retract premises. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Advice Taker]], [[Common Sense Reasoning]], [[Declarative Knowledge]], [[Knowledge Representation]], [[Logicist AI]], [[Planning]], [[Situated Action]]. - **Stance:** foundational / programmatic - **Relates to:** The origin document of the declarative / logicist tradition that [[Knowledge Representation]] and [[Common Sense Reasoning]] formalise. The advice-taker agenda is continued in [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] (situation calculus to model action), [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] (methodological self-review), and [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] (non-monotonicity to handle the qualification problem inherent in declarative advice). [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] and [[Common Business Communication Language]] are late-career revivals of the advice-taker vision applied to agent communication."},{"h":"Tags","l":45,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #advice-taker #knowledge-representation #logicist #ai-history #1959","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"1959":2,"1960":1,"1968":1,"1969":2,"1977":2,"1979":1,"1980":1,"1990":1,"2000":2,"75":1,"91":1,"a":23,"ability":1,"ablex":1,"about":2,"acl":1,"action":5,"actions":2,"acts":2,"add":1,"advice":16,"again":1,"agenda":1,"agent":2,"ai":5,"airport":3,"already":2,"also":1,"am":1,"an":2,"and":16,"anything":1,"appendix":1,"applied":1,"arbitrary":1,"architecture":1,"are":1,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"artificial":5,"as":6,"ascribing":2,"at":4,"attempt":2,"automatically":3,"axioms":1,"baked":1,"bar":2,"base":1,"based":3,"be":4,"behavior":2,"being":2,"built":1,"business":2,"by":5,"calculus":8,"can":3,"capable":1,"career":1,"case":1,"central":1,"chain":1,"changes":3,"characterisation":1,"chooses":1,"circumscription":3,"claim":1,"class":3,"closes":1,"common":10,"communication":3,"compiler":1,"computation":2,"concepts":4,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conditions":2,"conference":1,"connections":1,"consequences":4,"context":1,"continued":1,"contribution":1,"correctness":1,"criterion":2,"debates":1,"declarative":12,"deduces":3,"deducing":1,"deductions":1,"defend":1,"derive":1,"design":1,"desk":1,"diagnosis":1,"discussion":1,"distinguishes":1,"document":1,"earliest":1,"ed":1,"edu":1,"elaboration":1,"elephant":2,"entire":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":3,"essentially":1,"every":1,"example":2,"exploits":1,"expressibility":1,"expression":1,"expressions":2,"extend":1,"famous":1,"fast":2,"file":1,"first":4,"five":2,"for":8,"form":5,"formal":4,"formalisation":2,"formalise":1,"formalised":1,"formalizing":1,"foundational":2,"founding":1,"from":5,"functions":2,"general":1,"generality":2,"getting":1,"handle":1,"has":3,"have":1,"he":1,"her":1,"here":1,"hillel":2,"history":1,"home":1,"how":1,"http":1,"human":1,"humans":1,"i":2,"ideas":1,"iff":1,"immediate":3,"imperative":5,"implementation":1,"improvability":1,"improvable":1,"improvement":1,"improving":1,"in":17,"individual":1,"inference":2,"information":1,"inherent":1,"inherits":1,"input":2,"instruction":1,"intelligence":8,"intelligent":1,"interaction":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introducing":1,"is":9,"it":12,"its":4,"itself":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"just":1,"key":1,"knowledge":12,"knows":2,"language":9,"late":1,"later":1,"learn":1,"letting":1,"level":3,"like":1,"lisp":1,"lists":1,"literature":1,"logic":3,"logical":1,"logicist":4,"london":1,"machine":2,"machines":1,"majesty":1,"make":1,"manifesto":1,"manipulating":1,"marvin":1,"mathematical":1,"mcc59":2,"mccarthy":6,"mechanism":3,"mechanization":1,"mental":2,"methodological":2,"mind":1,"minsky":2,"mit":1,"model":1,"monotonic":1,"monotonicity":1,"more":1,"must":1,"my":1,"names":1,"needed":2,"newell":1,"no":1,"non":2,"nonmonotonic":2,"not":2,"of":37,"office":1,"oliver":1,"on":4,"one":1,"operating":1,"or":2,"order":2,"origin":2,"paper":3,"partial":2,"pdf":1,"philosophical":2,"plan":2,"planning":1,"plus":1,"point":1,"pp":1,"pre":1,"predicate":5,"premises":4,"press":1,"prior":2,"problem":1,"problems":5,"procedures":1,"proceedings":1,"processes":1,"processing":1,"producing":1,"program":4,"programmatic":1,"programme":3,"programming":2,"programs":2,"proposed":1,"proposes":1,"propositions":1,"qualification":1,"qualities":2,"reasoning":5,"reasons":1,"recorded":1,"recursive":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"repair":2,"replies":1,"representable":1,"representation":6,"represented":1,"representing":1,"reprinted":1,"response":1,"retract":1,"reusable":2,"review":1,"revivals":1,"robust":2,"rules":1,"s":5,"scales":1,"sceptical":1,"science":1,"second":1,"self":1,"selfridge":1,"semantic":1,"sense":9,"sentences":8,"should":1,"side":1,"simple":2,"situated":2,"situation":3,"sketches":1,"so":1,"society":1,"some":3,"something":1,"source":1,"speech":2,"stakes":1,"stance":1,"standpoint":2,"stanford":1,"stated":1,"stationery":1,"style":1,"subroutines":2,"subsequent":1,"substantive":1,"success":2,"such":1,"sufficiently":2,"summary":1,"symbolic":2,"tags":1,"take":1,"taker":13,"takes":1,"teaching":2,"teddington":1,"that":6,"the":41,"their":1,"them":1,"then":1,"theories":1,"thought":1,"to":15,"together":2,"told":3,"towards":1,"tradition":2,"url":1,"used":1,"vehicle":1,"vision":1,"vs":1,"want":1,"wanted":1,"wants":1,"weakness":1,"what":6,"wide":3,"will":1,"with":7,"worked":3,"world":1,"yehoshua":1}},{"dl":489,"n":"An Application of a Method for Analysis of Cyclic Programs","s":"papers/foundations/an-application-of-a-method-for-analysis-of-cyclic-programs","secs":[{"h":"An Application of a Method for Analysis of Cyclic Programs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Nissim Francez (1978). *IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering* SE-4(5): 371-378. [URL](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1702552) (DOI: 10.1109/TSE.1978.233857). No open-access PDF located — IEEE paywall, no author preprint on Francez's Technion page. Cited in McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The applied companion to [[A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs]]. Francez uses the Francez-Pnueli cyclic-program proof method to prove Dijkstra's \"on-the-fly\" garbage collector correct — a paradigmatically hard concurrent, cyclic program in which a mutator and a collector cooperate to manage a shared heap. The paper also compares the Francez-Pnueli approach with an alternative proof of the same algorithm by David Gries using Owicki's method, discussing what each approach reveals about the algorithm's invariants and interference structure. McCarthy cites this paper in Elephant 2000 as concrete evidence that the cyclic-program proof methodology scales to a real concurrent reactive system, supporting his claim that Elephant's non-terminating speech-act programs admit tractable verification."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Case study:** Dijkstra's on-the-fly concurrent garbage collector, proved correct in the Francez-Pnueli framework. - **Concurrent cyclic behaviour:** mutator/collector cooperation analysed via eventual-behaviour invariants. - **Comparison with Owicki/Gries:** contrasts the Francez-Pnueli cyclic-programs method with Gries's proof of the same algorithm using the Owicki interference-freedom approach. - **Methodological lessons:** shows which invariants each proof style makes natural and which it leaves implicit."},{"h":"Connections","l":16,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — McCarthy cites this alongside the Francez-Pnueli method paper - [[A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs]] — the method applied here - [[Program Verification]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Verification Condition]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** The Francez-Pnueli cyclic-programs proof method is tractable and perspicuous on a paradigmatically hard concurrent cyclic program — Dijkstra's on-the-fly garbage collector — and yields a qualitatively different (and in places more natural) account than the Owicki/Gries interference-freedom proof of the same algorithm. - **Mechanism:** Construct eventual-behaviour invariants describing the mutator/collector cooperation; discharge safety (no live cell is collected) and liveness (garbage is eventually reclaimed) via the cyclic-programs proof rules; juxtapose with Gries's Owicki-style proof to characterise the methodological difference. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Program Verification]], [[Formal Verification]], [[Hoare Logic]], [[Verification Condition]] - **Stance:** case-study / methodological - **Relates to:** Pairs with [[A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs]] as the empirical leg of the Francez-Pnueli programme on reactive-system verification. McCarthy uses the pair in [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] to argue that the non-terminating, history-referring programs he proposes for speech-act I/O are within reach of contemporary verification techniques — i.e. the \"program as logical sentence\" stance need not pay a verifiability tax."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"program-verification #formal-methods #concurrency #cyclic-programs #garbage-collection #francez","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1109":1,"1702552":1,"1978":2,"2000":4,"233857":1,"371":1,"378":1,"4":1,"5":1,"a":15,"about":1,"access":1,"account":1,"act":2,"acts":3,"admit":1,"algorithm":4,"alongside":1,"also":1,"alternative":1,"an":2,"analysed":1,"analysis":1,"and":7,"application":1,"applied":2,"approach":3,"are":1,"argue":1,"as":3,"assigning":1,"author":1,"based":3,"behaviour":3,"by":1,"case":2,"cell":1,"characterise":1,"cited":1,"cites":2,"claim":2,"collected":1,"collection":1,"collector":6,"companion":1,"compares":1,"comparison":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"concurrency":1,"concurrent":5,"condition":2,"connections":1,"construct":1,"contemporary":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"cooperate":1,"cooperation":2,"correct":2,"cyclic":13,"david":1,"describing":1,"difference":1,"different":1,"dijkstra":3,"discharge":1,"discussing":1,"document":1,"doi":1,"e":1,"each":2,"elephant":5,"empirical":1,"engineering":1,"eventual":2,"eventually":1,"evidence":1,"fly":3,"for":5,"formal":3,"framework":1,"francez":11,"freedom":2,"garbage":5,"gries":5,"hard":2,"he":1,"heap":1,"here":1,"his":1,"history":1,"hoare":2,"https":1,"i":2,"ideas":1,"ieee":3,"ieeexplore":1,"implicit":1,"in":6,"interference":3,"introduced":1,"invariants":4,"is":3,"it":1,"juxtapose":1,"key":1,"language":3,"leaves":1,"leg":1,"lessons":1,"live":1,"liveness":1,"located":1,"logic":2,"logical":1,"makes":1,"manage":1,"mccarthy":4,"meanings":1,"mechanism":1,"method":10,"methodological":3,"methodology":1,"methods":1,"more":1,"mutator":3,"natural":2,"need":1,"nissim":1,"no":3,"non":2,"not":1,"o":1,"of":7,"on":10,"open":1,"org":1,"owicki":5,"page":1,"pair":1,"pairs":1,"paper":3,"paradigmatically":2,"pay":1,"paywall":1,"pdf":1,"perspicuous":1,"places":1,"pnueli":7,"preprint":1,"program":8,"programme":1,"programming":3,"programs":11,"proof":12,"proposes":1,"prove":1,"proved":1,"qualitatively":1,"reach":1,"reactive":2,"real":1,"reclaimed":1,"reference":1,"referring":1,"relates":1,"reveals":1,"rules":1,"s":10,"safety":1,"same":3,"scales":1,"se":1,"sentence":1,"shared":1,"shows":1,"software":1,"speech":5,"stance":2,"structure":1,"study":2,"style":2,"summary":1,"supporting":1,"system":2,"tags":1,"tax":1,"technion":1,"techniques":1,"terminating":2,"than":1,"that":3,"the":27,"this":2,"to":8,"tractable":2,"transactions":1,"tse":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":2,"using":2,"verifiability":1,"verification":10,"via":2,"what":1,"which":3,"with":5,"within":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":527,"n":"Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines","s":"papers/foundations/ascribing-mental-qualities-to-machines","secs":[{"h":"Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1979). Stanford CS Department; reprinted in *Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy* (V. Lifschitz ed., Ablex, 1990). Source file: `mccarthy-ascribing.pdf`. [URL](https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy argues that ascribing beliefs, desires, intentions, knowledge, and other mental qualities to machines (including simple ones like thermostats) is *legitimate* when the ascription conveys the same information about the machine that it would about a person, and *useful* when it helps us predict, repair, or improve the machine's behaviour. He proposes two new definitional tools — definitions *relative to an approximate theory*, and *second-order structural definitions* — so that mental-state vocabulary can be applied to physical systems conservatively rather than by reduction to physics. This is the philosophical foundation for the entire mentalistic (BDI) tradition in agent research that [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] pushes back against. Singh cites McCarthy as the origin of the view that agent communication can be specified by ascribing beliefs and intentions; McCarthy himself is already careful to warn that such ascriptions must be conservative and may be merely convenient shorthand for structural facts."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Ascribing mental qualities is warranted when it expresses information about the machine concisely — not because the machine \"really\" has a mind. - Ascription is most useful precisely when the structure of the system is *incompletely known*; for fully-listed programs one could in principle simulate instead. - Mental qualities should be ascribed *separately* (belief without desire, desire without consciousness, etc.) rather than bundled into a monolithic concept of mind; different machines warrant different subsets. - Novel definitional tools: (1) *definitions relative to an approximate theory* — a mental predicate is defined only within a coarser theory that abstracts away from physical detail; (2) *second-order structural definitions* — mental qualities defined by the existence of certain structural roles in the system. - Epistemological vs metaphysical adequacy of representations: AI needs representations that capture what is *knowable* about a situation, not just what is ultimately true. - The approach is intended as conservative (liberal in what it admits having some mental qualities, strict in how each is attributed)."},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Intentional Stance]] - [[BDI Logic]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** It is legitimate and often necessary to ascribe mental qualities (belief, desire, intention, knowledge) to machines, provided the ascription is conservative, quality-by-quality, and grounded either in an approximate theory that abstracts away from physical detail or in a second-order structural definition that names the role the quality plays. - **Mechanism:** Philosophical / definitional. Distinguishes epistemological from metaphysical adequacy of representations, separates mental qualities rather than bundling them, and introduces approximate-theory and structural-definition techniques for defining predicates like `believes(M, P)` over machines. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Intentional Stance]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Approximate Theory]], [[Structural Definitions]], [[Epistemological Adequacy]], [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - **Stance:** foundational / philosophical - **Relates to:** Source of the mental-ascription tradition that [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] formalises and that [[Semantics and Conversations for an ACL]] applies to KQML. [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] argues this tradition overreaches when used as a compliance criterion for ACLs; McCarthy's own hedges about conservativism actually support that pushback."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"philosophy #mentalistic #intentional-stance #foundations #ai-history","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1979":1,"1990":1,"2":1,"a":8,"ablex":1,"about":5,"abstracts":2,"acl":4,"acls":1,"actually":1,"adequacy":3,"admits":1,"against":1,"agent":3,"ai":2,"already":1,"an":4,"and":11,"applied":1,"applies":1,"approach":1,"approximate":5,"argues":2,"as":3,"ascribe":1,"ascribed":1,"ascribing":5,"ascription":4,"ascriptions":1,"attributed":1,"away":2,"back":1,"bdi":2,"be":5,"because":1,"behaviour":1,"belief":2,"beliefs":2,"bundled":1,"bundling":1,"by":5,"can":2,"capture":1,"careful":1,"certain":1,"choice":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"coarser":1,"commitment":1,"common":2,"communication":2,"compliance":1,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concisely":1,"connections":1,"consciousness":1,"conservative":3,"conservatively":1,"conservativism":1,"contribution":1,"convenient":1,"conversations":1,"conveys":1,"could":1,"criterion":1,"cs":1,"defined":2,"defining":1,"definition":2,"definitional":3,"definitions":5,"department":1,"desire":3,"desires":1,"detail":2,"different":2,"distinguishes":1,"each":1,"ed":1,"edu":1,"either":1,"entire":1,"epistemological":3,"etc":1,"existence":1,"expresses":1,"facts":1,"file":1,"for":6,"formal":1,"formalises":1,"formalizing":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"from":3,"fully":1,"grounded":1,"has":1,"having":1,"he":1,"hedges":1,"helps":1,"himself":1,"history":1,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"improve":1,"in":8,"including":1,"incompletely":1,"information":2,"instead":1,"intended":1,"intention":2,"intentional":3,"intentions":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":14,"it":5,"jmc":1,"john":2,"just":1,"key":1,"knowable":1,"knowledge":3,"known":1,"kqml":1,"languages":1,"legitimate":2,"liberal":1,"lifschitz":1,"like":2,"listed":1,"logic":1,"machine":4,"machines":5,"may":1,"mccarthy":6,"mechanism":1,"mental":11,"mentalistic":4,"merely":1,"metaphysical":2,"mind":2,"monolithic":1,"most":1,"must":1,"names":1,"necessary":1,"needs":1,"new":1,"not":2,"novel":1,"of":7,"often":1,"one":1,"ones":1,"only":1,"or":2,"order":3,"origin":1,"other":1,"over":1,"overreaches":1,"own":1,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"person":1,"philosophical":3,"philosophy":1,"physical":3,"physics":1,"plays":1,"precisely":1,"predicate":1,"predicates":1,"predict":1,"principle":1,"principles":3,"programs":1,"proposes":1,"provided":1,"pushback":1,"pushes":1,"qualities":8,"quality":3,"rather":3,"really":1,"reasoning":1,"reduction":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relative":2,"repair":1,"representation":1,"representations":3,"reprinted":1,"research":1,"rethinking":3,"role":1,"roles":1,"s":2,"same":1,"second":3,"semantics":3,"sense":2,"separately":1,"separates":1,"shorthand":1,"should":1,"simple":1,"simulate":1,"singh":1,"situation":1,"so":1,"some":1,"source":2,"specified":1,"stance":4,"stanford":2,"state":1,"strict":1,"structural":7,"structure":1,"subsets":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"system":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"techniques":1,"than":3,"that":13,"the":19,"them":1,"theory":6,"thermostats":1,"this":2,"to":11,"tools":2,"tradition":3,"true":1,"two":1,"ultimately":1,"url":1,"us":1,"used":2,"useful":2,"v":1,"view":1,"vocabulary":1,"vs":1,"warn":1,"warrant":1,"warranted":1,"what":3,"when":5,"with":1,"within":1,"without":2,"would":1,"www":1}},{"dl":599,"n":"On Definable Sets of Positive Integers","s":"papers/foundations/on-definable-sets-of-positive-integers","secs":[{"h":"On Definable Sets of Positive Integers","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Mostowski, Andrzej (1946). \"On definable sets of positive integers.\" *Fundamenta Mathematicae* 34, 81–112. Open scan: [fundmath.impan.pl/art/fm34-1-7](https://eudml.org/doc/213144) / [matwbn.icm.edu.pl](https://www.matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm34/fm34110.pdf)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Mostowski's 1946 paper develops, independently of and in parallel with [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers|Kleene 1943]], a systematic theory of the **definable sets of positive integers** organised by quantifier alternation. Starting from arithmetic predicates — built from recursive (decidable) atomic relations by Boolean operations and quantification over integers — Mostowski identifies a hierarchy (the **Kleene–Mostowski hierarchy**, i.e. the modern **arithmetical hierarchy**) in which each additional quantifier alternation yields a strictly larger class. He proves the analogues of Kleene's normal form, enumeration, and hierarchy theorems and shows that certain natural sets (truth-predicates, complete r.e. sets, their complements, etc.) are complete at specific levels. A distinctive feature of the paper is its *analogy with the projective hierarchy in descriptive set theory*. Mostowski draws explicit parallels between (a) the Borel / projective classification of subsets of `ℝ` by continuous preimage and function-quantifier alternation, and (b) the arithmetical / analytical classification of subsets of `ℕ` by effective (recursive) reducibility and number- or function-quantifier alternation. The paper thus anticipates the **analytical hierarchy** — Σ¹_n / Π¹_n classes defined by quantification over functions — which becomes fully developed by Kleene, Addison, and others in the 1950s, and it positions the arithmetical hierarchy as the \"effective\" shadow of the classical projective hierarchy. This analogy is now one of the organising principles of effective descriptive set theory. The paper is the canonical European counterpart to Kleene 1943; together they establish the **Kleene–Mostowski theorem** (the hierarchy is strict at every level) and the language in which all subsequent work on definability over `ℕ` is conducted."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Definability hierarchy** for sets of positive integers, indexed by number-quantifier alternation over a decidable matrix — the arithmetical hierarchy. - **Kleene–Mostowski theorem**: strict inclusions at every level. - **Analogy with the projective hierarchy** of descriptive set theory: arithmetical ↔ projective, effective ↔ topological; anticipation of the analytical hierarchy. - **Complete sets** at each level exhibited concretely. - Developed in **parallel with and independently of** Kleene 1943 — a rare case of co-discovery in recursion theory."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[First-Order Logic]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[On Notation for Ordinal Numbers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** The arithmetically definable subsets of `ℕ` form a strict hierarchy under quantifier alternation, and this hierarchy is the effective analogue of the projective hierarchy in classical descriptive set theory. - **Mechanism:** Starting from decidable atomic predicates, define Σ_n and Π_n by alternating blocks of number-quantifiers; prove normal form and enumeration theorems; exhibit complete sets at each level; identify the structural parallel with Luzin's projective classes. - **Concepts introduced/used:** arithmetical (Kleene–Mostowski) hierarchy, definable set, analogy with projective hierarchy, [[Recursive Function]], [[First-Order Logic]] - **Stance:** foundational technical paper (recursion theory / descriptive set theory) - **Relates to:** Co-discovered with [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers|Kleene 1943]]; its projective-analogy line becomes the spine of effective descriptive set theory; provides the definability framework within which [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]] locates index sets and [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems|Post 1944]] locates creative sets."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"recursion-theory #definability #arithmetical-hierarchy #foundational #mostowski #descriptive-set-theory","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"112":1,"1943":4,"1944":1,"1946":2,"1950s":1,"1953":1,"213144":1,"34":1,"7":1,"81":1,"a":8,"addison":1,"additional":1,"all":1,"alternating":1,"alternation":6,"analogue":1,"analogues":1,"analogy":5,"analytical":3,"and":22,"andrzej":1,"anticipates":1,"anticipation":1,"are":1,"arithmetic":1,"arithmetical":7,"arithmetically":1,"art":1,"as":1,"at":5,"atomic":2,"b":1,"becomes":2,"between":1,"blocks":1,"boolean":1,"borel":1,"built":1,"by":8,"canonical":1,"case":1,"certain":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":4,"classical":2,"classification":2,"co":2,"complements":1,"complete":4,"computability":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concretely":1,"conducted":1,"connections":1,"continuous":1,"contribution":1,"counterpart":1,"creative":1,"decidable":3,"decision":4,"definability":4,"definable":5,"define":1,"defined":1,"der":1,"descriptive":7,"developed":2,"develops":1,"discovered":1,"discovery":1,"distinctive":1,"doc":1,"draws":1,"e":2,"each":3,"edu":2,"effective":6,"enumerable":4,"enumeration":2,"establish":1,"etc":1,"eudml":1,"european":1,"every":2,"exhibit":1,"exhibited":1,"explicit":1,"feature":1,"first":2,"fm":1,"fm34":2,"fm34110":1,"for":2,"form":3,"formal":1,"foundational":2,"framework":1,"from":3,"fully":1,"function":4,"functions":2,"fundamenta":1,"fundmath":1,"general":1,"he":1,"hierarchy":19,"https":2,"i":2,"icm":2,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"identify":1,"impan":1,"in":8,"inclusions":1,"independently":2,"index":1,"indexed":1,"integers":7,"introduced":1,"is":6,"it":1,"its":2,"key":1,"kleene":10,"ksiazki":1,"language":1,"larger":1,"level":4,"levels":1,"line":1,"locates":2,"logic":2,"luzin":1,"mathematica":1,"mathematicae":1,"matrix":1,"matwbn":2,"mechanism":1,"modern":1,"mostowski":9,"n":4,"natural":2,"normal":2,"notation":1,"now":1,"number":3,"numbers":2,"of":28,"on":4,"one":1,"open":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"order":2,"ordinal":1,"org":1,"organised":1,"organising":1,"others":1,"over":4,"paper":5,"parallel":3,"parallels":1,"pdf":1,"pl":3,"positions":1,"positive":6,"post":1,"predicates":6,"preimage":1,"principia":1,"principles":1,"problems":4,"projective":9,"prove":1,"proves":1,"provides":1,"quantification":2,"quantifier":6,"quantifiers":4,"r":1,"rare":1,"recursion":3,"recursive":8,"recursively":4,"reducibility":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relations":1,"rice":1,"s":3,"scan":1,"set":8,"sets":14,"shadow":1,"shows":1,"specific":1,"spine":1,"stance":1,"starting":2,"strict":3,"strictly":1,"structural":1,"subsequent":1,"subsets":3,"summary":1,"systematic":1,"systeme":1,"sätze":1,"tags":1,"technical":1,"that":1,"the":29,"their":5,"theorem":2,"theorems":2,"theory":11,"they":1,"this":2,"thus":1,"to":2,"together":1,"topological":1,"truth":1,"und":1,"under":1,"unentscheidbare":1,"used":1,"verwandter":1,"which":4,"with":7,"within":1,"work":1,"www":1,"yields":1,"über":1,"π":1,"π¹":1,"σ":1,"σ¹":1}},{"dl":545,"n":"A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs","s":"papers/foundations/a-proof-method-for-cyclic-programs","secs":[{"h":"A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Nissim Francez & Amir Pnueli (1978). *Acta Informatica* 9: 133-157. [URL](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289074) (DOI: 10.1007/BF00289074). No open-access PDF located — Springer paywall, no author preprint on Francez's Technion page, no Weizmann tech-report copy surfaced. Cited in McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Francez and Pnueli propose a proof method for *cyclic* programs — programs (sequential or concurrent) that are not meant to terminate but to sustain an ongoing, repetitive behaviour: operating systems, reactive processes, garbage collectors. The traditional input-output Hoare-style correctness notion is inapplicable to such programs because there is no terminating output. The paper replaces input-output correctness with a notion of *eventual behaviour*: properties that must hold infinitely often, eventually, or persistently across the program's execution, and develops a proof methodology (a precursor of what would become temporal-logic program verification) for discharging these properties. The paper is an important early step between Floyd-Hoare partial-correctness verification and Pnueli's subsequent temporal logic of programs (1977). McCarthy cites it in Elephant 2000 as prior art on verifying programs whose specifications are not input-output but ongoing-behaviour — exactly the shape of Elephant programs, whose speech-act semantics concerns sequences of illocutions over time rather than a single terminating output."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Cyclic programs:** non-terminating sequential/concurrent programs whose correctness is about sustained behaviour, not terminal output. - **Eventual behaviour:** replaces input-output correctness with properties like \"infinitely often,\" \"eventually,\" \"persistently.\" - **Proof method:** invariant-style reasoning adapted to the cyclic setting, supporting both sequential and concurrent programs. - **Precursor to temporal logic:** the informal modalities here are systematised in Pnueli's 1977 temporal logic of programs. - **Concurrency:** the method handles cooperating concurrent processes, anticipating Owicki/Gries-style proof rules."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — McCarthy cites this as prior art on verifying non-terminating / reactive programs - [[An Application of a Method for Analysis of Cyclic Programs]] — Francez's 1978 TSE companion paper applying the method to Dijkstra's on-the-fly garbage collector - [[Program Verification]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Verification Condition]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Non-terminating (cyclic) programs admit a rigorous correctness theory if one replaces the input-output correctness paradigm with a proof method over *eventual behaviour* — properties of the infinite execution — and this method extends to concurrent cyclic programs. - **Mechanism:** Generalised invariants characterising the sustained behaviour, combined with proof rules that discharge eventual/persistent properties directly rather than deriving them from pre/post pairs. For concurrent programs, the method handles process interaction via cooperation conditions. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Program Verification]], [[Formal Verification]], [[Hoare Logic]], [[Verification Condition]] - **Stance:** methodological / verification-foundations - **Relates to:** A key transitional work between Floyd-Hoare partial-correctness verification ([[Assigning Meanings to Programs]], [[Hoare Logic]]) and Pnueli's subsequent temporal logic of programs (1977). McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] positions the paper as evidence that programs whose correctness is an ongoing speech-act record (rather than a terminal output) are already within verification's reach — the \"program as logical sentence\" stance just extends this to the speech-act level."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"program-verification #formal-methods #concurrency #cyclic-programs #francez #pnueli","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":2,"1007":2,"133":1,"157":1,"1977":3,"1978":2,"2000":4,"9":1,"a":14,"about":1,"access":1,"across":1,"act":3,"acta":1,"acts":3,"adapted":1,"admit":1,"already":1,"amir":1,"an":4,"analysis":1,"and":6,"anticipating":1,"application":1,"applying":1,"are":4,"art":2,"article":1,"as":4,"assigning":2,"author":1,"based":3,"because":1,"become":1,"behaviour":7,"between":2,"bf00289074":2,"both":1,"but":2,"characterising":1,"cited":1,"cites":2,"claim":1,"collector":1,"collectors":1,"com":1,"combined":1,"companion":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"concurrency":2,"concurrent":6,"condition":2,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"cooperating":1,"cooperation":1,"copy":1,"correctness":9,"cyclic":8,"deriving":1,"develops":1,"dijkstra":1,"directly":1,"discharge":1,"discharging":1,"doi":1,"early":1,"elephant":5,"eventual":4,"eventually":2,"evidence":1,"exactly":1,"execution":2,"extends":2,"floyd":2,"fly":1,"for":5,"formal":3,"foundations":1,"francez":5,"from":1,"garbage":2,"generalised":1,"gries":1,"handles":2,"here":1,"hoare":6,"hold":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"illocutions":1,"important":1,"in":3,"inapplicable":1,"infinite":1,"infinitely":2,"informal":1,"informatica":1,"input":5,"interaction":1,"introduced":1,"invariant":1,"invariants":1,"is":5,"it":1,"just":1,"key":2,"language":3,"level":1,"like":1,"link":1,"located":1,"logic":8,"logical":1,"mccarthy":4,"meanings":2,"meant":1,"mechanism":1,"method":9,"methodological":1,"methodology":1,"methods":1,"modalities":1,"must":1,"nissim":1,"no":4,"non":3,"not":3,"notion":2,"of":10,"often":2,"on":7,"one":1,"ongoing":3,"open":1,"operating":1,"or":2,"output":9,"over":2,"owicki":1,"page":1,"pairs":1,"paper":4,"paradigm":1,"partial":2,"paywall":1,"pdf":1,"persistent":1,"persistently":2,"pnueli":6,"positions":1,"post":1,"pre":1,"precursor":2,"preprint":1,"prior":2,"process":1,"processes":2,"program":6,"programming":3,"programs":21,"proof":7,"properties":5,"propose":1,"rather":3,"reach":1,"reactive":2,"reasoning":1,"record":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"repetitive":1,"replaces":3,"report":1,"rigorous":1,"rules":2,"s":10,"semantics":1,"sentence":1,"sequences":1,"sequential":3,"setting":1,"shape":1,"single":1,"specifications":1,"speech":6,"springer":2,"stance":2,"step":1,"style":3,"subsequent":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"supporting":1,"surfaced":1,"sustain":1,"sustained":2,"systematised":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tech":1,"technion":1,"temporal":5,"terminal":2,"terminate":1,"terminating":5,"than":3,"that":4,"the":17,"them":1,"theory":1,"there":1,"these":1,"this":3,"time":1,"to":11,"traditional":1,"transitional":1,"tse":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verification":12,"verifying":2,"via":1,"weizmann":1,"what":1,"whose":4,"with":4,"within":1,"work":1,"would":1}},{"dl":534,"n":"True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works","s":"papers/foundations/true-believers---the-intentional-strategy-and-why-it-works","secs":[{"h":"True Believers: The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Dennett, D. C. (1981). In A. F. Heath (Ed.), *Scientific Explanations*, Oxford University Press. Reprinted in *The Intentional Stance* (1987, MIT Press, ch. 2) and in *Mind Design II* (1997). Source file: `dennett_true_believers.pdf`. [URL](https://web.stanford.edu/~paulsko/papers/DennettTB.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Dennett's canonical defence of the *intentional stance*: a predictive strategy in which one treats a system as a rational agent with beliefs and desires, works out what a rational agent so situated ought to do, and predicts it will do that. The stance is contrasted with the *physical stance* (predict from physical laws and microstructure) and the *design stance* (predict from presumed function). Belief is a perfectly objective phenomenon, but one discernible only from the point of view of an adopter of this strategy; a system is a *true believer* just in case its behaviour is reliably predictable by intentional ascription. Dennett argues this vindicates a \"mild realism\" (or \"interpretationism\") about belief against both hard-core realism (beliefs as sentence-like tokens in the head) and eliminativism. The remarkable empirical fact is that the intentional strategy works — on people, animals, chess programs, even thermostats (in a degenerate way) — because evolution and engineering produce systems whose behaviour tracks their interests given accurate beliefs. This pattern of success is what there *is* to being a believer; no further fact about inner sentential structure is required. The paper grounds the philosophical licence to ascribe mental states to artificial agents and thus underwrites the mentalistic vocabulary of agent theory."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three stances: physical, design, intentional. - Intentional strategy: assume rationality, compute ought-to-do, predict. - True believer = system reliably predicted by the intentional strategy. - Belief is objective but stance-relative (mild realism / interpretationism). - Natural selection explains why the strategy works on organisms. - Thermostats as degenerate (but continuous) intentional systems. - Licence for mentalistic ascription to artificial agents."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Intentional Stance]] - [[BDI]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Society of Mind]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Beliefs and desires are objective but stance-relative — a system genuinely has them just in case adopting the intentional strategy (assume rationality with appropriate beliefs/desires and predict accordingly) reliably predicts its behaviour. - **Mechanism:** Dennett distinguishes physical, design, and intentional stances; defines the intentional strategy operationally (attribute beliefs the system *ought* to have given its perceptual and epistemic history, attribute desires it *ought* to have given its biological/functional role, predict the rational action); argues success of the strategy on people, animals, and artefacts is an empirical fact explained by evolutionary/design pressures, and that this success is all there is to being a believer — no further requirement of language-of-thought tokens. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Intentional Stance]], [[True Believer]], [[Mild Realism]], [[Design Stance]], [[Physical Stance]], [[Rationality Assumption]] - **Stance:** philosophical theory - **Relates to:** Justifies the ascription of BDI mental states to artificial systems in [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]], [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] and [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]; cohabits with [[Two Faces of Intention]] as a pillar of agent-theoretic philosophy; foreshadows functional-role arguments in [[Society of Mind]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"philosophy #intentional-stance #foundational #agents #belief","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1981":1,"1987":1,"1997":1,"2":1,"a":16,"about":2,"accordingly":1,"accurate":1,"action":1,"adopter":1,"adopting":1,"against":1,"agent":6,"agents":7,"all":1,"an":2,"and":18,"animals":2,"appropriate":1,"architecture":2,"are":1,"argues":2,"arguments":1,"artefacts":1,"artificial":3,"as":4,"ascribe":1,"ascription":3,"assume":2,"assumption":1,"attribute":2,"bdi":4,"because":1,"behaviour":3,"being":2,"belief":4,"beliefs":6,"believer":5,"believers":1,"biological":1,"both":1,"but":4,"by":3,"c":1,"canonical":1,"case":2,"ch":1,"chess":1,"claim":1,"cohabits":1,"compute":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"continuous":1,"contrasted":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"d":1,"defence":1,"defines":1,"degenerate":2,"dennett":4,"dennetttb":1,"design":6,"desires":4,"discernible":1,"distinguishes":1,"do":3,"ed":1,"edu":1,"eliminativism":1,"empirical":2,"engineering":1,"epistemic":1,"even":1,"evolution":1,"evolutionary":1,"explained":1,"explains":1,"explanations":1,"f":1,"faces":2,"fact":3,"file":1,"for":1,"foreshadows":1,"foundational":1,"from":3,"function":1,"functional":2,"further":2,"genuinely":1,"given":3,"grounds":1,"hard":1,"has":1,"have":2,"head":1,"heath":1,"history":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"in":10,"inner":1,"intelligent":2,"intention":2,"intentional":15,"interests":1,"interpretationism":2,"introduced":1,"is":12,"it":3,"its":4,"just":2,"justifies":1,"key":1,"language":1,"laws":1,"licence":2,"like":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":3,"microstructure":1,"mild":3,"mind":3,"mit":1,"modeling":2,"natural":1,"no":2,"objective":3,"of":15,"on":3,"one":2,"only":1,"operationally":1,"or":1,"organisms":1,"oriented":2,"ought":4,"out":1,"oxford":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"pattern":1,"paulsko":1,"pdf":1,"people":2,"perceptual":1,"perfectly":1,"phenomenon":1,"philosophical":2,"philosophy":2,"physical":5,"pillar":1,"point":1,"practice":2,"predict":5,"predictable":1,"predicted":1,"predictive":1,"predicts":2,"press":2,"pressures":1,"presumed":1,"produce":1,"programming":2,"programs":1,"rational":5,"rationality":3,"realism":4,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relative":2,"reliably":3,"remarkable":1,"reprinted":1,"required":1,"requirement":1,"role":2,"s":1,"scientific":1,"selection":1,"semantics":1,"sentence":1,"sentential":1,"situated":1,"so":1,"society":2,"source":1,"stance":13,"stances":2,"stanford":1,"states":2,"strategy":10,"structure":1,"success":3,"summary":1,"system":5,"systems":3,"tags":1,"that":3,"the":21,"their":1,"them":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":4,"there":2,"thermostats":2,"this":4,"thought":1,"three":1,"thus":1,"to":11,"tokens":2,"tracks":1,"treats":1,"true":4,"two":2,"underwrites":1,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"view":1,"vindicates":1,"vocabulary":1,"way":1,"web":1,"what":2,"which":1,"whose":1,"why":2,"will":1,"with":4,"within":2,"works":4}},{"dl":387,"n":"Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd","s":"papers/foundations/foundations-of-logic-programming---lloyd","secs":[{"h":"Foundations of Logic Programming (Chapter 1: Preliminaries)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** J. W. Lloyd (1987). *Springer-Verlag, Second Extended Edition*. Source file: `2022-08-18 13-38-01-Lloyd.pdf`. [URL](https://archive.org/details/foundationsoflog0000lloy_c1b6)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The opening chapter of Lloyd's canonical textbook on the mathematical foundations of logic programming. It introduces first-order theories, syntax (alphabets, terms, well-formed formulas, clauses, Horn clauses), interpretations and models, and Herbrand semantics as the preferred route for reasoning about logical consequence of a program. Lloyd motivates logic programming as Kowalski's insight that \"algorithm = logic + control\": a definite program is a set of Horn clauses (the logic), and the inference strategy (SLD-resolution, search order) is the control. He distinguishes \"system\" languages (committed-choice, concurrent) from \"application\" languages (PROLOG-style), and sets up the semantic machinery — Herbrand interpretations, models, logical consequence, unsatisfiability — needed for the rest of the book."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Algorithm = Logic + Control (Kowalski's principle) - Horn clauses as the executable fragment of first-order logic - Herbrand universe and base; Herbrand interpretations suffice for clause sets - Definite programs vs normal programs (negation) - SLD-resolution as refutation procedure (developed in later chapters)"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Logic — specifically first-order Horn-clause logic with SLD-resolution — can serve as a programming language, where a program is a set of definite clauses, a computation is resolution refutation, and the declarative semantics (Herbrand models, least fixpoint) coincides with the procedural semantics. - **Mechanism:** Rigorously build up first-order theories, interpretations, Herbrand interpretations/bases, unification, and the T_P fixpoint operator; prove soundness and completeness of SLD-resolution; develop negation-as-failure, the Closed World Assumption, and semantics of normal programs; treat Prolog as the canonical realisation of the Kowalski slogan \"algorithm = logic + control\". - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Logic Programming]], [[Horn Clauses]], [[SLD Resolution]], [[Herbrand Universe]], [[Unification]], [[Negation as Failure]], [[Fixpoint Semantics]], [[Prolog]], [[Closed World Assumption]], [[First-Order Logic]], [[Algorithm = Logic + Control]] - **Stance:** formal / foundational textbook - **Relates to:** Theoretical substrate for [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]], and [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] (all of which assume BDI agents implemented in logic-programming languages). The mentalistic-semantics side of ACLs ([[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], [[FIPA-ACL]]) presupposes Lloyd-style logical machinery."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"logic-programming #prolog #foundations #first-order-logic","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1987":1,"a":7,"about":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"acre":1,"agent":5,"agents":3,"algorithm":4,"all":1,"alphabets":1,"an":1,"and":12,"application":1,"archive":1,"as":9,"assume":1,"assumption":2,"base":1,"bases":1,"bdi":1,"behaviour":2,"book":1,"build":1,"c1b6":1,"can":1,"canonical":2,"chapter":2,"chapters":1,"choice":1,"claim":1,"clause":2,"clauses":6,"closed":2,"coincides":1,"committed":1,"communication":2,"completeness":1,"computation":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrent":1,"connections":1,"consequence":2,"contribution":1,"control":5,"conversation":1,"declarative":1,"definite":3,"details":1,"develop":1,"developed":1,"distinguishes":1,"edition":1,"engine":1,"ensuring":2,"ethical":2,"executable":1,"extended":1,"failure":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"first":6,"fixpoint":3,"for":4,"formal":1,"formed":1,"formulas":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":3,"foundationsoflog0000lloy":1,"fragment":1,"from":1,"he":1,"herbrand":7,"horn":5,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implemented":1,"in":4,"inference":1,"insight":1,"intelligent":2,"interpretations":5,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":4,"it":1,"j":1,"key":1,"kowalski":3,"kqml":1,"language":2,"languages":4,"later":1,"least":1,"lloyd":4,"logic":16,"logical":5,"machinery":2,"mathematical":1,"mechanism":1,"mentalistic":1,"models":3,"motivates":1,"needed":1,"negation":3,"normal":2,"of":13,"on":1,"opening":1,"operator":1,"order":7,"org":1,"oriented":2,"p":1,"preferred":1,"preliminaries":1,"presupposes":1,"principle":1,"procedural":1,"procedure":1,"program":3,"programming":9,"programs":3,"prolog":4,"prove":1,"realisation":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"refutation":2,"relates":1,"resolution":6,"rest":1,"rigorously":1,"route":1,"s":3,"search":1,"second":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":6,"serve":1,"set":2,"sets":2,"side":1,"sld":5,"slogan":1,"soundness":1,"source":1,"specifically":1,"springer":1,"stance":1,"strategy":1,"style":2,"substrate":1,"suffice":1,"summary":1,"syntax":1,"system":1,"t":1,"tags":1,"terms":1,"textbook":2,"that":1,"the":17,"theoretical":1,"theories":2,"to":1,"treat":1,"trustworthy":2,"unification":2,"universe":2,"unsatisfiability":1,"up":2,"url":1,"used":1,"verlag":1,"vs":1,"w":1,"well":1,"where":1,"which":1,"with":2,"world":2}},{"dl":418,"n":"How Do Committees Invent","s":"papers/foundations/how-do-committees-invent","secs":[{"h":"How Do Committees Invent?","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Melvin E. Conway (1968). *Datamation*, April 1968, pp. 28-31. Source file: `Conway, Melvin E._ How Do Committees Invent_. In_ Datamation (1968).pdf`. [URL](https://www.melconway.com/Home/pdf/committees.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Conway's classic essay articulates what is now known as Conway's Law: \"organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.\" He argues that the structure (graph) of any designed system is homomorphic to the structure of the design organization that produced it, because each interface in the system corresponds to a coordination path between subgroups. Drawing on examples from compiler development, military weapons systems, and public administration, Conway traces how organization charts end up printed onto product architectures. He closes with a warning against premature commitment to an initial design organization, since such commitment freezes choices and leaves systems unable to be decomposed sensibly later — \"systems tend to disintegrate\" as the organization evolves."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- System structure mirrors the communication structure of its designers (Conway's Law). - Design organization choices shape the set of alternatives considered. - Homomorphism argument: interfaces between subsystems = coordination between subgroups. - Organizations must stay flexible to avoid freezing a suboptimal design. - Applicability beyond software: any large coordinated design effort."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]] - [[Protocol Documents]] - [[Interaction Protocols]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] — extends Conway to agent-population architecture - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] — Agora protocol documents as \"language = organisation\" - [[Vibe Coding]] — the organisation-mirror problem when the \"organisation\" includes AI agents"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** The structure of a designed system is homomorphic to the communication structure of the organization that designs it (Conway's Law); therefore design-team topology pre-determines the space of realisable architectures. - **Mechanism:** An informal homomorphism argument — every subsystem maps to a design subgroup and every interface maps to a negotiation path — illustrated through compiler, weapons system, and public-administration case studies; followed by a disintegration argument (overpopulation + rigid management practice fragment the communication graph, which fragments the product). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Conway's Law]], [[System Homomorphism]], [[Communication Structure]], [[Design Organization]], [[Coordination]], [[Interface]] - **Stance:** foundational / critique - **Relates to:** Provides the organisational backdrop for every multi-agent architecture in the vault; pairs naturally with [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] (which treats the agent organisation as a deliberate design variable) and with [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] (whose protocol shape will, by Conway's Law, shape the societies of LLMs built atop it)."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"conways-law #organization #system-design #communication-structure","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"1968":2,"28":1,"31":1,"a":10,"adaptive":1,"administration":2,"against":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"agora":1,"ai":1,"alternatives":1,"an":2,"and":5,"any":2,"applicability":1,"april":1,"architecture":2,"architectures":2,"are":2,"argues":1,"argument":3,"articulates":1,"as":4,"atop":1,"avoid":1,"backdrop":1,"be":1,"because":1,"between":3,"beyond":1,"built":1,"by":2,"case":1,"charts":1,"choices":2,"claim":1,"classic":1,"closes":1,"coding":1,"com":1,"commitment":2,"committees":2,"communication":9,"compiler":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"considered":1,"constrained":1,"contribution":1,"conway":9,"conways":1,"coordinated":1,"coordination":3,"copies":1,"corresponds":1,"critique":1,"datamation":1,"decomposed":1,"deliberate":1,"design":11,"designed":2,"designers":1,"designs":2,"determines":1,"development":1,"disintegrate":1,"disintegration":1,"do":1,"documents":2,"drawing":1,"e":1,"each":1,"effort":1,"end":1,"essay":1,"every":3,"evolves":1,"examples":1,"extends":1,"file":1,"flexible":1,"followed":1,"for":3,"foundational":1,"fragment":1,"fragments":1,"freezes":1,"freezing":1,"from":1,"graph":2,"he":2,"home":1,"homomorphic":2,"homomorphism":3,"how":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"illustrated":1,"in":2,"includes":1,"informal":1,"initial":1,"interaction":1,"interface":3,"interfaces":1,"introduced":1,"invent":1,"is":3,"it":3,"its":1,"key":1,"known":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"large":1,"later":1,"law":6,"leaves":1,"levels":1,"llms":3,"management":1,"maps":2,"mechanism":1,"melconway":1,"melvin":1,"military":1,"mirror":1,"mirrors":1,"multi":2,"multiagent":1,"must":1,"naturally":1,"negotiation":1,"networks":2,"now":1,"of":13,"on":1,"onto":1,"operating":1,"orchestration":1,"organisation":4,"organisational":1,"organization":8,"organizations":3,"overpopulation":1,"pairs":1,"path":2,"pdf":2,"population":1,"pp":1,"practice":1,"pre":1,"premature":1,"printed":1,"problem":1,"procedures":1,"produce":1,"produced":1,"product":2,"protocol":5,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"public":2,"realisable":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"rigid":1,"s":6,"scalable":2,"self":1,"sensibly":1,"set":1,"shape":3,"since":1,"social":1,"societies":1,"software":1,"sops":1,"source":1,"space":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stay":1,"structure":8,"structures":1,"studies":1,"subgroup":1,"subgroups":2,"suboptimal":1,"subsystem":1,"subsystems":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"sycara":1,"system":7,"systems":7,"tags":1,"team":1,"tend":1,"that":3,"the":20,"therefore":1,"these":1,"through":1,"to":12,"topology":1,"traces":1,"treats":1,"unable":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"variable":1,"vault":1,"vibe":1,"warning":1,"weapons":2,"what":1,"when":1,"which":4,"whose":1,"will":1,"with":3,"www":1}},{"dl":560,"n":"Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation","s":"papers/foundations/towards-a-mathematical-science-of-computation","secs":[{"h":"Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1963). \"Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation.\" In *Information Processing 1962: Proceedings of IFIP Congress 62*, North-Holland, pp. 21-28. (Version fetched is the 1996 revised reprint.) [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/towards/towards.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy's IFIP 1962 address sketches what a mathematical science of computation should look like, by analogy with physics: starting from basic assumptions, one should be able to deduce the important properties of the entities the science deals with. He identifies those entities as problems, procedures, data spaces, programs (which are symbolic expressions representing procedures in particular languages), and computers (viewed as finite automata, but from a stored-program-plus-unbounded-storage perspective rather than a finite-state one). The paper enumerates the kinds of facts one would like to derive — procedure equivalence, termination, compiler correctness, program transformation preserving semantics, lower bounds — and argues that Goedel's incompleteness precludes a complete theory but a practically adequate one is feasible. McCarthy proposes an integer-free formalism, recursive definitions via conditional expressions (the paper is a locus classicus of `if p then a else b` as a mathematical notation), and recursion induction as a proof method. He closes by urging that debugging be replaced by machine-checked proofs of program correctness — a foundational statement of the program-verification agenda."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Computation as a mathematical science with its own entities (problems, procedures, data spaces, programs, computers) distinct from automata theory. - Conditional expressions `if p then a else b` and recursion as the basis of a formal notation for defining functions. - Recursion induction as a proof technique for program equivalence. - Compiler correctness as a target theorem for the formalism. - Debugging should be supplanted by computer-checked correctness proofs — the founding manifesto of program verification."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] — the paired McCarthy–Painter paper that carries out the compiler-correctness proof sketched here. - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — Elephant's insistence that programs refer directly to past events and future commitments continues McCarthy's project of giving programs a mathematical semantics amenable to proof. - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] — shares the model-theoretic semantics-for-programs stance. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, the undecidability bound McCarthy invokes as the horizon of a \"practically adequate\" theory. - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene 1936, the recursive-function substrate underpinning McCarthy's formalism. - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] — Post 1944, the unsolvability theory framing termination and decidability limits."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Computation admits a mathematical science in the physics sense: basic assumptions from which properties of procedures, programs, and computers can be deduced, with program-correctness proofs replacing debugging. - **Mechanism:** Abstract syntax of programs; conditional expressions and recursion as a core notation; state vectors for machines; recursion induction; an integer-free formalism avoiding the Mostowski-style reliance on arithmetic coding. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Conditional Expressions]], [[Recursion Induction]], [[Abstract Syntax]], [[State Vector]], [[Compiler Correctness]], [[Program Verification]], [[Data Spaces]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Grounds the semantic-correctness agenda that Elephant 2000 later inherits; complements [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]]; the appeal to mathematical logic rather than automata foreshadows the logicist program in [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] and [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #program-verification #semantics #lisp-prehistory #compiler-correctness","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"1936":2,"1944":1,"1962":2,"1963":1,"1996":1,"2000":2,"21":1,"28":1,"62":1,"a":23,"able":1,"abstract":2,"acts":1,"address":1,"adequate":2,"admits":1,"agenda":2,"amenable":1,"an":3,"analogy":1,"and":11,"appeal":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"arithmetic":3,"articles":1,"as":10,"ascribing":1,"assumptions":2,"automata":3,"avoiding":1,"based":1,"basic":2,"basis":1,"be":4,"bound":1,"bounds":1,"but":2,"by":4,"can":1,"carries":1,"checked":2,"church":1,"circumscription":1,"claim":1,"classicus":1,"closes":1,"coding":1,"commitments":1,"compiler":7,"complements":1,"complete":1,"computation":5,"computer":1,"computers":3,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"conditional":4,"congress":1,"connections":1,"continues":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"correctness":11,"data":3,"deals":1,"debugging":3,"decidability":1,"decision":1,"deduce":1,"deduced":1,"defining":1,"definitions":1,"derive":1,"directly":1,"distinct":1,"edu":1,"elementary":1,"elephant":3,"entities":3,"enumerable":1,"enumerates":1,"equivalence":2,"events":1,"expressions":7,"facts":1,"feasible":1,"fetched":1,"finite":2,"first":1,"for":7,"foreshadows":1,"form":1,"formal":1,"formalism":4,"foundational":3,"foundations":1,"founding":1,"framing":1,"free":2,"from":4,"function":1,"functions":2,"future":1,"general":1,"giving":1,"goedel":1,"grounds":1,"he":2,"here":1,"holland":1,"horizon":1,"http":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"ifip":2,"important":1,"in":4,"incompleteness":1,"individual":1,"induction":4,"information":1,"inherits":1,"insistence":1,"integer":2,"integers":1,"introduced":1,"invokes":1,"is":3,"its":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"key":1,"kinds":1,"kleene":1,"knowledge":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"later":1,"like":2,"limits":1,"lisp":1,"lloyd":1,"locus":1,"logic":2,"logicist":1,"look":1,"lower":1,"machine":1,"machines":2,"manifesto":1,"mathematical":8,"mccarthy":8,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"method":1,"model":1,"mostowski":1,"natural":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"north":1,"notation":3,"number":1,"numbers":1,"of":23,"on":2,"one":4,"order":1,"out":1,"own":1,"painter":1,"paired":1,"paper":3,"particular":1,"past":1,"pdf":1,"perspective":1,"physics":2,"plus":1,"positive":1,"post":1,"pp":1,"practically":2,"precludes":1,"prehistory":1,"preserving":1,"problem":1,"problems":3,"procedure":1,"procedures":4,"proceedings":1,"processing":1,"program":10,"programming":2,"programs":7,"project":1,"proof":4,"proofs":3,"properties":2,"proposes":1,"propositions":1,"qualities":1,"rather":2,"reasoning":1,"recursion":6,"recursive":3,"recursively":1,"refer":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliance":1,"replaced":1,"replacing":1,"representation":1,"representing":1,"reprint":1,"revised":1,"s":5,"science":6,"semantic":1,"semantics":4,"sense":1,"sets":1,"shares":1,"should":3,"sketched":1,"sketches":1,"spaces":3,"speech":1,"stance":2,"stanford":1,"starting":1,"state":3,"statement":1,"storage":1,"stored":1,"style":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"supplanted":1,"symbolic":1,"syntax":2,"tags":1,"target":1,"technique":1,"termination":2,"than":2,"that":5,"the":23,"their":1,"theorem":1,"theoretic":1,"theories":1,"theory":5,"those":1,"to":7,"towards":4,"transformation":1,"unbounded":1,"undecidability":1,"underpinning":1,"unsolvability":1,"unsolvable":1,"urging":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vector":1,"vectors":1,"verification":4,"version":1,"via":1,"viewed":1,"what":1,"which":2,"with":4,"would":1}},{"dl":728,"n":"The Knowledge Level","s":"papers/foundations/the-knowledge-level","secs":[{"h":"The Knowledge Level","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Allen Newell (1982). \"The Knowledge Level.\" *Artificial Intelligence* 18(1): 87-127. (AAAI Presidential Address, Stanford, 19 Aug 1980; also in *AI Magazine* 2(2), 1981.) [URL](http://cs.uns.edu.ar/~grs/InteligenciaArtificial/Allen%20Newell%20-%20The%20knowledge%20level.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Newell's AAAI-80 presidential address proposes that above the symbol level (data structures manipulated by programs) there exists a distinct *knowledge level* whose medium is *knowledge* and whose laws are rationality. At the knowledge level an agent is characterised by what it knows and what goals it has; its behaviour is predicted by the *principle of rationality* — \"if an agent knows that one of its actions will lead to a goal, it will select that action\" — without commitment to any particular representation or processing mechanism. The paper motivates the proposal by diagnosing three tensions in early-1980s AI: the mystification of \"representation,\" the residue of the 1960s-70s theorem-proving controversy (Planner/Microplanner/Conniver's \"uniform procedures will not work\" reaction against resolution), and the diversity of answers in the SIGART Special Issue on Knowledge Representation (Brachman and Smith's survey showing no consensus on quantification, quotation, self-description, or evaluation). Newell's resolution: treat knowledge as a competence-level notion analogous to physicists' treatment of temperature — a level with its own laws, reduced to but not replaced by the symbol level. Representations are then understood as symbol-level *implementations* of knowledge, and we gain a principled way to talk about what an AI system knows without confusing it with how that knowledge is stored. The Knowledge Level is foundational for agent-oriented programming (Shoham's \"mental state\" framing), for the BDI tradition, for KQML's and FIPA's claim that ACL semantics should be defined at the level of beliefs/intentions rather than byte-strings, and indirectly for McCarthy's Elephant 2000, whose speech-act semantics presupposes that one can talk coherently about what a program knows and is committed to, independently of implementation."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Computer systems are describable at multiple levels (device, circuit, logic, register-transfer, program/symbol); the *knowledge level* sits above the symbol level. - Medium of the knowledge level: *knowledge* (distinct from the data structures that represent it). - Law of behaviour at the knowledge level: the *principle of rationality* — actions selected to achieve goals given what is known. - The knowledge level is a competence-level account: it predicts behaviour without specifying mechanism, analogously to economic rationality. - Representation is the symbol-level realisation of knowledge; mystifying representation conflates the levels. - Diagnostic of the theorem-proving backlash: \"uniform procedures will not work\" was a symbol-level reaction to a knowledge-level question."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] — Shoham explicitly situates AOP at the knowledge level; mental states are Newell-level predicates over agents. - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — Elephant commits to knowledge-level program variables (propositions, commitments, past speech acts), making knowledge-level description the *native* semantics of programs. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — McCarthy's ascriptivism is the philosophical cousin of Newell's levels argument. - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] — ACL semantics in the KQML/FIPA tradition are knowledge-level (beliefs/intentions) rather than symbol-level (bit patterns). - [[KIF]] — intended as a lingua franca at the symbol level that preserves knowledge-level content across heterogeneous systems. - [[Common Sense Reasoning]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** AI systems have a level of description above the symbol level — the knowledge level — whose medium is knowledge and whose law is rationality; this level is reducible to but not replaceable by the symbol level, and recognising it clarifies decades of representation debates. - **Mechanism:** Levels-of-description methodology imported from computer architecture; principle of rationality as the behaviour law; knowledge characterised competence-theoretically (what follows from what an agent knows and wants, not how); representations reconceived as symbol-level implementations of knowledge-level content; diagnostic application to the theorem-proving controversy and the SIGART Special Issue. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Knowledge Level]], [[Symbol Level]], [[Principle of Rationality]], [[Competence vs Performance]], [[Knowledge Representation]], [[Levels of Description]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** The conceptual ground for agent-oriented and BDI programming; provides the \"what an agent knows\" vocabulary that [[KQML]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], and [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] rely on; complements McCarthy's ascriptivist argument in [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #newell #knowledge-level #agent-architecture #knowledge-representation #rationality","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"127":1,"18":1,"19":1,"1960s":1,"1980":1,"1980s":1,"1981":1,"1982":1,"2":2,"20":1,"2000":3,"20knowledge":1,"20level":1,"20newell":1,"20the":1,"70s":1,"80":1,"87":1,"a":13,"aaai":2,"about":2,"above":3,"account":1,"achieve":1,"acl":2,"across":1,"act":1,"action":1,"actions":2,"acts":3,"address":2,"against":1,"agent":10,"agents":1,"ai":4,"allen":2,"also":1,"an":5,"analogous":1,"analogously":1,"and":14,"answers":1,"any":1,"aop":1,"application":1,"ar":1,"architecture":2,"are":5,"argument":2,"artificial":1,"as":5,"ascribing":2,"ascriptivism":1,"ascriptivist":1,"at":6,"aug":1,"backlash":1,"based":2,"bdi":2,"be":1,"behaviour":4,"beliefs":2,"bit":1,"brachman":1,"but":2,"by":6,"byte":1,"can":1,"characterised":2,"circuit":1,"claim":2,"clarifies":1,"coherently":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"commits":1,"committed":1,"common":1,"communication":2,"competence":4,"complements":1,"computer":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"conflates":1,"confusing":1,"connections":1,"conniver":1,"consensus":1,"content":2,"contribution":1,"controversy":2,"cousin":1,"cs":1,"data":2,"debates":1,"decades":1,"defined":1,"describable":1,"description":5,"device":1,"diagnosing":1,"diagnostic":2,"distinct":2,"diversity":1,"early":1,"economic":1,"edu":1,"elephant":4,"evaluation":1,"exists":1,"explicitly":1,"fipa":2,"follows":1,"for":5,"foundational":3,"framing":1,"franca":1,"from":3,"gain":1,"given":1,"goal":1,"goals":2,"ground":1,"grs":1,"has":1,"have":1,"heterogeneous":1,"how":2,"http":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"implementation":1,"implementations":2,"imported":1,"in":5,"independently":1,"indirectly":1,"inteligenciaartificial":1,"intelligence":1,"intended":1,"intentions":2,"introduced":1,"is":13,"issue":2,"it":7,"its":3,"key":1,"kif":1,"knowledge":31,"known":1,"knows":6,"kqml":3,"language":2,"languages":2,"law":3,"laws":2,"lead":1,"level":38,"levels":5,"lingua":1,"logic":1,"machines":2,"magazine":1,"making":1,"manipulated":1,"mccarthy":3,"mechanism":3,"medium":3,"mental":4,"methodology":1,"microplanner":1,"motivates":1,"multiple":1,"mystification":1,"mystifying":1,"native":1,"newell":6,"no":1,"not":5,"notion":1,"of":23,"on":5,"one":2,"or":2,"oriented":3,"over":1,"own":1,"paper":1,"particular":1,"past":1,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"performance":1,"philosophical":1,"physicists":1,"planner":1,"predicates":1,"predicted":1,"predicts":1,"preserves":1,"presidential":2,"presupposes":1,"principle":4,"principled":1,"procedures":2,"processing":1,"program":3,"programming":5,"programs":2,"proposal":1,"proposes":1,"propositions":1,"provides":1,"proving":3,"qualities":2,"quantification":1,"question":1,"quotation":1,"rather":2,"rationality":8,"reaction":2,"realisation":1,"reasoning":1,"recognising":1,"reconceived":1,"reduced":1,"reducible":1,"reference":1,"register":1,"relates":1,"rely":1,"replaceable":1,"replaced":1,"represent":1,"representation":9,"representations":2,"residue":1,"resolution":2,"s":11,"select":1,"selected":1,"self":1,"semantics":4,"sense":1,"shoham":2,"should":1,"showing":1,"sigart":2,"sits":1,"situates":1,"smith":1,"special":2,"specifying":1,"speech":4,"stance":1,"stanford":1,"state":1,"states":1,"stored":1,"strings":1,"structures":2,"summary":1,"survey":1,"symbol":13,"system":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"talk":2,"temperature":1,"tensions":1,"than":2,"that":9,"the":39,"then":1,"theorem":3,"theoretically":1,"there":1,"this":1,"three":1,"to":15,"tradition":2,"transfer":1,"treat":1,"treatment":1,"understood":1,"uniform":2,"uns":1,"url":1,"used":1,"variables":1,"vocabulary":1,"vs":1,"wants":1,"was":1,"way":1,"we":1,"what":8,"whose":5,"will":4,"with":2,"without":3,"work":2}},{"dl":492,"n":"Communicating Sequential Processes","s":"papers/foundations/communicating-sequential-processes","secs":[{"h":"Communicating Sequential Processes","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Hoare, C. A. R. (1978). \"Communicating Sequential Processes.\" *Communications of the ACM*, 21(8), 666-677. [URL](https://spinroot.com/courses/summer/Papers/hoare_1978.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Hoare proposes that **input, output, and concurrent composition of processes** deserve the same foundational status as assignment, sequencing, and iteration. CSP is a small language in which programs are built from sequential processes that synchronise by unbuffered, typed message exchange over named channels. A send `P ! v` and a matching receive `Q ? x` rendezvous: neither proceeds until both are ready. Dijkstra's guarded commands — with nondeterministic choice — are generalized so that a guard may include a communication action, yielding a clean treatment of external choice, alternation, and fair scheduling. The paper walks through a progression of examples — coroutines, prime sieve, matrix multiplication, bounded buffer, recursive subroutines implemented as processes, the dining philosophers — demonstrating how seemingly exotic concurrent patterns become compact CSP programs. Hoare's deliberate methodological stance is that structured concurrency can be as tractable as structured sequential programming, provided the primitives are well-chosen: synchronous rendezvous avoids the subtleties of mailboxes and shared state; named channels make communication explicit in the program text; guarded commands make nondeterminism principled. CSP seeded a lineage of enormous practical and theoretical impact: occam (the transputer language), the CSP process algebra (Hoare 1985, Roscoe) with refinement-based verification via FDR, the Go programming language's goroutines and channels, Rust's `std::sync::mpsc`, and the modern \"structured concurrency\" revival. Together with Hewitt's actors, CSP defines one of the two great alternatives to shared-memory threads."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Synchronous message passing**: unbuffered rendezvous between named processes; no shared memory. - **Named channels / named processes**: communication is part of program structure, syntactically explicit. - **Guarded commands with I/O guards**: nondeterministic alternation and repetition over communications. - **Parallel composition (||)**: processes execute concurrently, synchronizing only at matched send/receive. - **No implicit buffering**: forces designers to reason about liveness and deadlock directly. - **Refinement and equivalence**: later formalized as a process algebra with bisimulation / failures refinement. - **Structured concurrency**: parallelism as a first-class program-structuring mechanism, not threads-as-afterthought."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Actor Model]] — the other great message-passing tradition; CSP is channel-centric where actors are mailbox-centric. - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Hoare Logic]] — Hoare's earlier work on axiomatic reasoning underlies his insistence on structured primitives. - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] — rendezvous provides a stronger local synchrony than Lamport's messages. - [[Let It Crash]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"> Concurrency and communication deserve to be *primitive* language constructs, on par with assignment and iteration. By making processes and synchronous channels first-class, and by generalising guarded commands to choose over communications, one obtains a calculus in which concurrent algorithms are written as naturally as sequential ones — and in which correctness can be reasoned about algebraically. CSP established that concurrent programming is a structuring problem, not just a scheduling problem."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"CSP #hoare #concurrency #message-passing #process-algebra #foundational #channels #structured-concurrency","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"1978":2,"1985":1,"21":1,"666":1,"677":1,"8":1,"a":17,"about":2,"acm":1,"action":1,"actor":2,"actors":2,"afterthought":1,"algebra":3,"algebraically":1,"algorithms":1,"alternation":2,"alternatives":1,"and":17,"are":6,"artificial":1,"as":9,"assignment":2,"at":1,"avoids":1,"axiomatic":1,"based":1,"be":3,"become":1,"between":1,"bisimulation":1,"both":1,"bounded":1,"buffer":1,"buffering":1,"built":1,"by":3,"c":1,"calculus":1,"can":2,"centric":2,"channel":1,"channels":6,"choice":2,"choose":1,"chosen":1,"class":2,"clean":1,"clocks":1,"com":1,"commands":4,"communicating":2,"communication":4,"communications":3,"compact":1,"composition":2,"conceptual":1,"concurrency":6,"concurrent":4,"concurrently":1,"connections":1,"constructs":1,"contribution":1,"coroutines":1,"correctness":1,"courses":1,"crash":1,"csp":8,"deadlock":1,"defines":1,"deliberate":1,"demonstrating":1,"deserve":2,"designers":1,"dijkstra":1,"dining":1,"directly":1,"distributed":1,"earlier":1,"enormous":1,"equivalence":1,"established":1,"events":1,"examples":1,"exchange":1,"execute":1,"exotic":1,"explicit":2,"external":1,"failures":1,"fair":1,"fdr":1,"first":2,"for":1,"forces":1,"formalism":1,"formalized":1,"foundational":2,"from":1,"generalising":1,"generalized":1,"go":1,"goroutines":1,"great":2,"guard":1,"guarded":4,"guards":1,"hewitt":1,"his":1,"hoare":8,"how":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"impact":1,"implemented":1,"implicit":1,"in":5,"include":1,"input":1,"insistence":1,"intelligence":1,"is":5,"it":1,"iteration":2,"just":1,"key":1,"lamport":1,"language":4,"later":1,"let":1,"lineage":1,"liveness":1,"local":1,"logic":1,"mailbox":1,"mailboxes":1,"make":2,"making":1,"matched":1,"matching":1,"matrix":1,"may":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":2,"message":4,"messages":1,"methodological":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"modular":1,"multiplication":1,"named":5,"naturally":1,"neither":1,"no":2,"nondeterminism":1,"nondeterministic":2,"not":2,"o":1,"obtains":1,"occam":1,"of":9,"on":3,"one":2,"ones":1,"only":1,"ordering":1,"other":1,"output":1,"over":3,"paper":1,"papers":1,"par":1,"parallel":1,"parallelism":1,"part":1,"passing":3,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"philosophers":1,"practical":1,"prime":1,"primitive":1,"primitives":2,"principled":1,"problem":2,"proceeds":1,"process":3,"processes":9,"program":3,"programming":3,"programs":2,"progression":1,"proposes":1,"provided":1,"provides":1,"r":1,"ready":1,"reason":1,"reasoned":1,"reasoning":1,"receive":2,"recursive":1,"reference":1,"refinement":3,"rendezvous":4,"repetition":1,"revival":1,"roscoe":1,"rust":1,"s":7,"same":1,"scheduling":2,"seeded":1,"seemingly":1,"send":2,"sequencing":1,"sequential":5,"shared":3,"sieve":1,"small":1,"so":1,"spinroot":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"status":1,"stronger":1,"structure":1,"structured":6,"structuring":2,"subroutines":1,"subtleties":1,"summary":1,"summer":1,"synchronise":1,"synchronizing":1,"synchronous":3,"synchrony":1,"syntactically":1,"system":1,"tags":1,"text":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":14,"theoretical":1,"threads":2,"through":1,"time":1,"to":4,"together":1,"tractable":1,"tradition":1,"transputer":1,"treatment":1,"two":1,"typed":1,"unbuffered":2,"underlies":1,"universal":1,"until":1,"url":1,"verification":1,"via":1,"walks":1,"well":1,"where":1,"which":3,"with":6,"work":1,"written":1,"yielding":1}},{"dl":601,"n":"An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory","s":"papers/foundations/an-unsolvable-problem-of-elementary-number-theory","secs":[{"h":"An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Church, Alonzo (1936). \"An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory.\" *American Journal of Mathematics* 58(2), 345–363. [DOI 10.2307/2371045](https://doi.org/10.2307/2371045). Scan: [archive.org via JSTOR mirror](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2371045)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Church's 1936 paper is one of the two founding documents of computability theory (the other being Turing 1936). It formulates and defends what came to be called **Church's thesis**: the identification of the informal notion of an *effectively calculable* function of positive integers with the precisely defined class of **λ-definable** functions (equivalently, the general recursive functions of Herbrand–Gödel–Kleene, as Church and Kleene had shown earlier that year). Against that identification, Church exhibits a problem of elementary number theory that no effectively calculable procedure can solve, thereby producing the first concrete *undecidable* problem in mathematics. The technical core is a diagonal construction inside the λ-calculus. Church shows that the set of λ-terms having a normal form is not recursive; equivalently, there is no effective procedure that, given a λ-term, decides whether it is convertible to a normal form. By encoding this into ordinary number theory via Gödel numbering, he obtains an unsolvable problem expressible as a question about positive integers. In the paper's final sections he applies the technique to the **Entscheidungsproblem** of first-order logic: the decision problem for provability in pure predicate calculus is itself undecidable. (Turing 1936, submitted independently, reaches the same conclusion via the halting problem.) The paper is historically decisive because it provides (i) the first mathematically rigorous definition of effective calculability, (ii) the first proof of an unsolvable mathematical problem, and (iii) the first proof of the undecidability of first-order logic. Every subsequent undecidability result — Post's correspondence problem, Hilbert's 10th, word problems in groups, Rice's theorem — is methodologically descended from this paper."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Church's thesis:** effectively calculable = λ-definable = general recursive. The informal notion is identified with a precise mathematical class. - **λ-definability and the equivalence** (with Kleene) of λ-definability and Herbrand–Gödel general recursiveness. - **Undecidability of normal-form existence** for λ-terms — the first explicit undecidable problem. - **Undecidability of the Entscheidungsproblem**: no algorithm decides validity in first-order logic. - **Diagonal / self-referential construction** as the standard technique for undecidability. - Gödel-numbering of λ-terms brings the result back into elementary number theory."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Lambda Calculus]] - [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[Halting Problem]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[First-Order Logic]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** There exist problems of elementary number theory for which no effective procedure exists; in particular, the decision problem for first-order logic is unsolvable. - **Mechanism:** Identify *effectively calculable* with *λ-definable*. Diagonalise over λ-terms to produce a set whose characteristic function is not λ-definable. Transport the result into first-order logic via arithmetisation, yielding undecidability of the Entscheidungsproblem. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Lambda Calculus]], [[Recursive Function]], Church's thesis, Entscheidungsproblem, [[Computability]], [[First-Order Logic]] - **Stance:** foundational theorem paper (mathematical logic / computability) - **Relates to:** Independent and contemporaneous with Turing 1936; together they establish the computability frontier that [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]] later generalises; provides the undecidability backdrop against which [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I|Gödel 1931]] is read today."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"computability #undecidability #lambda-calculus #foundational #church-thesis #entscheidungsproblem","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":2,"10th":1,"1931":1,"1936":5,"1953":1,"2":1,"2307":2,"2371045":3,"345":1,"363":1,"58":1,"a":8,"about":1,"against":2,"algorithm":1,"alonzo":1,"american":1,"an":5,"and":10,"applies":1,"archive":1,"arithmetisation":1,"as":3,"back":1,"backdrop":1,"be":1,"because":1,"being":1,"brings":1,"by":1,"calculability":1,"calculable":4,"calculus":5,"called":1,"came":1,"can":1,"characteristic":1,"church":9,"claim":1,"class":2,"classes":2,"computability":6,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conclusion":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"construction":2,"contemporaneous":1,"contribution":1,"convertible":1,"core":1,"correspondence":1,"decides":2,"decision":5,"decisive":1,"defends":1,"definability":2,"definable":4,"defined":1,"definition":1,"der":2,"descended":1,"diagonal":2,"diagonalise":1,"documents":1,"doi":2,"earlier":1,"effective":3,"effectively":4,"elementary":5,"encoding":1,"entscheidungsproblem":5,"enumerable":3,"equivalence":1,"equivalently":2,"establish":1,"every":1,"exhibits":1,"exist":1,"existence":1,"exists":1,"explicit":1,"expressible":1,"final":1,"first":12,"for":5,"form":3,"formal":2,"formulates":1,"foundational":2,"founding":1,"from":1,"frontier":1,"function":4,"functions":3,"general":4,"generalises":1,"given":1,"groups":1,"gödel":5,"had":1,"halting":2,"having":1,"he":2,"herbrand":2,"hilbert":1,"historically":1,"https":2,"i":3,"ideas":1,"identification":2,"identified":1,"identify":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"in":6,"independent":1,"independently":1,"informal":2,"inside":1,"integers":3,"into":3,"introduced":1,"is":12,"it":3,"itself":1,"journal":1,"jstor":2,"key":1,"kleene":3,"lambda":3,"later":1,"logic":8,"machine":1,"mathematica":2,"mathematical":3,"mathematically":1,"mathematics":2,"mechanism":1,"methodologically":1,"mirror":1,"natural":1,"no":4,"normal":3,"not":2,"notion":2,"number":6,"numbering":2,"numbers":1,"obtains":1,"of":27,"one":1,"order":7,"ordinary":1,"org":3,"other":1,"over":1,"paper":5,"particular":1,"positive":3,"post":1,"precise":1,"precisely":1,"predicate":1,"predicates":1,"principia":2,"problem":12,"problems":5,"procedure":3,"produce":1,"producing":1,"proof":2,"provability":1,"provides":2,"pure":1,"quantifiers":1,"question":1,"reaches":1,"read":1,"recursive":7,"recursively":3,"recursiveness":1,"reference":1,"referential":1,"relates":1,"result":3,"rice":2,"rigorous":1,"s":8,"same":1,"scan":1,"sections":1,"self":1,"set":2,"sets":3,"shown":1,"shows":1,"solve":1,"stable":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"submitted":1,"subsequent":1,"summary":1,"systeme":2,"sätze":2,"tags":1,"technical":1,"technique":2,"term":1,"terms":4,"that":6,"the":32,"their":3,"theorem":2,"theory":7,"there":2,"thereby":1,"thesis":4,"they":1,"this":2,"to":5,"today":1,"together":1,"transport":1,"turing":4,"two":1,"und":2,"undecidability":8,"undecidable":3,"unentscheidbare":2,"universal":1,"unsolvable":5,"used":1,"validity":1,"verwandter":2,"via":4,"what":1,"whether":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"with":5,"word":1,"www":1,"year":1,"yielding":1,"über":2,"λ":12}},{"dl":382,"n":"Seven Turrets Of Babel","s":"papers/foundations/seven-turrets-of-babel","secs":[{"h":"The Seven Turrets of Babel: A Taxonomy of LangSec Errors and How to Expunge Them","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Momot, Bratus, Hallberg, Patterson (2016). *IEEE Cybersecurity Development (SecDev)*. Source file: `7turretsaspublished.pdf`. [URL](http://smhallberg.de/res/langsec-cwes-secdev2016.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors catalogue seven recurring classes of input-handling bugs under the LangSec (language-theoretic security) lens: shotgun parsing, non-minimalist input-handling code, differing interpretations of the input language, incomplete protocol specification, overloaded fields in input format, permissive processing of invalid input, and inability to express input languages in the Chomsky hierarchy. Each class is grounded in concrete CVEs (Heartbleed, Android Master Key, Rosetta Flash, OpenSSL CVE-2016-0752). LangSec's remedy is to treat input acceptance as a formal language-recognition problem: specify a grammar no more complex than deterministic context-free, build a recognizer that fully validates before any processing, and cleanly separate parsing from application logic. The paper proposes new CWE entries naming each weakness so auditors can precisely describe vulnerable input-handling code."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- LangSec: input should be a well-defined language with a fully-validating recognizer. - Seven anti-patterns: shotgun parsing, non-minimalist code, interpretation drift, incomplete spec, field overloading, permissive invalid input, undecidable grammars. - Chomsky hierarchy as a safety ceiling for input languages. - Hand-rolled parsers vs parser-combinator / generator tooling (e.g., Hammer). - Proposed new CWEs to label LangSec anti-patterns."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** Most serious input-handling vulnerabilities reduce to seven recurring anti-patterns, all addressable by treating input acceptance as a formal language-recognition problem bounded by the Chomsky hierarchy. - **Mechanism:** Catalogues each anti-pattern (shotgun parsing, non-minimalist code, interpretation drift, incomplete spec, field overloading, permissive invalid input, undecidable grammars) against real CVEs (Heartbleed, Android Master Key, Rosetta Flash); prescribes grammar-first validating recognizers and proposes new CWE entries. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[LangSec]], [[Shotgun Parsing]], [[Chomsky Hierarchy]], [[Parser Combinators]], [[Distributed Security]], [[Common Weakness Enumeration]] - **Stance:** engineering / critique - **Relates to:** Shares a language-theoretic security stance with [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] and [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]]; its grammar-discipline arguments apply directly to the schema/protocol surfaces catalogued in [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] and exploited in [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"langsec #security #parsing #language-theory","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"0752":1,"2016":2,"a":11,"acceptance":2,"addressable":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"all":1,"and":6,"android":2,"anti":4,"any":1,"application":1,"apply":1,"approach":2,"arguments":1,"as":3,"attacks":1,"auditors":1,"authors":1,"babel":1,"based":2,"be":1,"before":1,"bounded":1,"bratus":1,"bugs":1,"build":1,"by":2,"calculus":2,"can":1,"catalogue":1,"catalogued":1,"catalogues":1,"ceiling":1,"chomsky":4,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"cleanly":1,"code":4,"combinator":1,"combinators":1,"common":1,"complex":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"context":1,"contribution":1,"critique":1,"cve":1,"cves":2,"cwe":2,"cwes":2,"cybersecurity":1,"ddos":2,"de":1,"defined":1,"describe":1,"deterministic":1,"development":1,"differing":1,"directly":1,"discipline":1,"distributed":1,"drift":2,"e":1,"each":3,"engineering":1,"entries":2,"enumeration":1,"errors":1,"exploited":1,"express":1,"expunge":1,"field":2,"fields":1,"file":1,"first":1,"flash":2,"for":1,"formal":2,"format":1,"free":1,"from":1,"fully":2,"g":1,"generator":1,"grammar":3,"grammars":2,"grounded":1,"hallberg":1,"hammer":1,"hand":1,"handling":4,"heartbleed":2,"hierarchy":4,"how":1,"http":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"in":5,"inability":1,"incomplete":3,"input":14,"interoperability":1,"interpretation":2,"interpretations":1,"introduced":1,"invalid":3,"is":2,"its":1,"kernel":2,"key":3,"label":1,"lambda":2,"langsec":8,"language":10,"languages":2,"lens":1,"logic":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"master":2,"mechanism":1,"minimalist":3,"momot":1,"more":1,"most":1,"naming":1,"new":3,"no":1,"non":3,"of":6,"openssl":1,"overloaded":1,"overloading":2,"paper":1,"parser":2,"parsers":1,"parsing":6,"pattern":1,"patterns":3,"patterson":1,"pdf":1,"permissive":3,"precisely":1,"prescribes":1,"prevent":2,"problem":2,"processing":2,"proposed":1,"proposes":2,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"real":1,"recognition":2,"recognizer":2,"recognizers":1,"recurring":2,"reduce":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"remedy":1,"res":1,"rolled":1,"rosetta":2,"s":1,"safety":1,"schema":1,"secdev":1,"secdev2016":1,"security":6,"separate":1,"serious":1,"seven":4,"shares":1,"shotgun":4,"should":1,"smhallberg":1,"so":1,"source":1,"spec":2,"specification":1,"specify":1,"stance":2,"summary":1,"surfaces":1,"survey":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":8,"them":1,"theoretic":2,"theory":1,"to":9,"tool":1,"tooling":1,"treat":1,"treating":1,"turrets":1,"undecidable":2,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"validates":1,"validating":2,"vs":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"vulnerable":1,"weakness":2,"well":1,"with":2,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":401,"n":"Three Models for the Description of Language","s":"papers/foundations/three-models-for-the-description-of-language","secs":[{"h":"Three Models for the Description of Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Noam Chomsky (1956). *IRE Transactions on Information Theory*. Source files: `195609-.pdf`, `chomksy.txt`. [URL](https://www.chomsky.info/wp-content/uploads/195609-.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Chomsky's seminal paper comparing three candidate models of linguistic structure — finite-state Markov processes, phrase-structure grammars, and transformational grammars — and showing that each is strictly more powerful than the last. He proves that English cannot be described by any finite-state grammar (via dependencies like \"either…or\", \"if…then\" that require unbounded memory), and argues that even phrase-structure grammars, while formally adequate, yield awkward and complex descriptions of phenomena (auxiliaries, passives, discontinuous elements) that transformational rules handle elegantly. The paper founded generative linguistics and the Chomsky hierarchy, and established transformational grammar as the preferred formalism for natural-language syntax."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Finite-state grammars cannot generate English (mirror-image / nested dependencies) - Phrase-structure grammars more powerful but still inadequate for transformations - Transformational grammar operates on phrase markers, not strings - Distinction between grammar as discovery procedure vs. evaluation procedure - Foundations of the Chomsky hierarchy"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Foundations of Illocutionary Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Natural language (English) is not finitely describable by a finite-state Markov process, nor adequately by a pure phrase-structure grammar; a *transformational* grammar built on top of phrase structure is materially simpler and exposes genuine linguistic insight. - **Mechanism:** Three candidate models examined formally — (1) finite-state Markov processes, shown incapable of generating mirror-image / nested-dependency constructions central to English; (2) phrase-structure (context-free) grammars, adequate in principle but producing unwieldy, redundant grammars; (3) transformational grammars, where a kernel of simple sentences plus transformations derives the rest, yielding compact and explanatorily powerful descriptions. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Finite-state Grammars]], [[Phrase-structure Grammar]], [[Context-Free Grammars]], [[Transformational Grammar]], [[Chomsky Hierarchy]], [[Generative Grammar]], [[Kernel Sentences]], [[Markov Processes]], [[Compositionality]] - **Stance:** formal / linguistic-theory - **Relates to:** Foundational reference point for any discussion of language structure, including emergent-language work ([[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]], [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]]) where \"compositionality\" is the property Chomsky's phrase-structure was designed to capture. Complements [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]]'s description-length view with a structural/syntactic one. Distant ancestor of the parser-design rigour demanded by [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"linguistics #formal-grammar #chomsky-hierarchy #foundations","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1956":1,"195609":1,"2":1,"3":1,"a":5,"act":1,"adequate":2,"adequately":1,"agent":3,"algorithmic":1,"ancestor":1,"and":10,"any":2,"argues":1,"as":2,"auxiliaries":1,"awkward":1,"be":1,"between":1,"built":1,"but":2,"by":4,"cake":1,"candidate":2,"cannot":2,"capture":1,"central":1,"chomsky":8,"claim":1,"compact":1,"comparing":1,"complements":1,"complex":1,"compositional":1,"compositionality":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constructions":1,"content":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"cooperation":2,"demanded":1,"dependencies":2,"dependency":1,"derives":1,"describable":1,"described":1,"description":2,"descriptions":2,"design":1,"designed":1,"discontinuous":1,"discovery":1,"discussion":1,"distant":1,"distinction":1,"each":1,"either":1,"elegantly":1,"elements":1,"emergence":3,"emergent":1,"english":4,"established":1,"evaluation":1,"even":1,"examined":1,"explanatorily":1,"exposes":1,"files":1,"finite":6,"finitely":1,"for":4,"formal":2,"formalism":1,"formally":2,"foundational":1,"foundations":3,"founded":1,"free":2,"generate":1,"generating":1,"generative":2,"genuine":1,"grammar":10,"grammars":10,"grounded":1,"grunwald":1,"handle":1,"he":1,"hierarchy":4,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"illocutionary":1,"image":2,"in":2,"inadequate":1,"incapable":1,"including":1,"info":1,"information":2,"insight":1,"introduced":1,"ire":1,"is":4,"kaminsky":1,"kernel":2,"key":1,"language":8,"last":1,"layer":1,"length":1,"like":1,"linguistic":3,"linguistics":2,"logic":1,"markers":1,"markov":4,"materially":1,"mechanism":1,"memory":1,"mirror":2,"models":3,"more":2,"multi":3,"natural":4,"nested":2,"noam":1,"nor":1,"not":2,"of":13,"on":3,"one":1,"ontologies":1,"operates":1,"or":1,"paper":2,"parser":1,"passives":1,"patterson":1,"pdf":1,"phenomena":1,"phrase":9,"pki":1,"plus":1,"point":1,"populations":1,"powerful":3,"preferred":1,"principle":1,"procedure":2,"process":1,"processes":3,"producing":1,"property":1,"proves":1,"pure":1,"redundant":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"require":1,"rest":1,"rigour":1,"rules":1,"s":3,"sassaman":1,"seminal":1,"sentences":2,"showing":1,"shown":1,"simple":1,"simpler":1,"source":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"state":6,"still":1,"strictly":1,"strings":1,"structural":1,"structure":10,"summary":1,"syntactic":1,"syntax":1,"tags":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":11,"then":1,"theory":4,"three":3,"to":3,"top":1,"transactions":1,"transformational":7,"transformations":2,"unbounded":1,"unwieldy":1,"uploads":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":1,"view":1,"vitanyi":1,"vs":1,"was":1,"where":2,"while":1,"with":1,"work":1,"wp":1,"www":1,"yield":1,"yielding":1}},{"dl":963,"n":"Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts","s":"papers/foundations/elephant-2000---a-programming-language-based-on-speech-acts","secs":[{"h":"Elephant 2000: A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1989, revised). *Formal Reasoning Group, Stanford University*. Source file: `elephant.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/elephant/elephant.pdf) > *\"I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. / An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent! / moreover, / An elephant never forgets!\"*"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"McCarthy proposes **Elephant 2000**, a speculative programming language whose inputs and outputs are *speech acts* — requests, questions, offers, acceptances, declinations, permissions, and promises — rather than ordinary I/O. A program's correctness is then partly defined by the \"happy performance\" of those acts in Austin's sense: answers must be truthful and responsive, promises must be kept, and the program must not accept what it has no authority to accept. The paper is an essay of seven design theses, most strikingly: - An Elephant program is itself a *logical sentence* (or syntactic sugar for one); its extensional correctness properties follow by logical consequence without a separate theory of programming à la Hoare. - Elephant programs do not need data structures: they can refer directly to the past (history of events and states), just as natural-language speakers do (\"the passenger *has* a reservation iff she made one and hasn't cancelled it\"). - Programs have both **input-output** specifications (generalising illocutionary speech acts) and **accomplishment** specifications (generalising perlocutionary acts — what the program actually brings about in the world). - Commercial transactions exchange **obligations**; an Elephant program's specification may include the fact that the obligation exchange happens as intended, again as a logical sentence. McCarthy explicitly departs from Searle/Austin by taking a **design stance** (Dennett) on speech acts, introducing **abstract performatives** (including purely internal commitments the agent makes to itself) as a category of program event. The paper is the direct programming-language-side ancestor of modern [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Commitment-based Semantics]], and [[Intent Formalization]] — all written a decade before the ACL field got going."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":17,"t":"- **Speech-act I-O language:** programs communicate via `request`, `question`, `offer`, `accept`, `decline`, `permission`, `promise`, `assertion`, plus internal `commitment` - **Program-as-logical-sentence:** extensional properties are logical consequences, no Hoare axioms required - **Direct reference to the past:** no data structures, just history queries (`has-reservation(psgr, flt) ≡ made-reservation ∧ ¬cancelled`) - **Illocutionary vs. perlocutionary specs:** input-output (program's own behaviour) vs. accomplishment (effects in the world) - **Abstract performatives** — internal commitments whose content is independent of outward expression - **Obligation exchange** as a first-class specification element for commercial/institutional programs - Takes a **design stance** on speech acts — adapts Austin/Searle rather than inheriting them - Authority / permission / obligation are *specification* concerns: the program need not be conscious of them - Explicit claim: deliberately *non-AI* — Elephant usages that do not require intelligence are the focus"},{"h":"Connections","l":28,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — McCarthy's prior paper on when it's useful to ascribe beliefs/intentions to programs - [[Common Business Communication Language]] — McCarthy 1982, explicitly cited as the motivating application - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] — McCarthy 1963; originates the program-as-logical-object agenda Elephant radicalises. - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] — McCarthy & Painter 1967; first proof-of-concept for the verification programme Elephant extends to speech-act semantics. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] — McCarthy 1979; the logical machinery for propositional attitudes that Elephant's commitments and history-referring constructs presuppose. - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — McCarthy 1986; the defeasibility substrate for commitment revision. - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell 1982; Elephant is a programming language whose *native* level of description is Newell's knowledge level. - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] — Searle & Vanderveken, the philosophical spine McCarthy adapts - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KQML]] - [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":57,"t":"- **Claim:** A programming language's inputs and outputs should be speech acts, and a program's correctness should be partly defined by the \"happy performance\" of those acts — truthfulness of answers, responsiveness to questions, fidelity of promises, legitimacy of authority. Such programs are themselves logical sentences, so no separate Hoare-style programming logic is needed. - **Mechanism:** Seven design theses unified by a single move — take Austin/Searle's speech-act framework as a programming-language primitive rather than an application-level pattern. Introduce abstract performatives (internal commitments) and direct past-reference to replace conventional data structures. Give two specification tiers (input-output = illocutionary, accomplishment = perlocutionary) so verification can connect the program text to its real-world effects via axiomatic theories of the environment. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Abstract Performative]], [[Happy Performance]], [[Illocutionary Specification]], [[Perlocutionary Specification]], [[Obligation Exchange]], [[Design Stance]], [[History-Referring Programs]], [[Program as Logical Sentence]], [[Simple Promise]], [[Type 1 and Type 2 Obligations]], [[Performatives]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - **Stance:** foundational / manifesto - **Relates to:** Written a decade before [[KQML]], [[KQML Overview]], and [[FIPA-ACL]], this paper is their direct programming-language ancestor: the idea that messages are performatives with formal sincerity/truthfulness conditions is exactly what [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] and [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] later operationalise. McCarthy's **abstract performatives** and explicit **obligation exchange** prefigure the commitment-based ACL semantics of [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] and the critique-and-reconstruction in [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]. The \"program as a logical sentence, specifications deduced from it\" stance deliberately displaces [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] / [[Hoare Logic]] — anticipating the Dafny/Verus approach that [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] now takes for LLM-generated code. [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] (Agora) revives the same impulse — programs whose *protocols* are negotiated speech-act sets — in the LLM-agent era."},{"h":"Tags","l":64,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #programming-languages #commitments #performatives #foundational #mccarthy #elephant-2000","l":65,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1963":1,"1967":1,"1979":1,"1982":2,"1986":1,"1989":1,"2":1,"2000":3,"a":26,"about":1,"abstract":5,"accept":2,"acceptances":1,"accomplishment":3,"acl":5,"act":6,"acts":10,"actually":1,"adapts":2,"again":1,"agenda":1,"agent":9,"agora":1,"ai":1,"all":1,"an":8,"ancestor":2,"and":22,"answers":2,"anticipating":1,"application":2,"approach":1,"are":7,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"as":13,"ascribe":1,"ascribing":1,"assigning":2,"attitudes":1,"austin":4,"authority":3,"axiomatic":1,"axioms":1,"based":4,"be":5,"before":2,"behaviour":1,"beliefs":1,"both":1,"brings":1,"business":1,"by":5,"can":2,"cancelled":1,"category":1,"challenge":2,"choice":1,"circumscription":1,"cited":1,"claim":2,"class":1,"code":1,"coding":2,"commercial":2,"commitment":5,"commitments":5,"common":2,"communicate":1,"communication":9,"compiler":1,"computation":1,"concept":1,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"conditions":1,"connect":1,"connections":1,"conscious":1,"consequence":1,"consequences":1,"constructs":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"conventional":1,"correctness":4,"critique":1,"dafny":1,"data":3,"decade":2,"declinations":1,"deduced":1,"defeasibility":1,"defined":2,"deliberately":2,"dennett":1,"departs":1,"description":1,"design":5,"direct":4,"directly":1,"displaces":1,"do":3,"edu":1,"effects":2,"element":1,"elephant":15,"environment":1,"era":1,"essay":1,"event":1,"events":1,"exactly":1,"exchange":5,"explicit":2,"explicitly":2,"expression":1,"expressions":1,"extends":1,"extensional":2,"fact":1,"faithful":1,"fidelity":1,"field":1,"file":1,"fipa":2,"first":3,"focus":1,"follow":1,"for":11,"forgets":1,"form":1,"formal":3,"formalization":3,"foundational":2,"foundations":3,"framework":1,"from":2,"generalising":2,"generated":1,"give":1,"going":1,"got":1,"grand":2,"group":1,"happens":1,"happy":3,"has":2,"hasn":1,"have":1,"history":4,"hoare":5,"http":1,"hundred":1,"i":6,"idea":1,"ideas":1,"iff":1,"illocutionary":6,"impulse":1,"in":5,"include":1,"including":1,"independent":1,"individual":1,"inheriting":1,"input":3,"inputs":2,"institutional":4,"intelligence":1,"intended":1,"intent":3,"intention":1,"intentions":1,"internal":4,"introduce":1,"introduced":1,"introducing":1,"is":11,"it":4,"its":2,"itself":2,"jmc":1,"john":1,"just":2,"kept":1,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"kqml":6,"la":1,"language":12,"languages":3,"later":1,"legitimacy":1,"level":4,"llm":2,"llms":2,"lloyd":1,"logic":6,"logical":10,"machinery":1,"machines":1,"made":1,"makes":1,"manifesto":1,"mathematical":1,"may":1,"mccarthy":12,"meanings":2,"meant":2,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"messages":1,"modern":1,"moreover":1,"most":1,"motivating":1,"move":1,"must":3,"native":1,"natural":1,"need":2,"needed":1,"negotiated":1,"networks":2,"never":1,"newell":2,"no":4,"non":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"not":4,"now":1,"o":2,"object":1,"obligation":5,"obligations":2,"of":25,"offers":1,"on":4,"one":3,"operationalise":1,"or":1,"order":1,"ordinary":1,"oriented":1,"originates":1,"output":3,"outputs":2,"outward":1,"overview":2,"own":1,"painter":1,"paper":4,"partly":2,"passenger":1,"past":3,"pattern":1,"pdf":1,"percent":1,"performance":3,"performative":1,"performatives":8,"perlocutionary":4,"permission":1,"permissions":1,"philosophical":1,"plus":1,"prefigure":1,"presuppose":1,"primitive":1,"principles":1,"prior":1,"program":14,"programme":1,"programming":12,"programs":10,"promise":1,"promises":3,"proof":1,"properties":2,"proposes":1,"propositional":1,"propositions":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"purely":1,"qualities":1,"queries":1,"questions":2,"radicalises":1,"rather":3,"real":1,"reality":3,"reasoning":3,"reconstruction":1,"refer":1,"reference":3,"referring":2,"relates":1,"reliable":2,"replace":1,"requests":1,"require":1,"required":1,"reservation":1,"responsive":1,"responsiveness":1,"rethinking":1,"revised":1,"revision":1,"revives":1,"s":13,"said":2,"same":1,"scalable":2,"science":1,"searle":4,"semantics":5,"sense":2,"sentence":5,"sentences":1,"separate":2,"sets":1,"seven":2,"she":1,"should":2,"side":1,"simple":1,"sincerity":1,"single":1,"so":2,"source":1,"speakers":1,"specification":6,"specifications":3,"specs":1,"speculative":1,"speech":13,"spine":1,"stance":5,"stanford":2,"states":1,"strikingly":1,"structures":3,"style":1,"substrate":1,"such":1,"sugar":1,"summary":1,"syntactic":1,"t":1,"tags":1,"take":1,"takes":2,"taking":1,"text":1,"than":3,"that":5,"the":34,"their":1,"them":2,"themselves":1,"then":1,"theories":2,"theory":3,"theses":2,"they":1,"this":1,"those":2,"tiers":1,"to":14,"towards":1,"transactions":1,"truthful":1,"truthfulness":2,"two":1,"type":2,"unified":1,"university":1,"url":1,"usages":1,"used":1,"useful":1,"vanderveken":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":3,"verus":1,"via":2,"vs":2,"what":5,"when":1,"whose":4,"with":2,"without":1,"world":3,"written":2,"à":1}},{"dl":508,"n":"A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts","s":"papers/foundations/a-taxonomy-of-illocutionary-acts","secs":[{"h":"A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Searle, J. R. (1975). In K. Gunderson (Ed.), *Language, Mind, and Knowledge* (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 7), pp. 344–369. University of Minnesota Press. Reprinted in *Expression and Meaning* (1979), CUP. Source file: `searle_taxonomy_illocutionary_acts.pdf`. [URL](https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/185220/7-08_Searle.pdf?sequence=1)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Searle develops a principled classification of illocutionary acts, replacing Austin's intuitive five-category scheme (verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behabitive, commissive) with a taxonomy grounded in twelve significant dimensions of variation — chief among them illocutionary *point*, *direction of fit* (words-to-world, world-to-words, double, or null), and *expressed psychological state* (sincerity condition). Applying these criteria yields five basic classes: **Representatives** (assertions, conclusions — word-to-world fit, expressing belief), **Directives** (requests, commands — world-to-word fit, expressing want), **Commissives** (promises, threats — world-to-word fit, expressing intention), **Expressives** (thanks, apologies — null direction of fit, expressing various psychological states), and **Declaratives** (christenings, firings — double direction of fit, typically requiring an extra-linguistic institution). Searle criticises Austin's taxonomy for confusing illocutionary verbs with illocutionary acts (verbs are language-relative; acts are not), for overlap among categories, and for lacking a consistent principle of classification. The taxonomy became the standard reference for speech-act theory and, via agent communication language design, provided the fundamental performative vocabulary (tell, ask, promise, declare) inherited by KQML, FIPA-ACL, and later protocol work."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Twelve dimensions of illocutionary variation; three central ones dominate. - Illocutionary point, direction of fit, expressed psychological state. - Five classes: Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declaratives. - Distinction between illocutionary verbs and illocutionary acts. - Declaratives depend on extra-linguistic institutions. - Critique of Austin: no single principle, verb/act conflation, overlap. - Sincerity conditions as essential to each class."},{"h":"Connections","l":19,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Speech Acts - An Essay in the Philosophy of Language]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Abstract Performative]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[KQML]] - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** Illocutionary acts partition into exactly five basic classes (Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declaratives), determined by a small set of semantic dimensions (point, direction of fit, sincerity condition) rather than by surface verbs. - **Mechanism:** Enumerate twelve dimensions of variation; elevate three (illocutionary point, direction of fit, psychological state expressed) as primary axes; derive the five classes as equivalence classes under these axes; show Austin's categories conflate verbs with acts and cross-cut the principled axes, producing overlap and miscategorisation (e.g., *describe* straddles representative/verdictive). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Illocutionary Point]], [[Direction Of Fit]], [[Sincerity Condition]], [[Representatives]], [[Directives]], [[Commissives]], [[Expressives]], [[Declaratives]] - **Stance:** theoretical taxonomy - **Relates to:** Provides the performative vocabulary taken up by [[KQML]], [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], and downstream work on [[Agent Communication Languages]]; formalised further in [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]; offers the linguistic underpinning critiqued/extended by [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and operationalised in [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #philosophy-of-language #foundational #taxonomy #performatives","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"08":1,"1":1,"11299":1,"185220":1,"1975":1,"1979":1,"2000":2,"344":1,"369":1,"7":2,"a":8,"abstract":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"act":3,"acts":12,"agent":6,"among":2,"an":4,"and":12,"apologies":1,"applying":1,"are":2,"as":5,"ask":1,"assertions":1,"austin":4,"axes":3,"based":2,"basic":2,"became":1,"behabitive":1,"belief":1,"between":1,"bitstream":1,"by":5,"categories":2,"category":1,"central":1,"chief":1,"christenings":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"classes":5,"classification":2,"commands":1,"commissive":1,"commissives":4,"common":1,"communication":6,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conclusions":1,"condition":3,"conditions":1,"conflate":1,"conflation":1,"confusing":1,"connections":1,"conservancy":1,"consistent":1,"contribution":1,"criteria":1,"criticises":1,"critique":1,"critiqued":1,"cross":1,"cup":1,"cut":1,"declaratives":5,"declare":1,"depend":1,"derive":1,"describe":1,"design":1,"determined":1,"develops":1,"dimensions":4,"direction":7,"directives":4,"distinction":1,"dominate":1,"double":2,"downstream":1,"e":1,"each":1,"ed":1,"edu":1,"elephant":2,"elevate":1,"enumerate":1,"equivalence":1,"essay":1,"essential":1,"exactly":1,"exercitive":1,"expositive":1,"expressed":3,"expressing":4,"expression":1,"expressives":4,"extended":1,"extra":2,"file":1,"fipa":1,"firings":1,"fit":10,"five":5,"for":4,"formalised":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":2,"fundamental":1,"further":1,"g":1,"grounded":1,"gunderson":1,"handle":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":14,"in":7,"inherited":1,"institution":1,"institutions":1,"intention":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"intuitive":1,"j":1,"k":1,"key":1,"knowledge":1,"kqml":5,"lacking":1,"language":9,"languages":3,"later":1,"linguistic":3,"logic":2,"meaning":1,"mechanism":1,"mind":1,"minnesota":2,"miscategorisation":1,"no":1,"not":1,"null":2,"of":22,"offers":1,"on":4,"ones":1,"ontology":1,"operationalised":1,"or":1,"overlap":3,"partition":1,"pdf":1,"performative":3,"performatives":2,"philosophy":3,"point":5,"pp":1,"press":1,"primary":1,"principle":2,"principled":2,"principles":1,"producing":1,"programming":2,"promise":1,"promises":1,"protocol":1,"provided":1,"provides":1,"psychological":4,"r":1,"rather":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"relative":1,"replacing":1,"representative":1,"representatives":4,"reprinted":1,"requests":1,"requiring":1,"rethinking":1,"s":3,"scheme":1,"science":1,"searle":4,"semantic":1,"sequence":1,"set":1,"show":1,"significant":1,"sincerity":4,"single":1,"small":1,"source":1,"speech":7,"stance":1,"standard":1,"state":3,"states":1,"straddles":1,"studies":1,"summary":1,"surface":1,"tags":1,"taken":1,"taxonomy":6,"tell":1,"than":1,"thanks":1,"the":10,"them":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":2,"these":2,"threats":1,"three":2,"to":7,"twelve":3,"typically":1,"umn":1,"under":1,"underpinning":1,"university":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"variation":3,"various":1,"verb":1,"verbs":5,"verdictive":2,"via":1,"vocabulary":2,"vol":1,"want":1,"with":3,"word":3,"words":2,"work":2,"world":5,"yields":1}},{"dl":656,"n":"Intelligence Without Representation","s":"papers/foundations/intelligence-without-representation","secs":[{"h":"Intelligence Without Representation","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"- Brooks, Rodney A. (1991). \"Intelligence without representation.\" *Artificial Intelligence* 47: 139–159. (Received September 1987.) - PDF: [people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf](https://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf) - Local: `brooks1991_representation.pdf`"},{"h":"Summary","l":8,"t":"Brooks challenges the dominant symbol-manipulation paradigm of classical AI, arguing that \"representation is the wrong unit of abstraction in building the bulkiest parts of intelligent systems.\" Drawing on an evolutionary argument — 3.5 billion years were spent evolving sensorimotor and survival competence, and only a few thousand years on \"expert\" symbolic knowledge — he claims the hard part of intelligence is mobility, vision, and acting in dynamic environments, not the formal problem-solving that dominated early AI. The \"blocks-world\" style of AI succeeds only because researchers have already factored out perception and motor action, relegating them to input/output black boxes. In place of centralized symbolic architectures, Brooks proposes building autonomous mobile robots he calls \"Creatures,\" decomposed by *activity* rather than by function. Each activity-producing layer connects sensing to action directly and runs in parallel; higher layers are incrementally added on top of lower, already-working layers without a central symbolic world model. This is the subsumption architecture. The slogan is \"the world is its own best model\": rather than maintaining an internal representation the robot re-perceives what it needs. The paper's philosophical payload is a rejection of the sense–model–plan–act pipeline and of the assumption that intelligence can be decomposed into modules trading symbolic messages. Brooks argues this methodological commitment — that perception delivers a human-style *Merkwelt* that central reasoning can operate on — is a form of self-deception, since each species and each robot inhabits its own Merkwelt. Intelligence is to be built bottom-up, situated and embodied, tested continuously against the real world."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Situatedness and embodiment** as design primitives: Creatures must cope with a dynamic environment and have some purpose in being. - **Decomposition by activity, not function**: layers of task-achieving behavior (avoid, wander, explore) replace perception → modeling → planning → action pipelines. - **Subsumption architecture**: higher competence layers inhibit/subsume lower ones while lower continue running. - **No central representation**: \"the world is its own best model\"; no shared symbolic world model between layers. - **Evolutionary time argument**: sensorimotor intelligence is the hard, ancient core; symbolic expertise is a thin late veneer. - **Critique of abstraction**: abstracting away perception and action is how AI self-deceives about having solved problems. - **Hypothesis (H)**: representation is the wrong primitive for building intelligent systems."},{"h":"Connections","l":24,"t":"- [[Subsumption Architecture]] — this paper is the manifesto. - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] — Wooldridge & Jennings use Brooks as the exemplar of reactive agents, contrasted with deliberative BDI agents. - [[The Society of Mind]] — shares the anti-monolithic, many-small-agents intuition, though Minsky retains representations. - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] — reactive/behavior-based approaches feed directly into swarm and MAS work. - [[Actor Model]] — independent parallel activity producers without a central controller. - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — kindred rejection of centralized control. - [[Agent Architecture]] — subsumption is a canonical architecture contrasted with BDI, layered, hybrid. - Contrast with [[Knowledge Representation]], [[Ontologies]], [[Advice Taker]] — papers that double down on representation."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":34,"t":"> Brooks reframes intelligence as *situated competence* rather than symbolic inference. The conceptual move — push perception and action into the core, let the world substitute for the model, and stratify behavior by activity rather than cognitive function — creates a pole of agent theory that every subsequent architecture (BDI, hybrid, layered, learning-based) must position itself against. For agent communication specifically, the paper is a standing challenge: if the world is its own best model, why do agents need elaborate ontologies and ACLs at all? Answers from the communication tradition implicitly assume Brooks is wrong about agents that must coordinate at a distance — but they inherit from him the insistence that meaning is grounded in situated interaction, not in disembodied logic."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"agent-theory #reactive-agents #subsumption #embodiment #situatedness #anti-representationalism #robotics #Brooks #foundational","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"139":1,"159":1,"1987":1,"1991":1,"3":1,"47":1,"5":1,"a":14,"about":2,"abstracting":1,"abstraction":2,"achieving":1,"acls":1,"act":1,"acting":1,"action":5,"activity":5,"actor":2,"added":1,"advice":1,"against":2,"agent":5,"agents":7,"ai":4,"all":1,"already":2,"an":2,"ancient":1,"and":16,"answers":1,"anti":2,"approaches":1,"architecture":6,"architectures":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"arguing":1,"argument":2,"artificial":2,"as":3,"assume":1,"assumption":1,"at":2,"autonomous":1,"avoid":1,"away":1,"based":2,"bdi":3,"be":2,"because":1,"behavior":3,"being":1,"best":3,"between":1,"billion":1,"black":1,"blocks":1,"bottom":1,"boxes":1,"brooks":10,"building":3,"built":1,"bulkiest":1,"but":1,"by":4,"calls":1,"can":2,"canonical":1,"central":4,"centralized":2,"challenge":1,"challenges":1,"claims":1,"classical":1,"cognitive":1,"commitment":1,"communication":2,"competence":3,"conceptual":2,"connections":1,"connects":1,"continue":1,"continuously":1,"contrast":1,"contrasted":2,"contribution":1,"control":1,"controller":1,"coordinate":1,"cope":1,"core":2,"creates":1,"creatures":2,"critique":1,"csail":2,"deceives":1,"deception":1,"decomposed":2,"decomposition":1,"deliberative":1,"delivers":1,"design":1,"directly":2,"disembodied":1,"distance":1,"do":1,"dominant":1,"dominated":1,"double":1,"down":1,"drawing":1,"dynamic":2,"each":3,"early":1,"edu":2,"elaborate":1,"embodied":1,"embodiment":2,"environment":1,"environments":1,"every":1,"evolutionary":2,"evolving":1,"exemplar":1,"expert":1,"expertise":1,"explore":1,"factored":1,"feed":1,"few":1,"for":4,"form":1,"formal":1,"formalism":1,"foundational":1,"from":2,"function":3,"grounded":1,"h":1,"hard":2,"have":2,"having":1,"he":2,"higher":2,"him":1,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"hybrid":2,"hypothesis":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"implicitly":1,"in":7,"incrementally":1,"independent":1,"inference":1,"inhabits":1,"inherit":1,"inhibit":1,"input":1,"insistence":1,"intelligence":9,"intelligent":3,"interaction":1,"internal":1,"into":3,"intuition":1,"is":19,"it":1,"its":4,"itself":1,"jennings":1,"key":1,"kindred":1,"knowledge":2,"late":1,"layer":1,"layered":2,"layers":5,"learning":1,"let":1,"local":1,"logic":1,"lower":3,"maintaining":1,"manifesto":1,"manipulation":1,"many":1,"mas":1,"meaning":1,"merkwelt":2,"messages":1,"methodological":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"mit":2,"mobile":1,"mobility":1,"model":8,"modeling":1,"modular":1,"modules":1,"monolithic":1,"motor":1,"move":1,"multi":1,"must":3,"need":1,"needs":1,"no":2,"not":3,"of":16,"on":5,"ones":1,"only":2,"ontologies":2,"operate":1,"out":1,"output":1,"own":4,"paper":3,"papers":3,"paradigm":1,"parallel":2,"part":1,"parts":1,"payload":1,"pdf":3,"people":2,"perceives":1,"perception":5,"philosophical":1,"pipeline":1,"pipelines":1,"place":1,"plan":1,"planning":1,"pole":1,"position":1,"practice":1,"primitive":1,"primitives":1,"problem":1,"problems":1,"producers":1,"producing":1,"proposes":1,"purpose":1,"push":1,"rather":4,"re":1,"reactive":3,"real":1,"reasoning":1,"received":1,"reference":1,"reframes":1,"rejection":2,"relegating":1,"replace":1,"representation":10,"representationalism":1,"representations":1,"researchers":1,"retains":1,"robot":2,"robotics":1,"robots":1,"rodney":1,"running":1,"runs":1,"s":1,"self":2,"sense":1,"sensing":1,"sensorimotor":2,"september":1,"shared":1,"shares":1,"since":1,"situated":3,"situatedness":2,"slogan":1,"small":1,"society":1,"solved":1,"solving":1,"some":1,"species":1,"specifically":1,"spent":1,"standing":1,"stratify":1,"style":2,"subsequent":1,"substitute":1,"subsume":1,"subsumption":5,"succeeds":1,"summary":1,"survival":1,"swarm":1,"symbol":1,"symbolic":7,"systems":3,"tags":1,"taker":1,"task":1,"tested":1,"than":4,"that":9,"the":29,"them":1,"theory":3,"they":1,"thin":1,"this":3,"though":1,"thousand":1,"time":1,"to":3,"top":1,"trading":1,"tradition":1,"unit":1,"universal":1,"up":1,"use":1,"veneer":1,"vision":1,"wander":1,"were":1,"what":1,"while":1,"why":1,"with":4,"without":4,"wooldridge":1,"work":1,"working":1,"world":8,"wrong":3,"years":2}},{"dl":578,"n":"On Notation for Ordinal Numbers","s":"papers/foundations/on-notation-for-ordinal-numbers","secs":[{"h":"On Notation for Ordinal Numbers","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Kleene, Stephen C. (1938). \"On notation for ordinal numbers.\" *Journal of Symbolic Logic* 3(4), 150–155. [DOI 10.2307/2267778](https://doi.org/10.2307/2267778). Open scan via [project Euclid / JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2267778)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"In six pages Kleene introduces the system that came to be called **Kleene's `O`** — a set of natural numbers that serve as **notations** for the *constructive* (computable) ordinals, together with a partial order `<_O` on these notations that corresponds to the ordering of the ordinals they denote. The construction is inductive: the number `1` is a notation for `0`; if `a` is a notation for `α`, then `2^a` is a notation for `α + 1`; if `e` is an index of a total recursive function `φ_e` whose values `φ_e(0), φ_e(1), …` are notations for an increasing sequence of ordinals with limit `λ`, then `3 · 5^e` is a notation for `λ`. Closing under these clauses gives `O`; the ordinals with at least one notation form an initial segment of the countable ordinals, later shown (Church–Kleene) to be exactly the constructive ordinals, with supremum `ω^{CK}_1`. The paper is short but consequential. It provides the first systematic way to *compute with* transfinite ordinals — each ordinal below `ω^{CK}_1` is represented by a natural number, and the ordering between notations is semi-decidable. Effective transfinite induction, effective transfinite recursion, and hierarchies indexed by recursive ordinals all become possible. Multiple incompatible notations for the same ordinal are unavoidable, and `O` itself is not recursive (membership is Π¹_1-complete), but this is a feature: the impossibility of canonicalising ordinal notations is itself a theorem. Kleene's `O` underwrites essentially all subsequent **effective descriptive set theory** and **hyperarithmetical theory**: the hyperarithmetical sets are exactly those reducible to jumps iterated along notations in `O`; the analytical hierarchy is indexed by recursive ordinals in the same sense; the Church–Kleene ordinal `ω^{CK}_1` becomes a fundamental constant of computability theory."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Kleene's `O`**: a set of natural numbers that notate constructive ordinals, built inductively from `1`, successor (`2^a`), and limit-of-recursive-sequence (`3 · 5^e`). - **Constructive ordinals** = ordinals with at least one notation in `O`; their supremum is the Church–Kleene ordinal `ω^{CK}_1`. - **Non-uniqueness**: many notations denote the same ordinal; there is no effective canonical form. - **Ordering `<_O`**: semi-decidable relation between notations corresponding to `<` on ordinals. - Provides the substrate for **effective transfinite recursion** and the hyperarithmetical hierarchy. - Membership in `O` is Π¹_1-complete — a key early use of the analytical hierarchy."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Recursive Function]] - [[Computability]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] - [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers]] - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] - [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** The constructive (countable, computable) ordinals admit a recursive notation system in which successor and limit operations are effective, enabling computation with transfinite indices. - **Mechanism:** Inductive definition: `1 ∈ O` (zero); if `a ∈ O` notates `α` then `2^a ∈ O` notates `α+1`; if `φ_e` is total recursive and `φ_e(n) <_O φ_e(n+1)` for all `n`, then `3 · 5^e ∈ O` notates `sup_n |φ_e(n)|`. Closure of these rules yields `O`; the ordering `<_O` is defined by parallel induction. - **Concepts introduced/used:** Kleene's `O`, constructive ordinal, Church–Kleene ordinal `ω^{CK}_1`, effective transfinite recursion, [[Recursive Function]] - **Stance:** foundational technical paper (recursion theory) - **Relates to:** Extends the recursion-theoretic toolkit of [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers|Kleene 1936]] into the transfinite; provides the indexing structure on which hyperarithmetical theory and the analytical hierarchy of [[On Definable Sets of Positive Integers|Mostowski 1946]] are later built; one of the reference points for the hierarchy classification gestured at in [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems|Rice 1953]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"recursion-theory #ordinals #foundational #kleene #constructive-ordinals","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":2,"10":2,"150":1,"155":1,"1936":1,"1938":1,"1946":1,"1953":1,"2267778":3,"2307":2,"3":1,"4":1,"a":14,"admit":1,"all":3,"along":1,"an":3,"analytical":3,"and":13,"are":5,"as":1,"at":3,"be":2,"become":1,"becomes":1,"below":1,"between":2,"built":2,"but":2,"by":4,"c":1,"called":1,"came":1,"canonical":1,"canonicalising":1,"church":4,"claim":1,"classes":2,"classification":1,"clauses":1,"closing":1,"closure":1,"complete":2,"computability":2,"computable":2,"computation":1,"compute":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consequential":1,"constant":1,"construction":1,"constructive":7,"contribution":1,"corresponding":1,"corresponds":1,"countable":2,"decidable":2,"decision":3,"definable":2,"defined":1,"definition":1,"denote":2,"descriptive":1,"doi":2,"each":1,"early":1,"effective":7,"enabling":1,"enumerable":3,"essentially":1,"euclid":1,"exactly":2,"extends":1,"feature":1,"first":1,"for":12,"form":2,"foundational":2,"from":1,"function":3,"functions":2,"fundamental":1,"general":2,"gestured":1,"gives":1,"hierarchies":1,"hierarchy":5,"https":2,"hyperarithmetical":4,"ideas":1,"if":4,"impossibility":1,"in":7,"incompatible":1,"increasing":1,"index":1,"indexed":2,"indexing":1,"indices":1,"induction":2,"inductive":2,"inductively":1,"initial":1,"integers":3,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":19,"it":1,"iterated":1,"itself":2,"journal":1,"jstor":2,"jumps":1,"key":2,"kleene":12,"later":2,"least":2,"limit":3,"logic":1,"many":1,"mechanism":1,"membership":2,"mostowski":1,"multiple":1,"natural":5,"no":1,"non":1,"not":1,"notate":1,"notates":3,"notation":9,"notations":9,"number":2,"numbers":6,"of":22,"on":7,"one":3,"open":1,"operations":1,"order":1,"ordering":4,"ordinal":10,"ordinals":16,"org":2,"pages":1,"paper":2,"parallel":1,"partial":1,"points":1,"positive":3,"possible":1,"predicates":1,"problems":3,"project":1,"provides":3,"quantifiers":1,"recursion":6,"recursive":12,"recursively":3,"reducible":1,"reference":2,"relates":1,"relation":1,"represented":1,"rice":1,"rules":1,"s":4,"same":3,"scan":1,"segment":1,"semi":2,"sense":1,"sequence":2,"serve":1,"set":3,"sets":6,"short":1,"shown":1,"six":1,"stable":1,"stance":1,"stephen":1,"structure":1,"subsequent":1,"substrate":1,"successor":2,"summary":1,"supremum":2,"symbolic":1,"system":2,"systematic":1,"tags":1,"technical":1,"that":4,"the":31,"their":4,"then":4,"theorem":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":6,"there":1,"these":3,"they":1,"this":1,"those":1,"to":7,"together":1,"toolkit":1,"total":2,"transfinite":7,"unavoidable":1,"under":1,"underwrites":1,"uniqueness":1,"use":1,"used":1,"values":1,"via":1,"way":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"with":7,"www":1,"yields":1,"zero":1,"π¹":2}},{"dl":530,"n":"What is it to Understand a Directive Speech Act","s":"papers/foundations/what-is-it-to-understand-a-directive-speech-act","secs":[{"h":"What is it to Understand a Directive Speech Act?","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Andreas Dorschel (1989). *Australasian Journal of Philosophy* 67(3): 319-340. [URL](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048408912350161) (DOI: 10.1080/00048408912350161). No open-access PDF located; publisher page HTML-only. Cited in McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Dorschel investigates what it takes for a hearer to *understand* a directive speech act (command, request, order). The dominant programme — truth-conditional semantics extended to directives via \"conditions of fulfilment\", \"compliance\", or \"satisfaction\" (Searle, Vanderveken, and others) — treats understanding a directive as grasping the conditions under which the world would be made to fit the words. Dorschel argues this parallel to truth-conditional assertoric semantics is defective: directive understanding is not grasp of satisfaction conditions alone but requires the hearer to recognise the speaker's *authority-claim* and the social-normative context within which compliance would count as compliance. The paper is cited in McCarthy's Elephant 2000 as philosophical backing for treating directive speech acts (requests, offers, permissions) as having authority/normative preconditions that a program's specification must respect — the \"authority\" strand of Elephant's happy-performance criterion."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Critique of compliance-conditional semantics:** satisfaction conditions (world-to-word direction of fit) do not by themselves explain what a hearer grasps when understanding a directive. - **Authority-claim as part of illocutionary uptake:** recognising a directive involves recognising the speaker's claim to be in a position to direct — a normative precondition, not merely a truth-theoretic one. - **Social-institutional context:** compliance is constituted relative to institutional roles; directive understanding requires tracking those roles. - **Parallel to assertion is misleading:** the symmetry between truth-conditional assertoric semantics and compliance-conditional directive semantics papers over the normative asymmetry between word-to-world and world-to-word acts."},{"h":"Connections","l":16,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — McCarthy cites Dorschel on the authority/normative side of directive acts - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] — Searle & Vanderveken, the compliance-conditional programme Dorschel critiques - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Speech Acts - An Essay in the Philosophy of Language]] - [[Illocutionary Force]] - [[Direction of Fit]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Understanding a directive speech act cannot be reduced to grasping its conditions of compliance; it requires the hearer to recognise the speaker's authority-claim and the social-institutional context within which compliance counts as compliance. - **Mechanism:** By analysing cases where the compliance conditions are transparent yet the directive is not understood (because the authority-claim is unrecognised or rejected), Dorschel dissociates satisfaction-conditional grasp from directive understanding, forcing the normative layer into the analysis. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Performatives]], [[Illocutionary Force]], [[Direction of Fit]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Institutional Reality]] - **Stance:** critical / philosophical - **Relates to:** Provides a philosophical bridge between pure illocutionary-logic accounts ([[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]) and institutional-reality accounts ([[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]). In the ACL trajectory, the Dorschel critique anticipates the standard complaint against mentalistic ACL semantics (sincerity-condition appeals presuppose exactly the authority/commitment layer they try to reduce) and motivates the commitment-based turn formalised in later ACL work."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #directives #philosophy-of-language #authority #dorschel","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"00048408912350161":2,"10":2,"1080":2,"1989":1,"2000":3,"3":1,"319":1,"340":1,"67":1,"a":15,"abs":1,"access":1,"accounts":2,"acl":3,"act":5,"acts":8,"against":1,"agent":2,"alone":1,"an":1,"analysing":1,"analysis":1,"and":9,"andreas":1,"anticipates":1,"appeals":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"as":6,"assertion":1,"assertoric":2,"asymmetry":1,"australasian":1,"authority":9,"backing":1,"based":3,"be":3,"because":1,"between":3,"bridge":1,"but":1,"by":2,"cannot":1,"cases":1,"cited":2,"cites":1,"claim":6,"com":1,"command":1,"commitment":2,"communication":2,"complaint":1,"compliance":11,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"conditional":7,"conditions":6,"connections":1,"constituted":1,"context":3,"contribution":1,"count":1,"counts":1,"criterion":1,"critical":1,"critique":2,"critiques":1,"defective":1,"direct":1,"direction":3,"directive":13,"directives":2,"dissociates":1,"do":1,"doi":2,"dominant":1,"dorschel":8,"elephant":4,"essay":1,"exactly":1,"explain":1,"extended":1,"fit":4,"for":2,"force":2,"forcing":1,"formalised":1,"foundations":2,"from":1,"fulfilment":1,"grasp":2,"grasping":2,"grasps":1,"happy":1,"having":1,"hearer":4,"html":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":6,"in":6,"institutional":7,"into":1,"introduced":1,"investigates":1,"involves":1,"is":8,"it":3,"its":1,"journal":1,"key":1,"language":4,"later":1,"layer":2,"located":1,"logic":3,"made":1,"mccarthy":3,"mechanism":1,"mentalistic":1,"merely":1,"misleading":1,"motivates":1,"must":1,"no":1,"normative":6,"not":4,"of":15,"offers":1,"on":3,"one":1,"only":1,"open":1,"or":2,"order":1,"others":1,"over":1,"page":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"parallel":2,"part":1,"pdf":1,"performance":1,"performatives":2,"permissions":1,"philosophical":3,"philosophy":3,"position":1,"precondition":1,"preconditions":1,"presuppose":1,"program":1,"programme":2,"programming":2,"provides":1,"publisher":1,"pure":1,"reality":4,"recognise":2,"recognising":2,"reduce":1,"reduced":1,"reference":1,"rejected":1,"relates":1,"relative":1,"request":1,"requests":1,"requires":3,"respect":1,"roles":2,"s":7,"satisfaction":4,"searle":2,"semantics":6,"side":1,"sincerity":1,"social":3,"speaker":3,"specification":1,"speech":11,"stance":1,"standard":1,"strand":1,"summary":1,"symmetry":1,"tags":1,"takes":1,"tandfonline":1,"that":1,"the":28,"themselves":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":2,"they":1,"this":1,"those":1,"to":17,"tracking":1,"trajectory":1,"transparent":1,"treating":1,"treats":1,"truth":4,"try":1,"turn":1,"under":1,"understand":2,"understanding":6,"understood":1,"unrecognised":1,"uptake":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vanderveken":2,"via":1,"what":3,"when":1,"where":1,"which":3,"within":2,"word":3,"words":1,"work":1,"world":4,"would":2,"www":1,"yet":1}},{"dl":546,"n":"Speech Acts - An Essay in the Philosophy of Language","s":"papers/foundations/speech-acts---an-essay-in-the-philosophy-of-language","secs":[{"h":"Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John R. Searle (1969). *Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language*. Cambridge University Press. Source file: `Searle 1969 - Speech Acts.pdf`. [URL](https://web.archive.org/web/20240601112440/https://danielwharris.com/teaching/spring16/readings/SearleSpeechActs.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Searle's foundational monograph gives speech-act theory its first systematic, philosophically defended treatment. Extending Austin's *How to Do Things with Words*, it argues that the minimal unit of linguistic communication is neither the symbol nor the sentence but the *production of the symbol in the performance of a speech act*. Searle develops a constitutive-rule analysis of illocutionary acts, codifies the felicity conditions of paradigm acts (promising, referring, predicating, asserting), and uses the framework to attack the fact/value distinction, deriving \"ought\" from \"is\" via the institutional fact of promising. The book introduces the now-canonical machinery that McCarthy's [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] imports as programming-language primitives: the force/content distinction `F(p)`, propositional-content conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, and essential conditions. It is also the direct ancestor of [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]], which formalises what Searle here develops discursively."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- **Speech acts as the unit of meaning:** producing a sentence under appropriate conditions *is* performing an illocutionary act; meaning reduces to a recursive theory of these acts. - **Force vs. content `F(p)`:** every utterance factors into illocutionary force (assert, promise, request, ...) and propositional content. - **Constitutive rules:** rules of the form \"X counts as Y in context C\" create institutional facts (promises, marriages) rather than merely regulating antecedent behaviour. - **Felicity conditions** for promising (canonical analysis): propositional-content, preparatory, sincerity, and essential conditions — the template every later ACL performative inherits. - **Reference and predication** as distinct speech acts, each with their own rules. - **Institutional facts and the is/ought derivation** via promising as a constitutive practice."},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — McCarthy's direct source for the speech-act vocabulary of Elephant - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] — Searle & Vanderveken 1985, formalises the present book - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Illocutionary Force]] - [[Sincerity Conditions]] - [[Preparatory Conditions]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"- **Claim:** Linguistic communication is irreducibly act-theoretic: the minimal unit of meaning is the illocutionary act, analysable by constitutive rules and felicity conditions, and this analysis extends to reference, predication, and the generation of institutional facts. - **Mechanism:** Case studies of promising, referring, and asserting yield a recursive schema `F(p)` with four condition-types (propositional-content / preparatory / sincerity / essential). The schema is then redeployed to distinguish regulative from constitutive rules and to dissolve the classical is/ought problem by showing that uttering \"I promise\" institutionally constitutes an obligation. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Performatives]], [[Illocutionary Force]], [[Sincerity Conditions]], [[Preparatory Conditions]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Institutional Reality]], [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - **Stance:** foundational / philosophical - **Relates to:** Imported wholesale by [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] as the philosophical basis for speech-act I/O; formalised by [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]; re-examined for multi-agent systems in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] and operationalised in [[KQML]] / [[FIPA-ACL]] performative sets. McCarthy explicitly departs from Searle by adopting a design stance on these primitives — see [[Abstract Performative]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":40,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #philosophy-of-language #foundational #searle #performatives","l":41,"t":""}],"tf":{"1969":1,"1985":1,"2000":3,"20240601112440":1,"a":10,"abstract":1,"acl":3,"act":9,"acts":12,"adopting":1,"agent":4,"also":1,"an":4,"analysable":1,"analysis":3,"ancestor":1,"and":14,"antecedent":1,"appropriate":1,"archive":1,"argues":1,"as":6,"assert":1,"asserting":2,"attack":1,"austin":1,"based":5,"basis":1,"behaviour":1,"book":2,"but":1,"by":5,"c":1,"cambridge":1,"canonical":2,"case":1,"claim":1,"classical":1,"codifies":1,"com":1,"commitment":2,"communication":5,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"conditions":13,"connections":1,"constitutes":1,"constitutive":5,"content":6,"context":1,"contribution":1,"counts":1,"create":1,"danielwharris":1,"defended":1,"departs":1,"derivation":1,"deriving":1,"design":1,"develops":2,"direct":2,"discursively":1,"dissolve":1,"distinct":1,"distinction":2,"distinguish":1,"do":1,"each":1,"elephant":4,"essay":2,"essential":3,"every":2,"examined":1,"explicitly":1,"extending":1,"extends":1,"fact":2,"factors":1,"facts":3,"felicity":3,"file":1,"fipa":2,"first":1,"for":4,"force":5,"form":1,"formalised":1,"formalises":2,"foundational":3,"foundations":3,"four":1,"framework":1,"from":3,"generation":1,"gives":1,"here":1,"how":1,"https":2,"i":2,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":9,"imported":1,"imports":1,"in":6,"inherits":1,"institutional":7,"institutionally":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"irreducibly":1,"is":9,"it":2,"its":1,"john":1,"key":1,"kqml":2,"language":7,"languages":1,"later":1,"linguistic":2,"logic":3,"machinery":1,"marriages":1,"mccarthy":3,"meaning":3,"mechanism":1,"merely":1,"minimal":2,"monograph":1,"multi":1,"neither":1,"nor":1,"now":1,"o":1,"obligation":1,"of":20,"on":4,"operationalised":1,"org":1,"ought":3,"own":1,"paradigm":1,"pdf":1,"performance":1,"performative":3,"performatives":3,"performing":1,"philosophical":2,"philosophically":1,"philosophy":3,"practice":1,"predicating":1,"predication":2,"preparatory":5,"present":1,"press":1,"primitives":2,"problem":1,"producing":1,"production":1,"programming":4,"promise":2,"promises":1,"promising":5,"propositional":4,"r":1,"rather":1,"re":1,"readings":1,"reality":3,"recursive":2,"redeployed":1,"reduces":1,"reference":3,"referring":2,"regulating":1,"regulative":1,"relates":1,"request":1,"rule":1,"rules":5,"s":4,"schema":2,"searle":7,"searlespeechacts":1,"see":1,"semantics":2,"sentence":2,"sets":1,"showing":1,"sincerity":5,"source":2,"speech":15,"spring16":1,"stance":2,"studies":1,"summary":1,"symbol":2,"systematic":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"teaching":1,"template":1,"than":1,"that":3,"the":28,"their":1,"then":1,"theoretic":1,"theory":4,"these":2,"things":1,"this":1,"to":7,"treatment":1,"types":1,"under":1,"unit":3,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"utterance":1,"uttering":1,"value":1,"vanderveken":1,"via":2,"vocabulary":1,"vs":1,"web":2,"what":1,"which":1,"wholesale":1,"with":3,"words":1,"x":1,"y":1,"yield":1}},{"dl":876,"n":"Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence","s":"papers/foundations/epistemological-problems-of-artificial-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1977). \"Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence.\" In *Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-77)*, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1038-1044. IJCAI Computers and Thought Award Lecture. Source file: `mccarthy-epistemological.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/epistemological/epistemological.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy's IJCAI-77 invited lecture returns to the division of AI into epistemological and heuristic parts first drawn in [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]], and explains, eight years later, what the epistemological part actually studies: *what kinds of facts about the world are available to an observer with given opportunities to observe, how these facts can be represented in the memory of a computer, and what rules permit legitimate conclusions to be drawn from them.* Heuristics — how to search the space of possibilities — is deliberately bracketed. The paper defends first-order logic as the right epistemological medium, introducing a key move: treating *individual concepts as objects* inside first-order logic so that modal phenomena (knowledge, belief, necessity) can be axiomatised without leaving the first-order setting — a move fully developed in [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]. McCarthy then formulates a precise criterion for *epistemological adequacy*: a theory is epistemologically adequate iff a robot whose database contains it, and which emits `X` just in case \"I should emit output X now\" is a logical consequence of its database, could in principle achieve its goals — irrespective of how fast the program runs. A theory that satisfies this *but* has no feasible proof search is *heuristically inadequate*. Most existing AI formalisms, he argues, fail the epistemological criterion — they are too narrow, too procedural, or too entangled with implementation. The body of the paper surveys concrete epistemological problems: partial information, the representation of other agents' knowledge, reasoning about one's own ability, defaults (anticipating circumscription), temporal projection, and knowing what vs knowing that. It is the most concise and programmatic statement of the logicist agenda McCarthy pursued from 1959 through the 1980s, and it is the methodological ancestor of [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell's roughly contemporaneous reframing of the same distinction in terms of agents that are characterised solely by their knowledge and goals."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- *Epistemological* problems of AI — what can be known, how it is represented, what inferences are licensed — are studied separately from *heuristic* problems of search. - First-order logic with *concepts as individuals* (not modal operators) is the proposed medium for expressing partial knowledge, belief, and necessity. - Precise *epistemological adequacy* criterion: the theory suffices iff a robot emitting whatever sentences of the form \"I should emit X now\" are logical consequences of its database could achieve its goals given unbounded computation. - *Heuristic adequacy* is a separate requirement; a theory may be epistemologically adequate but practically useless. - Most current AI formalisms (MICROPLANNER, pattern-invocation systems, production rules) trade epistemological adequacy for heuristic adequacy — a premature optimisation. - Defaults, counterfactuals, self-knowledge, knowing-what vs knowing-that are identified as open epistemological problems. - The spectrum from logic-as-data through compiled / hardware-embedded knowledge — each step trades declarative generality for heuristic speed."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] — source of the epistemological/heuristic division refined here. - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — later technical answer to the default-reasoning problems this paper names. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — philosophical companion argued in parallel. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] — formal execution of the concepts-as-individuals move sketched here. - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell's parallel knowledge-level formulation. - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's opposing procedural / agent-based stance on the same questions. - [[Formal Verification]] — the epistemological-adequacy criterion is structurally analogous to logical completeness for specifications."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":41,"t":"- **Claim:** AI should separate *epistemological* adequacy (can the theory in principle drive correct action?) from *heuristic* adequacy (can the proof search be carried out fast enough?); most current AI formalisms have sacrificed the former for the latter, and progress requires re-asserting the epistemological standard — via first-order logic augmented with concepts-as-individuals. - **Mechanism:** The *robot-with-a-database* thought experiment: a system whose inputs become sentences in its database and which emits `X` iff `\"I should emit X now\"` is a logical consequence of its database. A theory is *epistemologically adequate* iff such a system could achieve its goals given unbounded time. This separates content of knowledge from efficiency of inference. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Epistemological Adequacy]], [[Heuristic Adequacy]], [[Concepts as Individuals]], [[Knowledge Representation]], [[Default Reasoning]], [[Partial Information]], [[First-Order Logic]]. - **Stance:** methodological / foundational - **Relates to:** The methodological backbone of the logicist programme — continued from [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] into [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] and [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]]; its epistemological/heuristic distinction is the same divide that [[The Knowledge Level]] articulates from a different angle, and that [[The Society of Mind]] rejects by identifying knowledge with procedure."},{"h":"Tags","l":48,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #epistemology #knowledge-representation #logicist #methodology #1977","l":49,"t":""}],"tf":{"1038":1,"1044":1,"1959":1,"1977":2,"1980s":1,"2000":1,"5th":1,"77":2,"a":23,"ability":1,"about":2,"achieve":3,"action":1,"acts":1,"actually":1,"adequacy":10,"adequate":3,"agenda":1,"agent":1,"agents":2,"ai":6,"an":1,"analogous":1,"ancestor":1,"and":18,"angle":1,"answer":1,"anticipating":1,"are":7,"argued":1,"argues":1,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"articulates":1,"artificial":7,"as":8,"ascribing":1,"asserting":1,"augmented":1,"available":1,"award":1,"axiomatised":1,"backbone":1,"based":2,"be":6,"become":1,"belief":2,"body":1,"bracketed":1,"business":1,"but":2,"by":3,"cambridge":1,"can":5,"carried":1,"case":1,"characterised":1,"circumscription":3,"claim":1,"common":3,"communication":1,"companion":1,"compiled":1,"compiler":1,"completeness":1,"computation":3,"computer":1,"computers":1,"concepts":9,"conceptual":1,"concise":1,"conclusions":1,"concrete":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"consequence":2,"consequences":1,"contains":1,"contemporaneous":1,"content":1,"continued":1,"contribution":1,"correct":1,"correctness":1,"could":3,"counterfactuals":1,"criterion":4,"current":2,"data":1,"database":6,"declarative":1,"default":2,"defaults":2,"defends":1,"deliberately":1,"developed":1,"different":1,"distinction":2,"divide":1,"division":2,"drawn":2,"drive":1,"each":1,"edu":1,"efficiency":1,"eight":1,"elephant":1,"embedded":1,"emit":2,"emits":2,"emitting":1,"enough":1,"entangled":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":20,"epistemologically":3,"epistemology":1,"execution":1,"existing":1,"experiment":1,"explains":1,"expressing":1,"expressions":2,"facts":2,"fail":1,"fast":2,"feasible":1,"file":1,"first":10,"for":7,"form":3,"formal":2,"formalisms":3,"former":1,"formulates":1,"formulation":1,"foundational":2,"from":11,"fully":1,"functions":1,"generality":2,"given":3,"goals":4,"hardware":1,"has":1,"have":1,"he":1,"here":2,"heuristic":9,"heuristically":1,"heuristics":1,"how":4,"http":1,"i":2,"ideas":1,"identified":1,"identifying":1,"iff":4,"ijcai":3,"implementation":1,"in":11,"inadequate":1,"individual":4,"individuals":4,"inference":1,"inferences":1,"information":2,"inputs":1,"inside":1,"intelligence":7,"international":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introducing":1,"invited":1,"invocation":1,"irrespective":1,"is":13,"it":4,"its":8,"jmc":1,"john":1,"joint":1,"just":1,"key":2,"kinds":1,"knowing":4,"knowledge":15,"known":1,"language":2,"later":2,"latter":1,"leaving":1,"lecture":2,"legitimate":1,"level":4,"licensed":1,"logic":7,"logical":4,"logicist":3,"ma":1,"machine":1,"machines":1,"mathematical":1,"may":1,"mccarthy":5,"mechanism":1,"medium":2,"memory":1,"mental":1,"methodological":3,"methodology":1,"microplanner":1,"mind":2,"minsky":1,"modal":2,"monotonic":1,"most":4,"move":3,"names":1,"narrow":1,"necessity":2,"newell":2,"no":1,"non":1,"nonmonotonic":2,"not":1,"now":2,"objects":1,"observe":1,"observer":1,"of":38,"on":3,"one":1,"open":1,"operators":1,"opportunities":1,"opposing":1,"optimisation":1,"or":1,"order":9,"other":1,"out":1,"output":1,"own":1,"paper":3,"parallel":2,"part":1,"partial":3,"parts":1,"pattern":1,"pdf":1,"permit":1,"phenomena":1,"philosophical":4,"possibilities":1,"pp":1,"practically":1,"precise":2,"premature":1,"principle":2,"problems":10,"procedural":2,"procedure":1,"proceedings":1,"production":1,"program":1,"programmatic":1,"programme":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"progress":1,"projection":1,"proof":2,"proposed":1,"propositions":3,"pursued":1,"qualities":1,"questions":1,"re":1,"reasoning":7,"recursive":1,"reference":1,"refined":1,"reframing":1,"rejects":1,"relates":1,"representation":4,"represented":2,"requirement":1,"requires":1,"returns":1,"right":1,"robot":3,"roughly":1,"rules":2,"runs":1,"s":5,"sacrificed":1,"same":3,"satisfies":1,"science":1,"search":4,"self":1,"sense":2,"sentences":2,"separate":2,"separately":1,"separates":1,"setting":1,"should":3,"sketched":1,"so":1,"society":2,"solely":1,"some":3,"source":2,"space":1,"specifications":1,"spectrum":1,"speech":1,"speed":1,"stance":2,"standard":1,"standpoint":3,"stanford":1,"statement":1,"step":1,"structurally":1,"studied":1,"studies":1,"such":1,"suffices":1,"summary":1,"surveys":1,"symbolic":1,"system":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"technical":1,"temporal":1,"terms":1,"that":7,"the":45,"their":2,"them":1,"then":1,"theories":3,"theory":6,"these":1,"they":1,"this":3,"thought":2,"through":2,"time":1,"to":9,"too":3,"towards":1,"trade":1,"trades":1,"treating":1,"unbounded":2,"url":1,"used":1,"useless":1,"verification":1,"via":1,"vs":2,"what":7,"whatever":1,"which":2,"whose":2,"with":7,"without":1,"world":1,"x":2,"years":1}},{"dl":311,"n":"Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic","s":"papers/foundations/foundations-of-illocutionary-logic","secs":[{"h":"Foundations of Illocutionary Logic","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Searle & Vanderveken (1985). *Cambridge University Press*. Source file: `5F9BF68C-E1C8-11EE-931A-C444DB61CCB4.pdf`. [URL](https://philpapers.org/rec/SEAFOI-2)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Searle and Vanderveken construct a formalized logic of speech acts, filling the gap between philosophy of language and formal logic. The book recursively defines the space of illocutionary forces from five primitives (assertive, commissive, directive, declarative, expressive) via seven components of illocutionary force (illocutionary point, mode of achievement, propositional-content conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, degree of strength, direction of fit). It develops axiomatic propositional illocutionary logic, laws of illocutionary entailment, commitment, negation, conjunction, and conditionalization, and closes with a semantic analysis of over a hundred English performative verbs. The work is foundational for agent communication languages because it gives a rigorous semantics to the performatives (inform, request, promise, declare, etc.) later adopted by KQML and FIPA-ACL."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Five illocutionary points: assertive, commissive, directive, declarative, expressive. - Seven components of illocutionary force. - Direction of fit: word-to-world vs world-to-word. - Formal calculus of success conditions and illocutionary entailment. - Semantic definitions of English performative verbs."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** The space of possible speech acts is generated recursively from five illocutionary points and seven components of illocutionary force, and admits a genuine formal logic of success and entailment. - **Mechanism:** Axiomatic propositional illocutionary logic: laws of illocutionary entailment, commitment, negation, conjunction, and conditionalisation; closes with semantic definitions of over a hundred English performative verbs. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Performatives]], [[Illocutionary Force]], [[Direction of Fit]], [[Sincerity Conditions]], [[Preparatory Conditions]], [[Commitment-based Semantics]], [[Mental State]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - **Stance:** foundational / formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Supplies the philosophical semantics imported by [[KQML Language And Protocol]] and [[FIPA-ACL]], and re-examined publicly in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] and [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #philosophy-of-language #foundational #semantics","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1985":1,"2":1,"a":7,"achievement":1,"acl":3,"acls":1,"act":2,"acts":3,"admits":1,"adopted":1,"agent":3,"analysis":1,"and":15,"assertive":2,"axiomatic":2,"based":1,"because":1,"between":1,"book":1,"by":2,"calculus":1,"cambridge":1,"claim":1,"closes":2,"commissive":2,"commitment":3,"common":1,"communication":3,"components":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conditionalisation":1,"conditionalization":1,"conditions":6,"conjunction":2,"connections":1,"construct":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"declarative":2,"declare":1,"defines":1,"definitions":2,"degree":1,"develops":1,"direction":3,"directive":2,"english":3,"entailment":4,"etc":1,"examined":1,"expressive":2,"file":1,"filling":1,"fipa":3,"fit":3,"five":3,"for":1,"force":4,"forces":1,"formal":4,"formalized":1,"foundational":3,"foundations":1,"from":2,"gap":1,"generated":1,"genuine":1,"gives":1,"https":1,"hundred":2,"ideas":1,"illocutionary":14,"imported":1,"in":1,"inform":1,"institutional":1,"introduced":1,"is":2,"it":2,"key":1,"kqml":3,"language":3,"languages":2,"later":1,"laws":2,"logic":6,"mechanism":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"mode":1,"negation":2,"of":22,"ontology":1,"org":1,"over":2,"performative":3,"performatives":2,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":2,"philpapers":1,"point":1,"points":2,"possible":1,"preparatory":2,"press":1,"primitives":1,"promise":1,"propositional":3,"protocol":1,"publicly":1,"re":1,"reality":1,"rec":1,"recursively":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"request":1,"rigorous":1,"seafoi":1,"searle":2,"semantic":4,"semantics":5,"seven":3,"sincerity":2,"source":1,"space":2,"speech":5,"stance":1,"state":1,"strength":1,"success":2,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"tags":1,"the":7,"theory":2,"to":4,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vanderveken":2,"verbs":3,"via":1,"vs":1,"with":2,"word":2,"work":1,"world":2}},{"dl":473,"n":"Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions","s":"papers/foundations/correctness-of-a-compiler-for-arithmetic-expressions","secs":[{"h":"Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy and James Painter (1967). \"Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions.\" In *Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science* (Proc. Symposia in Applied Mathematics, vol. 19), American Mathematical Society, pp. 33-41. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/mcpain/mcpain.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The first published machine-checkable-style proof that a compiler is correct. McCarthy and Painter take a trivially small source language — arithmetic expressions over constants, variables, and binary `+` — and a trivially small target — a single-accumulator machine with `li`, `load`, `sto`, `add` — and prove by structural induction that `compile(e,t)` run on the target produces the same accumulator value as the source semantics `value(e, xi)`, while preserving the contents of low-numbered registers that hold the program's variables. The paper is methodologically landmark rather than technically deep: it formalises abstract syntax with `isconst/isvar/issum` predicates and selectors `s1/s2`; defines source semantics denotationally via a recursive `value` function; gives the object language both analytic and synthetic syntaxes (so that the compiler can construct code while the interpreter can destructure it); introduces state vectors with `c(x,eta)` for contents and `a(x,alpha,eta)` for update; defines `outcome` as the fold of `step` over a program; and proves the decisive lemma `outcome(p1*p2, eta) = outcome(p2, outcome(p1, eta))`. Correctness is then stated as a partial-equality relation `zeta1 =_A zeta2` — agreement on all registers except those in the scratch set `A` — and proved by induction on expression structure."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Compiler correctness as a theorem provable by structural induction over abstract syntax. - Abstract syntax (predicates + selectors) as the mathematical object, with analytic/synthetic syntaxes mediating between interpreter and compiler. - Denotational source semantics via a `value` function; operational target semantics via `step`/`outcome`. - Partial equality `=_A` on state vectors — the scratch-register-agnostic equivalence needed to state the theorem. - Proof template transferable to richer compilers and machines — the intended contribution is methodological."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] — the companion manifesto paper; this is its concrete proof-of-concept. - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — continues McCarthy's conviction that programs should have mathematical semantics strong enough to support correctness proofs. - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] — parallel project for declarative languages. - [[Knowledge Representation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Compiler correctness is a rigorous mathematical theorem, provable by structural induction once source and target are given abstract-syntax formalisations and denotational/operational semantics respectively. - **Mechanism:** Abstract analytic syntax with predicate/selector signatures; denotational `value(e,xi)`; single-accumulator machine with analytic/synthetic syntax pair; state vectors with `c` (contents) and `a` (update); `outcome(p,eta)` defined by fold; decisive concatenation lemma; partial-equality relation `=_A` on state vectors; structural induction on expressions. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Abstract Syntax]], [[State Vector]], [[Compiler Correctness]], [[Structural Induction]], [[Program Verification]], [[Denotational Semantics]], [[Operational Semantics]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Realises the program set out in [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]]; template for every subsequent verified-compiler result (CompCert and descendants); the logical-specification-of-programs stance that Elephant 2000 extends to speech-act-embedded programs."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #compiler-correctness #program-verification #semantics","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"19":1,"1967":1,"2000":2,"33":1,"41":1,"a":15,"abstract":6,"accumulator":3,"act":1,"acts":1,"agnostic":1,"agreement":1,"all":1,"american":1,"analytic":4,"and":16,"applied":1,"are":1,"arithmetic":3,"articles":1,"as":5,"aspects":1,"based":1,"between":1,"binary":1,"both":1,"by":5,"can":2,"checkable":1,"claim":1,"code":1,"companion":1,"compcert":1,"compiler":10,"compilers":1,"computation":2,"computer":1,"concatenation":1,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"constants":1,"construct":1,"contents":3,"continues":1,"contribution":2,"conviction":1,"correct":1,"correctness":8,"decisive":2,"declarative":1,"deep":1,"defined":1,"defines":2,"denotational":4,"denotationally":1,"descendants":1,"destructure":1,"edu":1,"elephant":2,"embedded":1,"enough":1,"equality":3,"equivalence":1,"every":1,"except":1,"expression":1,"expressions":4,"extends":1,"first":1,"fold":2,"for":6,"formalisations":1,"formalises":1,"foundational":2,"foundations":1,"function":2,"given":1,"gives":1,"have":1,"hold":1,"http":1,"ideas":1,"in":4,"induction":6,"intended":1,"interpreter":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":6,"it":2,"its":1,"james":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"key":1,"knowledge":1,"landmark":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"lemma":2,"lloyd":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"low":1,"machine":3,"machines":1,"manifesto":1,"mathematical":7,"mathematics":1,"mccarthy":4,"mcpain":2,"mechanism":1,"mediating":1,"methodological":1,"methodologically":1,"needed":1,"numbered":1,"object":2,"of":10,"on":7,"once":1,"operational":3,"out":1,"over":3,"painter":2,"pair":1,"paper":2,"parallel":1,"partial":3,"pdf":1,"pp":1,"predicate":1,"predicates":2,"preserving":1,"proc":1,"produces":1,"program":5,"programming":2,"programs":3,"project":1,"proof":3,"proofs":1,"provable":2,"prove":1,"proved":1,"proves":1,"published":1,"rather":1,"realises":1,"recursive":1,"reference":1,"register":1,"registers":2,"relates":1,"relation":2,"representation":1,"respectively":1,"result":1,"richer":1,"rigorous":1,"run":1,"s":2,"same":1,"science":3,"scratch":2,"selector":1,"selectors":2,"semantics":9,"set":2,"should":1,"signatures":1,"single":2,"small":2,"so":1,"society":1,"source":5,"specification":1,"speech":2,"stance":2,"stanford":1,"state":6,"stated":1,"strong":1,"structural":5,"structure":1,"style":1,"subsequent":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"symposia":1,"syntax":7,"syntaxes":2,"synthetic":3,"tags":1,"take":1,"target":4,"technically":1,"template":2,"than":1,"that":6,"the":20,"then":1,"theorem":3,"this":1,"those":1,"to":5,"towards":2,"transferable":1,"trivially":2,"update":2,"url":1,"used":1,"value":1,"variables":2,"vector":1,"vectors":4,"verification":2,"verified":1,"via":3,"vol":1,"while":2,"with":7}},{"dl":542,"n":"Algorithm = Logic + Control","s":"papers/foundations/algorithm-=-logic-+-control","secs":[{"h":"Algorithm = Logic + Control","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Kowalski, R. (1979). \"Algorithm = Logic + Control.\" *Communications of the ACM*, 22(7), 424-436. [URL](https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/algorithm%20=%20logic%20+%20control.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Kowalski argues that every algorithm can be cleanly decomposed into two orthogonal components: a **logic** component, which specifies *what* knowledge is to be used to solve the problem, and a **control** component, which specifies *how* that knowledge is applied. The logic determines meaning and correctness; the control determines efficiency. The thesis is that programs become easier to write, to prove correct, and to optimize when these two concerns are separated and each is expressed explicitly — ideally, with the logic invariant under changes in control strategy. Using **Horn clauses** as the logical language, Kowalski shows that a problem's specification (e.g., \"x is an ancestor of y\") can be written once and then executed under different control regimes — top-down (backward chaining, as in Prolog) or bottom-up (forward chaining, as in database query evaluation) — without changing the logic. Different strategies produce different computational costs, but all produce the same answers because the meaning is governed by the logic alone. He illustrates with factorial, sorting, and path-finding, and crucially with Horn-clause definitions of recursive relations where choice of control dramatically affects termination and performance. The paper is the manifesto of **logic programming**. It frames Prolog not as \"predicate logic with a goto button\" but as one control discipline over a logical program; it underwrites deductive databases, constraint logic programming, tabled evaluation, and answer-set programming; and it anticipates the modern separation of declarative specification from execution plan found in SQL optimizers, datalog engines, and differentiable programming. The slogan **\"A = L + C\"** remains a litmus test: a program whose logic and control are tangled is harder to understand than one where they are kept apart."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **A = L + C**: an algorithm has a logic component (meaning) and a control component (execution strategy). - **Logic determines correctness; control determines efficiency**: change control without changing meaning. - **Horn clauses**: clausal form of predicate logic sufficient for programming, with tractable inference. - **Top-down vs bottom-up**: backward-chaining (SLD resolution / Prolog) and forward-chaining (datalog / bottom-up) as control choices. - **Declarative programming**: say what is true; let a general-purpose inference mechanism search for solutions. - **Separation of concerns**: specifications, programs, and query plans all viewable through the same lens. - **Clausal refutation**: problems stated as denials, solved by deriving contradiction, answer extracted from substitutions."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] — Lloyd's book formalizes the semantics Kowalski sketches. - [[Logicist AI]] - [[Horn Clauses]] - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — PLANNER had a similar logic/control split that Kowalski clarifies. - [[Code as Data]] — logic programs are homoiconic data usable by other programs."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":33,"t":"> An algorithm is not a monolithic procedure but a pair: a *logic* specifying the problem's meaning and a *control* specifying the inference/execution strategy. Keeping them separate lets us prove programs correct against their logic while optimizing their control — and lets us trade control strategies (top-down, bottom-up, tabled, parallel) without changing the answers. This reframed programming itself as declarative specification + pluggable execution."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"logic-programming #kowalski #horn-clauses #declarative #prolog #foundational #algorithms #separation-of-concerns","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"1979":1,"20":2,"20control":1,"20logic":1,"22":1,"424":1,"436":1,"7":1,"a":18,"ac":1,"acm":1,"actor":1,"affects":1,"against":1,"ai":1,"algorithm":6,"algorithms":1,"all":2,"alone":1,"an":3,"ancestor":1,"and":17,"answer":2,"answers":2,"anticipates":1,"apart":1,"applied":1,"are":4,"argues":1,"artificial":1,"as":9,"backward":2,"be":3,"because":1,"become":1,"book":1,"bottom":4,"but":3,"button":1,"by":3,"c":2,"can":2,"chaining":4,"change":1,"changes":1,"changing":3,"choice":1,"choices":1,"clarifies":1,"clausal":2,"clause":1,"clauses":4,"cleanly":1,"code":1,"communications":1,"component":4,"components":1,"computational":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":3,"connections":1,"constraint":1,"contradiction":1,"contribution":1,"control":17,"correct":2,"correctness":2,"costs":1,"crucially":1,"data":2,"database":1,"databases":1,"datalog":2,"declarative":4,"decomposed":1,"deductive":1,"definitions":1,"denials":1,"deriving":1,"determines":4,"different":3,"differentiable":1,"discipline":1,"doc":1,"down":3,"dramatically":1,"e":1,"each":1,"easier":1,"efficiency":2,"engines":1,"evaluation":2,"every":1,"executed":1,"execution":4,"explicitly":1,"expressed":1,"extracted":1,"factorial":1,"finding":1,"for":3,"form":1,"formalism":1,"formalizes":1,"forward":2,"found":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"frames":1,"from":2,"g":1,"general":1,"goto":1,"governed":1,"had":1,"harder":1,"has":1,"he":1,"homoiconic":1,"horn":5,"how":1,"https":1,"ic":1,"ideally":1,"ideas":1,"illustrates":1,"in":4,"inference":3,"intelligence":1,"into":1,"invariant":1,"is":10,"it":3,"itself":1,"keeping":1,"kept":1,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"kowalski":6,"l":2,"language":1,"lens":1,"let":1,"lets":2,"litmus":1,"lloyd":2,"logic":20,"logical":2,"logicist":1,"manifesto":1,"meaning":5,"mechanism":1,"modern":1,"modular":1,"monolithic":1,"not":2,"of":10,"once":1,"one":2,"optimize":1,"optimizers":1,"optimizing":1,"or":1,"orthogonal":1,"other":1,"over":1,"pair":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"parallel":1,"path":1,"pdf":1,"performance":1,"plan":1,"planner":1,"plans":1,"pluggable":1,"predicate":2,"problem":3,"problems":1,"procedure":1,"produce":2,"program":2,"programming":9,"programs":5,"prolog":4,"prove":2,"purpose":1,"query":2,"r":1,"rak":1,"recursive":1,"reference":1,"reframed":1,"refutation":1,"regimes":1,"relations":1,"remains":1,"resolution":1,"s":3,"same":2,"say":1,"search":1,"semantics":1,"separate":1,"separated":1,"separation":3,"set":1,"shows":1,"similar":1,"sketches":1,"sld":1,"slogan":1,"solutions":1,"solve":1,"solved":1,"sorting":1,"specification":3,"specifications":1,"specifies":2,"specifying":2,"split":1,"sql":1,"stated":1,"strategies":2,"strategy":3,"substitutions":1,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"tabled":2,"tags":1,"tangled":1,"termination":1,"test":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":20,"their":2,"them":1,"then":1,"these":1,"thesis":1,"they":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":6,"top":3,"tractable":1,"trade":1,"true":1,"two":2,"uk":1,"under":2,"understand":1,"underwrites":1,"universal":1,"up":4,"url":1,"us":2,"usable":1,"used":1,"using":1,"viewable":1,"vs":1,"what":2,"when":1,"where":2,"which":2,"while":1,"whose":1,"with":5,"without":3,"write":1,"written":1,"www":1,"x":1,"y":1}},{"dl":844,"n":"Generality in Artificial Intelligence","s":"papers/foundations/generality-in-artificial-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"Generality in Artificial Intelligence","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1987). \"Generality in Artificial Intelligence.\" *Communications of the ACM* 30(12): 1030-1035. Rewritten and expanded version of McCarthy's 1971 ACM Turing Award Lecture of the same title (the original 1971 version was never published to his satisfaction). Source file: `mccarthy-generality.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/generality/generality.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy's Turing Award reflection, revised sixteen years later. He opens by admitting that the original 1971 Turing lecture was \"overambitious\" — he could not then state his thoughts on generality in a satisfactory written form — and that the problem of generality in AI is \"almost as unsolved as ever,\" though with more ideas now available. The paper is his summary diagnosis of why AI programs in 1987 still lack general intelligence and a short catalogue of research directions that might help. The lead diagnosis: AI programs have no general database of common-sense knowledge that any program could draw on. A small addition to what a program is supposed to do typically requires a complete rewrite starting with the data structures; modifying search strategies is even harder. The key missing piece is a *language* for expressing general common-sense knowledge that can be included in a database shared across programs. McCarthy then surveys candidate approaches — Friedberg-style program-modification learning (too unstructured), GPS and SOAR (domain-independent problem solving, but failed to be truly general), rule-based expert systems, neural networks, first-order logic plus situation calculus, circumscription and non-monotonic reasoning, frames, scripts — and evaluates each against the generality criterion. The paper culminates in a re-statement of McCarthy's logicist agenda: generality will come from treating common-sense knowledge as a formal database in first-order logic (augmented with circumscription for defaults and with concepts-as-individuals for propositional attitudes), designed so that programs *consult* this database rather than having it compiled into their structure. It is the closest thing to a mature manifesto of McCarthy's research programme and is continually cited as the articulation of what \"logicist AI\" means."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- *Generality* is the unsolved problem of AI: small changes to a problem should require small changes to the program, and a shared common-sense database should be useable by any program that needs it. - The primary obstacle is that existing AI programs bake their knowledge into data structures and control flow rather than consulting a shared declarative database. - Friedberg-style program-mutation learning is representationally general but practically barren. - GPS / SOAR separate goals and subgoals from the domain but fail on problems whose solutions require common-sense knowledge not reducible to state-transformation rules. - Expert systems are narrow by design. - The logicist approach — first-order logic + situation calculus + circumscription + concepts-as-individuals — is defended as the most promising route to a language for general common-sense knowledge. - The frame problem, qualification problem, and ramification problem are all facets of the generality problem. - Elaboration tolerance: the measure of a representation's generality is how small the elaborations required by new information are."},{"h":"Connections","l":22,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] — the 1959 origin of the programme this paper summarises. - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Circumscription]] - [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell's parallel statement of the same ambition. - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's alternative (procedural, multi-agent) answer to the generality problem. - [[Formal Verification]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":44,"t":"- **Claim:** The central unsolved problem of AI is *generality* — how to write programs whose small extensions require only small modifications, and how to share a database of common-sense knowledge across programs. The most promising route is logicist: first-order logic, situation calculus, circumscription, and concepts-as-individuals, combined so that programs consult a declarative common-sense database rather than embedding knowledge in code. - **Mechanism:** Argumentative / programmatic. Surveys candidate approaches (program-mutation learning, GPS/SOAR, production rules, frames, logic) against a generality criterion (small change of problem → small change of program; database usable across programs). Re-asserts the logicist stack as the best match. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Generality]], [[Elaboration Tolerance]], [[Common Sense Database]], [[Frame Problem]], [[Qualification Problem]], [[Ramification Problem]], [[Logicist AI]], [[Circumscription]], [[Concepts as Individuals]]. - **Stance:** manifesto / methodological - **Relates to:** Summarises and defends the programme whose parts are worked out in [[Programs with Common Sense]], [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]], [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]], [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]], [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]], [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]], and [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]. Methodologically parallel to [[The Knowledge Level]]; counterposed to [[The Society of Mind]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":51,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #turing-award #generality #knowledge-representation #logicist #methodology #1987","l":52,"t":""}],"tf":{"1030":1,"1035":1,"12":1,"1959":1,"1971":3,"1987":3,"2000":1,"30":1,"a":23,"acm":2,"across":3,"acts":1,"addition":1,"admitting":1,"against":2,"agenda":1,"agent":1,"ai":8,"all":1,"almost":1,"alternative":1,"ambition":1,"and":19,"answer":1,"any":2,"applications":2,"approach":1,"approaches":2,"are":4,"argumentative":1,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"articulation":1,"artificial":6,"as":10,"ascribing":2,"asserts":1,"attitudes":1,"augmented":1,"available":1,"award":3,"bake":1,"barren":1,"based":2,"be":3,"best":1,"business":1,"but":3,"by":5,"calculus":3,"can":1,"candidate":2,"catalogue":1,"central":1,"change":2,"changes":2,"circumscription":10,"cited":1,"claim":1,"closest":1,"code":1,"combined":1,"come":1,"common":15,"communication":1,"communications":1,"compiled":1,"compiler":1,"complete":1,"computation":2,"concepts":7,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"consult":2,"consulting":1,"continually":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"correctness":1,"could":2,"counterposed":1,"criterion":2,"culminates":1,"data":2,"database":10,"declarative":2,"defaults":1,"defended":1,"defends":1,"design":1,"designed":1,"diagnosis":2,"directions":1,"do":1,"domain":2,"draw":1,"each":1,"edu":1,"elaboration":2,"elaborations":1,"elephant":1,"embedding":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":2,"evaluates":1,"even":1,"ever":1,"existing":1,"expanded":1,"expert":2,"expressing":1,"expressions":2,"extensions":1,"facets":1,"fail":1,"failed":1,"file":1,"first":6,"flow":1,"for":5,"form":3,"formal":2,"formalizing":2,"foundational":1,"frame":2,"frames":2,"friedberg":2,"from":4,"functions":1,"general":6,"generality":16,"goals":1,"gps":3,"harder":1,"have":1,"having":1,"he":2,"help":1,"his":3,"how":3,"http":1,"ideas":2,"in":10,"included":1,"independent":1,"individual":2,"individuals":4,"information":1,"intelligence":7,"into":2,"introduced":1,"is":14,"it":3,"jmc":1,"john":1,"key":2,"knowledge":14,"lack":1,"language":4,"later":1,"lead":1,"learning":3,"lecture":2,"level":2,"logic":6,"logicist":7,"machine":1,"machines":2,"manifesto":2,"match":1,"mathematical":1,"mature":1,"mccarthy":7,"means":1,"measure":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"methodological":1,"methodologically":1,"methodology":1,"might":1,"mind":2,"minsky":1,"missing":1,"modification":1,"modifications":1,"modifying":1,"monotonic":2,"more":1,"most":2,"multi":1,"mutation":2,"narrow":1,"needs":1,"networks":1,"neural":1,"never":1,"new":1,"newell":1,"no":1,"non":2,"nonmonotonic":2,"not":2,"now":1,"obstacle":1,"of":32,"on":4,"only":1,"opens":1,"order":6,"origin":1,"original":2,"out":1,"overambitious":1,"paper":3,"parallel":2,"parts":1,"pdf":1,"philosophical":2,"piece":1,"plus":1,"practically":1,"primary":1,"problem":14,"problems":5,"procedural":1,"production":1,"program":8,"programmatic":1,"programme":3,"programming":1,"programs":11,"promising":2,"propositional":1,"propositions":2,"published":1,"qualification":2,"qualities":2,"ramification":2,"rather":3,"re":2,"reasoning":5,"recursive":1,"reducible":1,"reference":1,"reflection":1,"relates":1,"representation":3,"representationally":1,"require":3,"required":1,"requires":1,"research":2,"revised":1,"rewrite":1,"rewritten":1,"route":2,"rule":1,"rules":2,"s":7,"same":2,"satisfaction":1,"satisfactory":1,"science":1,"scripts":1,"search":1,"sense":14,"separate":1,"share":1,"shared":3,"short":1,"should":2,"situation":3,"sixteen":1,"small":8,"so":2,"soar":3,"society":2,"solutions":1,"solving":1,"some":2,"source":1,"speech":1,"stack":1,"stance":1,"standpoint":2,"stanford":1,"starting":1,"state":2,"statement":2,"still":1,"strategies":1,"structure":1,"structures":2,"style":2,"subgoals":1,"summarises":2,"summary":2,"supposed":1,"surveys":2,"symbolic":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"than":3,"that":9,"the":38,"their":3,"then":2,"theories":2,"thing":1,"this":2,"though":1,"thoughts":1,"title":1,"to":19,"tolerance":2,"too":1,"towards":1,"transformation":1,"treating":1,"truly":1,"turing":4,"typically":1,"unsolved":3,"unstructured":1,"url":1,"usable":1,"useable":1,"used":1,"verification":1,"version":2,"was":2,"what":2,"whose":3,"why":1,"will":1,"with":6,"worked":1,"write":1,"written":1,"years":1}},{"dl":448,"n":"How to Do Things with Words","s":"papers/foundations/how-to-do-things-with-words","secs":[{"h":"How to Do Things with Words","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Austin, J. L. (1962). *How to Do Things with Words*. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press (ed. J. O. Urmson). Source file: `austin-1962-how-to-do-things-with-words.pdf`. Cited by [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] (McCarthy 1989)."},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Austin's posthumously edited William James Lectures are the founding text of speech-act theory. Austin begins by isolating a class of utterances - \"performatives\" (e.g. \"I promise\", \"I do\", \"I name this ship\") - that do not describe or report but instead *perform* an action, and cannot be evaluated as true or false but only as happy or unhappy (felicitous or infelicitous). Through twelve lectures he progressively dissolves the performative/constative distinction in favour of a general theory in which *every* utterance performs a locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act. The taxonomy of illocutionary force (verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, expositives) directly anticipates Searle/Vanderveken's [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] and the performative vocabulary of [[KQML]] and [[FIPA-ACL]]."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":8,"t":"- **Performative utterance**: saying is doing. \"I promise\" is not a report of a promise - it *is* the promise. - **Felicity conditions**: instead of truth conditions, performatives succeed or fail by satisfying procedural, sincerity, and uptake conditions. - **Locution / illocution / perlocution**: three layers of every speech act - what is said, what is done in saying it, and what is achieved by saying it. - **Five illocutionary classes** (verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, expositives) - taxonomy later refined by Searle into five primitives. - Dissolution of the performative/constative boundary: assertion itself turns out to be a species of illocutionary act."},{"h":"Connections","l":15,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Speech Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Abstract Performative]] - [[Illocutionary Force]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Institutional Reality]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** Many utterances are not descriptions that can be true or false but actions that are performed in the saying; and on closer inspection the descriptive/performative divide collapses, so every utterance is a layered act with illocutionary force. - **Mechanism:** Contrast between constative and performative utterances; introduction of felicity conditions (A.1-A.2, B.1-B.2, Gamma.1-Gamma.2 misfires and abuses); the tri-layer locution/illocution/perlocution analysis; provisional five-way classification of illocutionary verbs. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Performatives]], [[Illocutionary Force]], Felicity Conditions, Locutionary Act, Perlocutionary Act, [[Speech Act Theory]] - **Stance:** foundational / ordinary-language-philosophy - **Relates to:** Provides the raw speech-act ontology that Searle formalises in [[Speech Acts]] and that McCarthy imports in [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]; the felicity-condition apparatus recurs under \"feasibility\" and \"sincerity\" preconditions in [[FIPA-ACL]] semantics and in [[Commitment-based Semantics]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"speech-acts #philosophy-of-language #foundational #austin #performatives","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":3,"1955":1,"1962":1,"1989":1,"2":3,"2000":3,"a":12,"abstract":1,"abuses":1,"achieved":1,"acl":2,"act":10,"action":1,"actions":1,"acts":6,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":12,"anticipates":1,"apparatus":1,"are":3,"as":2,"assertion":1,"at":1,"austin":4,"b":2,"based":5,"be":3,"begins":1,"behabitives":2,"between":1,"boundary":1,"but":3,"by":5,"can":1,"cannot":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"clarendon":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"classification":1,"closer":1,"collapses":1,"commissives":2,"commitment":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"conditions":5,"connections":1,"constative":3,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"delivered":1,"describe":1,"descriptions":1,"descriptive":1,"directly":1,"dissolution":1,"dissolves":1,"distinction":1,"divide":1,"do":4,"doing":1,"done":1,"e":1,"ed":1,"edited":1,"elephant":3,"evaluated":1,"every":3,"exercitives":2,"expositives":2,"fail":1,"false":2,"favour":1,"feasibility":1,"felicitous":1,"felicity":4,"file":1,"fipa":2,"five":3,"force":4,"formalises":1,"foundational":2,"foundations":2,"founding":1,"g":1,"gamma":2,"general":1,"happy":1,"harvard":1,"he":1,"how":2,"i":4,"ideas":1,"illocution":2,"illocutionary":10,"imports":1,"in":9,"infelicitous":1,"inspection":1,"instead":2,"institutional":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduction":1,"is":7,"isolating":1,"it":3,"itself":1,"j":2,"james":2,"key":1,"kqml":1,"l":1,"language":5,"later":1,"layer":1,"layered":1,"layers":1,"lectures":3,"locution":2,"locutionary":2,"logic":2,"many":1,"mccarthy":2,"mechanism":1,"misfires":1,"name":1,"not":3,"o":1,"of":15,"on":4,"only":1,"ontology":1,"or":6,"ordinary":1,"out":1,"oxford":1,"perform":1,"performative":7,"performatives":5,"performed":1,"performs":1,"perlocution":2,"perlocutionary":2,"philosophy":2,"posthumously":1,"preconditions":1,"press":1,"primitives":1,"procedural":1,"programming":3,"progressively":1,"promise":4,"provides":1,"provisional":1,"raw":1,"reality":1,"recurs":1,"reference":1,"refined":1,"relates":1,"report":2,"s":2,"said":1,"satisfying":1,"saying":4,"searle":3,"semantics":3,"ship":1,"sincerity":2,"so":1,"source":1,"species":1,"speech":11,"stance":1,"succeed":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":2,"text":1,"that":5,"the":12,"theory":4,"things":2,"this":1,"three":1,"through":1,"to":4,"tri":1,"true":2,"truth":1,"turns":1,"twelve":1,"under":1,"unhappy":1,"university":1,"uptake":1,"urmson":1,"used":1,"utterance":3,"utterances":3,"vanderveken":1,"verbs":1,"verdictives":2,"vocabulary":1,"way":1,"what":3,"which":1,"william":2,"with":3,"words":2}},{"dl":818,"n":"The Extended Mind","s":"papers/foundations/the-extended-mind","secs":[{"h":"The Extended Mind","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"- Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David J. (1998). \"The Extended Mind.\" *Analysis* 58: 10–23. Reprinted in P. Grim (ed.), *The Philosopher's Annual* vol. XXI, 1998. - HTML source: [consc.net/papers/extended.html](http://consc.net/papers/extended.html) - (HTML-only; full prose captured below in the Summary.)"},{"h":"Summary","l":8,"t":"Clark and Chalmers ask where the mind stops and the world begins. Rejecting both the internalist \"skin-and-skull\" demarcation and Putnam/Burge semantic externalism, they advocate a third position: *active externalism*, on which environmental features play an active role in driving cognitive processes. Their illustrative ladder of Tetris-like cases — mental rotation, screen-button rotation, and a futuristic neural-implant rotation — is designed to show that the mere location of a computation (inside the skull vs. spread across agent and world) does not settle whether that computation is cognitive. Where a part of the world plays a functional role that would count as cognitive if performed in the head, it is part of the cognitive process. \"Cognitive processes ain't (all) in the head.\" The argument for active externalism rests on two-way coupling: when an organism and an external resource jointly govern behaviour, the coupled system is itself a cognitive system; remove the external component and behavioural competence drops as it would from removing brain tissue. This differs from standard semantic externalism, where the external element is causally remote and does little ongoing cognitive work. The celebrated case is Otto and Inga. Inga remembers the Museum of Modern Art is on 53rd Street and walks there; Otto has Alzheimer's and relies on a notebook he always carries, consults, and trusts; he reads \"MoMA is on 53rd Street\" and walks there. Clark and Chalmers argue Otto's notebook plays the same functional role Inga's biological memory plays, so Otto genuinely *believes* — in advance of consultation — that MoMA is on 53rd Street. Belief, on the functionalist criterion, extends into the notebook. The paper carefully distinguishes extended cognition from extended consciousness (they are not claiming Otto's notebook is conscious), and lists criteria for candidate external beliefs: constancy of availability, direct availability when needed, automatic endorsement on retrieval, and past conscious endorsement. They anticipate objections — brittleness, bandwidth, privileged access — and argue these are differences of degree, not kind. The closing move is social and technological: language, institutions, and especially digital artefacts make extension pervasive, and selves become \"spread into the world.\""},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Active externalism**: environment plays an active, ongoing causal role in cognition, not merely a distal referential role. - **Parity principle**: if a process done in the head would count as cognitive, doing it in the world also counts as cognitive. - **Coupled systems**: two-way interaction between organism and artefact yields a single cognitive system. - **Otto's notebook**: dispositional beliefs can be stored in external media that are reliably available, automatically endorsed, and trusted. - **Epistemic action** (Kirsh & Maglio): manipulating the world to aid cognitive processes such as recognition and search. - **Criteria for extended belief**: constancy, accessibility, automatic endorsement, prior endorsement. - **Not extended consciousness**: the thesis concerns cognitive/functional states, not phenomenal experience. - **Self as spread**: language, notebooks, and culture routinely extend cognitive systems beyond the biological organism."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] — directly engages where to draw the self/system boundary; Clark–Chalmers is the classic argument that the boundary is not skin. - [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] — Dennett's intentional stance makes belief ascription pattern-based, compatible with extension into notebooks and devices. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — McCarthy's permissive attribution of beliefs/goals to artefacts, a precondition for taking Otto's notebook seriously. - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky's distributed-mind intuition, internalised; Clark–Chalmers push the distribution outward. - [[Intelligence Without Representation]] — Brooks's \"world as its own best model\" is a kindred thesis from robotics. - [[Actor Model]], [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — coupling among autonomous components maps onto extended cognitive systems. - [[Agent Architecture]] — extended-mind arguments motivate agent designs that offload state to environment (stigmergy, blackboards, shared memory). - [[Semantic Web]] — if digital artefacts can be cognitive scaffolding, shared ontologies literally extend minds."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":35,"t":"> Clark and Chalmers convert functionalism into a licence for *externalism about cognition itself*. Once you accept the parity principle, the border between agent and environment becomes a design variable rather than a metaphysical given. For agent-communication research this is philosophically load-bearing: protocols, ontologies, shared artefacts, message histories, and institutional records are not mere channels between minds — they are parts of the cognitive systems doing the work. Extended-mind arguments justify taking agents to be socio-technical composites whose beliefs and commitments live partly in shared infrastructure, which is exactly what ACLs, institutional reality, and ontology-sharing frameworks assume when they treat external messages and records as first-class semantic objects."},{"h":"Tags","l":38,"t":""},{"h":"philosophy-of-mind #extended-cognition #active-externalism #functionalism #Clark #Chalmers #Otto-notebook #parity-principle #foundational","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1998":2,"23":1,"53rd":3,"58":1,"a":17,"about":1,"accept":1,"access":1,"accessibility":1,"acls":1,"across":1,"action":1,"active":6,"actor":2,"advance":1,"advocate":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"aid":1,"ain":1,"all":1,"also":1,"always":1,"alzheimer":1,"among":1,"an":4,"analysis":1,"and":33,"andy":1,"annual":1,"anticipate":1,"architecture":1,"are":5,"argue":2,"argument":2,"arguments":2,"art":1,"artefact":1,"artefacts":4,"artificial":1,"as":8,"ascribing":1,"ascription":1,"ask":1,"assume":1,"attribution":1,"automatic":2,"automatically":1,"autonomous":1,"availability":2,"available":1,"bandwidth":1,"based":1,"be":3,"bearing":1,"become":1,"becomes":1,"begins":1,"behaviour":1,"behavioural":1,"belief":3,"beliefs":4,"believers":1,"believes":1,"below":1,"best":1,"between":3,"beyond":1,"biological":2,"blackboards":1,"border":1,"both":1,"boundary":3,"brain":1,"brittleness":1,"brooks":1,"burge":1,"button":1,"can":2,"candidate":1,"captured":1,"carefully":1,"carries":1,"case":1,"cases":1,"causal":1,"causally":1,"celebrated":1,"chalmers":7,"channels":1,"claiming":1,"clark":7,"class":1,"classic":1,"closing":1,"cognition":4,"cognitive":16,"commitments":1,"communication":1,"compatible":1,"competence":1,"component":1,"components":1,"composites":1,"computation":2,"computational":1,"conceptual":1,"concerns":1,"connections":1,"consc":2,"conscious":2,"consciousness":2,"constancy":2,"consultation":1,"consults":1,"contribution":1,"convert":1,"count":2,"counts":1,"coupled":2,"coupling":2,"criteria":2,"criterion":1,"culture":1,"david":1,"degree":1,"demarcation":1,"dennett":1,"design":1,"designed":1,"designs":1,"devices":1,"differences":1,"differs":1,"digital":2,"direct":1,"directly":1,"dispositional":1,"distal":1,"distinguishes":1,"distributed":1,"distribution":1,"does":2,"doing":2,"done":1,"draw":1,"driving":1,"drops":1,"ed":1,"element":1,"endorsed":1,"endorsement":4,"engages":1,"environment":3,"environmental":1,"epistemic":1,"especially":1,"exactly":1,"experience":1,"extend":2,"extended":12,"extends":1,"extension":2,"external":6,"externalism":7,"features":1,"first":1,"for":7,"formalism":1,"foundational":1,"frameworks":1,"from":4,"full":1,"functional":3,"functionalism":2,"functionalist":1,"futuristic":1,"genuinely":1,"given":1,"goals":1,"govern":1,"grim":1,"has":1,"he":2,"head":3,"histories":1,"html":4,"http":1,"ideas":1,"if":3,"illustrative":1,"implant":1,"in":11,"infrastructure":1,"inga":3,"inside":1,"institutional":2,"institutions":1,"intelligence":2,"intentional":2,"interaction":1,"internalised":1,"internalist":1,"into":4,"intuition":1,"is":16,"it":4,"its":1,"itself":2,"j":1,"jointly":1,"justify":1,"key":1,"kind":1,"kindred":1,"kirsh":1,"ladder":1,"language":2,"licence":1,"like":1,"lists":1,"literally":1,"little":1,"live":1,"load":1,"location":1,"machines":1,"maglio":1,"make":1,"makes":1,"manipulating":1,"maps":1,"mccarthy":1,"media":1,"memory":2,"mental":2,"mere":2,"merely":1,"message":1,"messages":1,"metaphysical":1,"mind":8,"minds":2,"minsky":1,"model":2,"modern":1,"modular":1,"moma":2,"motivate":1,"move":1,"museum":1,"needed":1,"net":2,"neural":1,"not":8,"notebook":7,"notebooks":2,"objections":1,"objects":1,"of":13,"offload":1,"on":8,"once":1,"ongoing":2,"only":1,"onto":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":1,"organism":3,"otto":8,"outward":1,"own":1,"p":1,"paper":1,"papers":2,"parity":3,"part":2,"partly":1,"parts":1,"past":1,"pattern":1,"performed":1,"permissive":1,"pervasive":1,"phenomenal":1,"philosopher":1,"philosophically":1,"philosophy":1,"play":1,"plays":4,"position":1,"precondition":1,"principle":3,"prior":1,"privileged":1,"process":2,"processes":3,"prose":1,"protocols":1,"push":1,"putnam":1,"qualities":1,"rather":1,"reads":1,"reality":1,"recognition":1,"records":2,"reference":1,"referential":1,"rejecting":1,"reliably":1,"relies":1,"remembers":1,"remote":1,"remove":1,"removing":1,"representation":1,"reprinted":1,"research":1,"resource":1,"rests":1,"retrieval":1,"robotics":1,"role":5,"rotation":3,"routinely":1,"s":11,"same":1,"scaffolding":1,"screen":1,"search":1,"self":3,"selves":1,"semantic":4,"seriously":1,"settle":1,"shared":4,"sharing":1,"show":1,"single":1,"skin":2,"skull":2,"so":1,"social":1,"society":1,"socio":1,"source":1,"spread":3,"stance":1,"standard":1,"state":1,"states":1,"stigmergy":1,"stops":1,"stored":1,"strategy":1,"street":3,"such":1,"summary":2,"system":4,"systems":4,"t":1,"tags":1,"taking":2,"technical":1,"technological":1,"tetris":1,"than":1,"that":7,"the":40,"their":1,"there":2,"these":1,"thesis":2,"they":5,"third":1,"this":2,"tissue":1,"to":7,"treat":1,"true":1,"trusted":1,"trusts":1,"two":2,"universal":1,"variable":1,"vol":1,"vs":1,"walks":2,"way":2,"web":1,"what":1,"when":3,"where":4,"whether":1,"which":2,"whose":1,"why":1,"with":1,"without":1,"work":2,"works":1,"world":7,"would":3,"xxi":1,"yields":1,"you":1}},{"dl":876,"n":"Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence","s":"papers/foundations/some-philosophical-problems-from-the-standpoint-of-artificial-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy and Patrick J. Hayes (1969). \"Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence.\" In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), *Machine Intelligence 4*, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 463-502. Source file: `mccarthy-mcchay69.pdf`. [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/mcchay69/mcchay69.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper that introduces *situation calculus*, names the *frame problem*, and divides AI cleanly into an *epistemological* part (what can in principle be inferred from what is knowable about the world) and a *heuristic* part (how to search that space efficiently). McCarthy and Hayes argue that a program capable of acting intelligently in the world must have a *general representation of the world*, and that designing such a representation forces the AI researcher to confront traditional philosophical problems — causality, ability, knowledge, free will, counterfactuals — with unusual rigor, because the representation has to be complete enough to drive actual deduction. The paper is in four parts. Part 1 is philosophical: metaphysically vs *epistemologically* adequate representations, a proposed resolution of free will in a deterministic universe (via the existence of alternatives that the agent *can* bring about in its coarser theory), and a treatment of counterfactuals. Part 2 is the formal core: *situations* as complete states of the universe, *fluents* as functions on situations, *actions* as functions from situation to situation with `result(a, s)`, and a method of constructing first-order sentences true exactly when a strategy achieves a goal. Part 3 surveys open problems, most famously the *frame problem*: how to state concisely what *does not* change when an action is performed, without writing an axiom for every (action, fluent) pair. Part 4 reviews philosophical logic in relation to AI. This is the paper that makes temporal / action reasoning a first-class topic in AI. Its ontology of situations, fluents, actions, and `result` is the direct ancestor of every subsequent theory of action — STRIPS, event calculus, fluent calculus, BDI temporal logics, ConGolog, planning formalisms, and the temporal backbone of [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]]. The epistemological/heuristic distinction is picked up again in [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] (1977) and shapes the methodology of logicist AI."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- *Epistemological* vs *metaphysical* adequacy of representations: a representation is epistemologically adequate if an observer can in practice express what they can come to know, not just what is ultimately true. - Situation calculus: *situations* as complete states, *fluents* as situation-parametrised functions/predicates (e.g., `at(x, s)`), *actions* as functions `result(a, s)`. - The frame problem: stating concisely what is *unchanged* by an action; a foundational difficulty for any action-based formalism. - The qualification problem (in embryo): actions have open-ended preconditions that cannot all be enumerated — later treated in [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]]. - `can`, `causes`, and `knows` reduced to first-order formulations over situations and strategies, including strategies with loops and knowledge acquisition. - Free will and counterfactuals reinterpreted via alternative strategies available in an agent's coarser (epistemologically adequate) theory — not by denying determinism. - Division of AI into epistemological and heuristic parts; the paper concentrates on the former."},{"h":"Connections","l":21,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] — the 1959 predecessor; this paper repairs its treatment of action and time. - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] — continues the epistemological-adequacy programme. - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — formal answer to the qualification problem raised here. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Epistemic Logic]] - [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Frame Problem]] - [[Situation Calculus]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] — A-ILTL's temporal obligations inherit the situation-calculus transition structure. - [[BDI]] — BDI logics (Rao & Georgeff, Cohen & Levesque) build their belief/desire/intention modalities on top of situation-calculus-style branching time. - [[BDI Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":45,"t":"- **Claim:** AI requires an epistemologically adequate representation of the world, which forces the AI researcher to solve philosophical problems (causality, ability, knowledge, counterfactuals, free will) formally; *situation calculus* — situations, fluents, actions with `result(a, s)` — provides a first-order representation in which strategies achieving goals can be proved correct. - **Mechanism:** First-order logic with sorted terms for situations, fluents, and actions; the `result` function; axioms expressing action effects and successor-state relations; proof-of-strategy construction; explicit treatment of knowledge strategies (plans involving learning what one does not yet know); methodological division of AI into epistemological and heuristic parts. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Situation Calculus]], [[Fluent]], [[Frame Problem]], [[Qualification Problem]], [[Epistemological Adequacy]], [[Metaphysical Adequacy]], [[Counterfactual]], [[Action Formalism]], [[Planning]], [[Knowing How vs Knowing That]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Names the *frame problem* that every subsequent action formalism must address; furnishes the ontology that [[BDI]] logics and [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] inherit for their temporal/intentional semantics; sets up the qualification problem that [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] later solves; methodologically complements [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] and [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]; the epistemological-adequacy criterion reappears explicitly in [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":52,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #situation-calculus #frame-problem #knowledge-representation #action #planning #philosophy-of-ai #1969","l":53,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1959":1,"1969":2,"1977":1,"2":1,"2000":1,"3":1,"4":2,"463":1,"502":1,"a":21,"ability":2,"about":2,"achieves":1,"achieving":1,"acquisition":1,"acting":1,"action":11,"actions":6,"acts":1,"actual":1,"address":1,"adequacy":5,"adequate":4,"again":1,"agent":2,"agents":3,"ai":10,"all":1,"alternative":1,"alternatives":1,"an":7,"ancestor":1,"and":28,"answer":1,"any":1,"argue":1,"arithmetic":1,"articles":1,"artificial":6,"as":6,"ascribing":2,"available":1,"axiom":1,"axioms":1,"b":1,"backbone":1,"based":2,"bdi":5,"be":4,"because":1,"behaviour":3,"belief":1,"branching":1,"bring":1,"build":1,"business":1,"by":3,"calculus":10,"can":5,"cannot":1,"capable":1,"causality":2,"change":1,"circumscription":3,"claim":1,"class":1,"cleanly":1,"coarser":2,"cohen":1,"come":1,"common":3,"communication":1,"compiler":1,"complements":1,"complete":3,"computation":2,"concentrates":1,"concepts":3,"conceptual":1,"concisely":2,"confront":1,"congolog":1,"connections":1,"constructing":1,"construction":1,"continues":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"correct":1,"correctness":1,"counterfactual":1,"counterfactuals":4,"criterion":1,"d":1,"deduction":1,"denying":1,"designing":1,"desire":1,"determinism":1,"deterministic":1,"difficulty":1,"direct":1,"distinction":1,"divides":1,"division":2,"does":2,"drive":1,"e":1,"edinburgh":1,"eds":1,"edu":1,"effects":1,"efficiently":1,"elephant":1,"embryo":1,"ended":1,"enough":1,"ensuring":3,"enumerated":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":11,"epistemologically":4,"ethical":3,"event":1,"every":3,"exactly":1,"existence":1,"explicit":1,"explicitly":1,"express":1,"expressing":1,"expressions":2,"famously":1,"file":1,"first":7,"fluent":3,"fluents":5,"for":5,"forces":2,"form":3,"formal":2,"formalism":3,"formalisms":1,"formally":1,"former":1,"formulations":1,"foundational":3,"four":1,"frame":7,"free":4,"from":4,"function":1,"functions":5,"furnishes":1,"g":1,"general":1,"generality":1,"georgeff":1,"goal":1,"goals":1,"has":1,"have":2,"hayes":2,"here":1,"heuristic":4,"how":3,"http":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"iltl":1,"in":19,"including":1,"individual":2,"inferred":1,"inherit":2,"intelligence":7,"intelligent":3,"intelligently":1,"intention":1,"intentional":1,"into":3,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"involving":1,"is":11,"its":3,"j":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"just":1,"key":1,"know":2,"knowable":1,"knowing":2,"knowledge":7,"language":2,"later":2,"learning":1,"level":1,"levesque":1,"logic":4,"logical":3,"logicist":1,"logics":3,"loops":1,"machine":2,"machines":2,"makes":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":3,"mcchay69":2,"mechanism":1,"meltzer":1,"mental":2,"metaphysical":2,"metaphysically":1,"method":1,"methodological":1,"methodologically":1,"methodology":1,"michie":1,"mind":1,"modalities":1,"monotonic":1,"most":1,"must":2,"names":2,"non":1,"nonmonotonic":3,"not":4,"obligations":1,"observer":1,"of":35,"on":4,"one":1,"ontology":2,"open":2,"order":6,"over":1,"pair":1,"paper":5,"parametrised":1,"part":6,"parts":3,"patrick":1,"pdf":1,"performed":1,"philosophical":6,"philosophy":1,"picked":1,"planning":3,"plans":1,"pp":1,"practice":1,"preconditions":1,"predecessor":1,"predicates":1,"press":1,"principle":1,"problem":11,"problems":8,"program":1,"programme":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"proof":1,"proposed":1,"propositions":2,"proved":1,"provides":1,"qualification":4,"qualities":2,"raised":1,"rao":1,"reappears":1,"reasoning":6,"recursive":1,"reduced":1,"reference":1,"reinterpreted":1,"relates":1,"relation":1,"relations":1,"repairs":1,"representation":8,"representations":2,"requires":1,"researcher":2,"resolution":1,"reviews":1,"rigor":1,"s":2,"science":1,"search":1,"semantics":1,"sense":2,"sentences":1,"sets":1,"shapes":1,"situation":11,"situations":7,"society":1,"solve":1,"solves":1,"some":2,"sorted":1,"source":1,"space":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"standpoint":2,"stanford":1,"state":2,"states":2,"stating":1,"strategies":5,"strategy":2,"strips":1,"structure":1,"style":1,"subsequent":2,"successor":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"surveys":1,"symbolic":1,"tags":1,"temporal":5,"terms":1,"that":11,"the":37,"their":3,"theories":2,"theory":3,"they":1,"this":2,"time":2,"to":14,"top":1,"topic":1,"towards":1,"traditional":1,"transition":1,"treated":1,"treatment":3,"true":2,"trustworthy":3,"ultimately":1,"unchanged":1,"universe":2,"university":1,"unusual":1,"up":2,"url":1,"used":1,"via":2,"vs":3,"what":7,"when":2,"which":2,"will":4,"with":6,"without":1,"world":4,"writing":1,"yet":1}},{"dl":626,"n":"First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions","s":"papers/foundations/first-order-theories-of-individual-concepts-and-propositions","secs":[{"h":"First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1979b). \"First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions.\" In J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and L. I. Mikulich (eds.), *Machine Intelligence 9*, Ellis Horwood, pp. 129-147. (Version fetched is the revised 2000 reprint.) [URL](http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/concepts/concepts.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy argues that knowledge, belief, wanting, and necessity can be formalised in ordinary sorted first-order logic — *without* modal operators, quotation, or possible-worlds machinery — by admitting individual concepts as first-class objects alongside the things that reify them. Where Frege had distinguished *sense* (the concept) from *reference* (the denotation), and where Carnap, Church, and Montague responded by extending logic, McCarthy responds by keeping logic ordinary and adding a domain of concepts plus a `denot` function mapping concepts to their denotations. Thus `Mike` is the concept of Mike, `mike` is Mike himself, `Telephone Mike` is the concept of Mike's telephone number, and `telephone mike` is the number. `Know(Pat, Telephone Mike)` is the proposition that Pat knows Mike's telephone number; `true Know(Pat, Telephone Mike)` asserts it. Extensionality is expressed by explicit axioms: `Know` is extensional in its first (knower) argument but not its second, which is precisely why substituting equal telephone numbers inside `Know` fails. The paper works through *knowing what* vs *knowing that*, iterated knowledge, non-denoting concepts (Pegasus), belief, wanting, existence (via an `Exists` predicate that does not presuppose existence of the concept's referent), and necessity — all in sorted FOL, with standard model theory available to study which concept-spaces satisfy which axioms. The paper is McCarthy's most developed statement of his reificationist, logicist methodology for mental attitudes: rather than extend the logic, extend the ontology. This is directly the substrate Elephant 2000 uses when it talks about speech acts committing agents to propositions and referring to past events and future obligations."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- Reify concepts as objects in sorted FOL; no modal operators, no quotation. - `denot` function maps concepts to their referents; extensionality becomes an axiom about particular functions rather than a global property of the logic. - `Know(P, X)` is extensional in P (the knower) but not in X (the knowand), explaining failure of substitutivity for knowledge. - `knowing what` vs `knowing that` are distinct; both are expressible. - Non-existent referents (Pegasus) handled by `denotes(X, x)` predicate rather than `denot` function, and by `Exists`/`exists` pair. - Concept-valued variables, functions, and constants (capitalisation convention) vs object-valued lowercase counterparts."},{"h":"Connections","l":20,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — the philosophical sibling paper; this gives the logical machinery for the ascriptions argued for there. - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — Elephant's program variables can range over speech acts, propositions, and commitments; the concept/object distinction here is exactly what allows a program to refer to *the fact that* Pat was told X rather than just to X's value. - [[Knowledge Representation]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[KIF]] — KIF's individuating of propositions and sentences as first-class objects follows this lineage. - [[Speech Act Theory]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Propositional attitudes and modalities can be formalised in ordinary sorted first-order logic by admitting individual concepts (and propositions) as objects with a `denot` mapping to their referents — no modal operators or quotation required. - **Mechanism:** Sorted FOL; capitalised concept-valued terms vs lowercase denotation-valued terms; `denot`/`denotes` functions and predicates; extensionality stated per-predicate via axioms like `denot P1 = denot P2 => denot Know(P1,X) = denot Know(P2,X)`; `Exists`/`exists` to handle non-denoting concepts; `true Q` to lift propositions to truth values. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Individual Concepts]], [[Propositional Attitudes]], [[Extensionality]], [[Sense and Denotation]], [[Knowing What vs Knowing That]], [[Reification]], [[Sorted Logic]]. - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Provides the ontology on which [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] builds its program-as-speech-act semantics; complements the ascriptive stance of [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]; technically prefigures the object-level treatment of sentences in [[KIF]] and the commitment semantics in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #mccarthy #knowledge-representation #logic #propositional-attitudes #ontology","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"129":1,"147":1,"1979b":1,"2000":4,"9":1,"a":7,"about":2,"act":2,"acts":4,"adding":1,"admitting":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"all":1,"allows":1,"alongside":1,"an":2,"and":21,"are":2,"argued":1,"argues":1,"argument":1,"articles":1,"as":5,"ascribing":2,"ascriptions":1,"ascriptive":1,"asserts":1,"attitudes":4,"available":1,"axiom":1,"axioms":3,"based":2,"be":2,"becomes":1,"belief":2,"both":1,"builds":1,"but":2,"by":7,"can":3,"capitalisation":1,"capitalised":1,"carnap":1,"church":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"committing":1,"common":1,"communication":1,"complements":1,"concept":8,"concepts":14,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"constants":1,"contribution":1,"convention":1,"counterparts":1,"d":1,"denotation":3,"denotations":1,"denoting":2,"developed":1,"directly":1,"distinct":1,"distinction":1,"distinguished":1,"does":1,"domain":1,"e":1,"eds":1,"edu":1,"elephant":4,"ellis":1,"equal":1,"events":1,"exactly":1,"existence":2,"existent":1,"explaining":1,"explicit":1,"expressed":1,"expressible":1,"extend":2,"extending":1,"extensional":2,"extensionality":4,"fact":1,"fails":1,"failure":1,"fetched":1,"first":7,"fol":3,"follows":1,"for":4,"formalised":2,"foundational":2,"frege":1,"from":1,"function":3,"functions":3,"future":1,"gives":1,"global":1,"had":1,"handle":1,"handled":1,"hayes":1,"here":1,"himself":1,"his":1,"horwood":1,"http":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"in":10,"individual":5,"individuating":1,"inside":1,"institutional":1,"intelligence":1,"introduced":1,"is":13,"it":2,"iterated":1,"its":3,"j":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"just":1,"keeping":1,"key":1,"kif":3,"knowand":1,"knower":2,"knowing":4,"knowledge":5,"knows":1,"l":1,"language":2,"level":1,"lift":1,"like":1,"lineage":1,"logic":8,"logical":1,"logicist":1,"lowercase":2,"machine":1,"machinery":2,"machines":2,"mapping":2,"maps":1,"mccarthy":5,"mechanism":1,"mental":3,"methodology":1,"michie":1,"mike":4,"mikulich":1,"modal":3,"modalities":1,"model":1,"montague":1,"most":1,"necessity":2,"no":3,"non":3,"not":3,"number":3,"numbers":1,"object":3,"objects":4,"obligations":1,"of":12,"on":3,"ontology":3,"operators":3,"or":2,"order":4,"ordinary":3,"over":1,"p":1,"pair":1,"paper":3,"particular":1,"past":1,"pat":2,"pdf":1,"pegasus":2,"per":1,"philosophical":1,"plus":1,"possible":1,"pp":1,"precisely":1,"predicate":3,"predicates":1,"prefigures":1,"presuppose":1,"program":3,"programming":2,"property":1,"proposition":1,"propositional":3,"propositions":7,"provides":1,"qualities":2,"quotation":3,"range":1,"rather":4,"reality":1,"reasoning":1,"refer":1,"reference":2,"referent":1,"referents":3,"referring":1,"reification":1,"reificationist":1,"reify":2,"relates":1,"representation":2,"reprint":1,"required":1,"responded":1,"responds":1,"revised":1,"s":7,"satisfy":1,"second":1,"semantics":2,"sense":3,"sentences":2,"sibling":1,"sorted":6,"spaces":1,"speech":6,"stance":2,"standard":1,"stanford":1,"stated":1,"statement":1,"study":1,"substituting":1,"substitutivity":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"talks":1,"technically":1,"telephone":3,"terms":2,"than":4,"that":7,"the":26,"their":3,"them":1,"theories":2,"theory":2,"there":1,"things":1,"this":3,"through":1,"thus":1,"to":15,"told":1,"treatment":1,"truth":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"value":1,"valued":4,"values":1,"variables":2,"version":1,"via":2,"vs":5,"wanting":2,"was":1,"what":3,"when":1,"where":2,"which":4,"why":1,"with":2,"without":1,"works":1,"worlds":1,"x":3}},{"dl":414,"n":"IPFS Content-Addressed Versioned P2P File System","s":"papers/gossip-p2p/ipfs-content-addressed-versioned-p2p-file-system","secs":[{"h":"IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Juan Benet (2014). *arXiv:1407.3561 (DRAFT 3)*. Source file: `downloads/ipfs_benet.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3561)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Original whitepaper introducing the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), a peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol that synthesises ideas from Git (Merkle-DAG object model), BitTorrent (incentivised block exchange via BitSwap), DHTs (Kademlia-based routing), and self-certifying file systems (SFS) into a single content-addressed distributed file system. Objects are referenced by the cryptographic hash of their contents, giving intrinsic integrity, deduplication, and location independence. The design stack layers an identity/peer-routing layer (S/Kademlia DHT), a block exchange layer (BitSwap with tit-for-tat credit), an object graph layer (Merkle-DAG with links), a naming layer (IPNS for mutable pointers signed by keys), and application-level filesystem semantics. The paper positions IPFS as the substrate for a \"permanent web\" where content survives independent of any particular host."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Content addressing: name = hash(content) -> intrinsic integrity, dedup, cacheability - Merkle-DAG as universal object model spanning files, directories, commits - BitSwap: BitTorrent-like block trading generalised beyond single swarms - Kademlia DHT for peer and content routing - IPNS: mutable pointer namespace via signed records keyed to public keys - Self-certifying paths and location-independent fetching"},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[Content-addressed Storage]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Protocol Documents]] - [[Decentralized Identifiers]] - [[Hypermedia]] - [[Semantic Web]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** A single peer-to-peer protocol layered over Merkle-DAG content addressing can unify the roles played today by HTTP, Git, BitTorrent, and CDNs, yielding a permanent, decentralised, versioned web. - **Mechanism:** Five-layer stack — S/Kademlia DHT for identity/routing, BitSwap for incentive-compatible block exchange, Merkle-DAG for the object graph, IPNS for mutable naming via signed records, and filesystem-level conventions above that. All objects are referenced by their SHA-2 multihash, so any peer can serve any object and clients can verify it independently. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Content-addressed Storage]], Merkle-DAG, [[Gossip Protocols]], BitSwap, IPNS, Self-certifying paths, [[Peer Sampling Service]], [[Hypermedia]] - **Stance:** engineering / systems - **Relates to:** Directly underpins the distribution story for [[Protocol Documents]] in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] — Agora PDs are hash-identified and can be served over any content-addressed store, of which IPFS is the canonical example. Shares the decentralised-naming motivation with [[Decentralized Identifiers]] and the self-organising-overlay motivation with [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"content-addressing #p2p #distributed-systems #protocols #merkle-dag","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"1407":2,"2":1,"2014":1,"3":1,"3561":2,"a":9,"above":1,"abs":1,"addressed":5,"addressing":3,"agora":1,"all":1,"an":2,"and":10,"any":4,"application":1,"are":3,"arxiv":2,"as":2,"based":1,"be":1,"benet":1,"beyond":1,"bitswap":5,"bittorrent":3,"block":4,"by":4,"cacheability":1,"can":4,"canonical":1,"cdns":1,"certifying":3,"claim":1,"clients":1,"commits":1,"communication":2,"compatible":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":11,"contents":1,"contribution":1,"conventions":1,"credit":1,"cryptographic":1,"dag":7,"decentralised":2,"decentralized":2,"dedup":1,"deduplication":1,"design":1,"dht":3,"dhts":1,"directly":1,"directories":1,"distributed":2,"distribution":1,"documents":2,"draft":1,"engineering":1,"example":1,"exchange":3,"fetching":1,"file":5,"files":1,"filesystem":2,"five":1,"for":11,"from":1,"fungi":1,"generalised":1,"git":2,"giving":1,"gossip":2,"graph":2,"hash":3,"host":1,"http":1,"https":1,"hypermedia":3,"ideas":2,"identified":1,"identifiers":2,"identity":2,"in":1,"incentive":1,"incentivised":1,"independence":1,"independent":2,"independently":1,"inspired":1,"integrity":2,"interplanetary":1,"into":1,"intrinsic":2,"introduced":1,"introducing":1,"ipfs":4,"ipns":4,"is":1,"it":1,"juan":1,"kademlia":4,"key":1,"keyed":1,"keys":2,"layer":5,"layered":1,"layers":1,"level":2,"like":1,"links":1,"llms":2,"location":2,"mechanism":1,"merkle":7,"model":2,"motivation":2,"multihash":1,"mutable":3,"myconet":1,"name":1,"namespace":1,"naming":3,"networks":2,"object":5,"objects":2,"of":5,"org":1,"organising":1,"original":1,"over":2,"overlay":2,"p2p":2,"paper":1,"particular":1,"paths":2,"pds":1,"peer":9,"permanent":2,"played":1,"pointer":1,"pointers":1,"positions":1,"protocol":6,"protocols":3,"public":1,"records":2,"reference":1,"referenced":2,"relates":1,"roles":1,"routing":4,"s":2,"sampling":2,"scalable":2,"self":4,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"serve":1,"served":1,"service":2,"sfs":1,"sha":1,"shares":1,"signed":3,"single":3,"so":1,"source":1,"spanning":1,"stack":2,"stance":1,"storage":2,"store":1,"story":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"survives":1,"swarms":1,"synthesises":1,"system":3,"systems":3,"tags":1,"tat":1,"that":2,"the":11,"their":2,"tit":1,"to":4,"today":1,"trading":1,"underpins":1,"unify":1,"universal":1,"url":1,"used":1,"verify":1,"versioned":2,"via":3,"web":3,"where":1,"which":1,"whitepaper":1,"with":4,"yielding":1}},{"dl":425,"n":"Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay","s":"papers/gossip-p2p/myconet-fungi-inspired-superpeer-overlay","secs":[{"h":"Myconet: A Fungi-Inspired Model for Superpeer-based Peer-to-Peer Overlay Topologies","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Paul L. Snyder, Rachel Greenstadt, Giuseppe Valetto. *Drexel University Dept. of Computer Science*. Source file: `Myconet_A_Fungi_Inspired_Model_for_Super.pdf`. [URL](https://www.cs.drexel.edu/tech-reports/myconet-saso2009.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Myconet is a biologically inspired self-organizing overlay-construction protocol for superpeer-based P2P networks, drawing its design from the growth patterns of fungal mycelia. Each node is modeled as a \"biomass peer\" with a capacity; hyphal peers extend links toward high-capacity regions, branch when saturated, and become immobile superpeers at full utilization. The protocol layers these stigmergic transitions on top of Newscast-style gossip to move biomass toward the highest-capacity peers and dynamically maintain a near-optimal number of well-connected superpeers. Evaluation shows Myconet converges to approximately optimal superpeer counts across power-law and uniform capacity distributions, reaches ~95% utilization, and self-heals quickly after catastrophic loss of 30-50% of superpeers. It outperforms or matches comparable approaches (SG-1, ERASP) while providing stronger topology stability and resistance to targeted attack on superpeers."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Biomass peers + hyphal peers + immobile (superpeer) peers with state transitions. - Stigmergy over Newscast gossip for local-only self-organization. - Extension, branching, and absorption rules tuned to heterogeneous capacities. - Near-optimal superpeer count and high utilization under realistic distributions. - Resilience: rapid reconvergence after catastrophic peer loss."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]] - [[Large Population Models]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Fungal mycelium growth — biomass flowing along hyphae toward productive regions — is a productive metaphor for self-organising superpeer overlays, yielding topologies that are near-optimal in superpeer count, highly utilised, and resilient to targeted attack. - **Mechanism:** Models each peer with a capacity and three states (biomass, hyphal extending/branching, immobile superpeer); state transitions driven by local biomass comparisons with neighbours obtained via Newscast gossip; branching hyphae explore new capacity, immobile hyphae absorb biomass up to saturation. Simulation on 10^3–10^6 peers with power-law and uniform capacity distributions shows convergence in ~30-35 rounds and recovery from 50% catastrophic peer loss. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Stigmergy]], [[Mycelium Model]], [[Hyphal Peer]], [[Biomass]], [[Superpeer Overlay]], [[Newscast Gossip]], [[Self-Organising Topology]], [[Catastrophic Failure Recovery]] - **Stance:** empirical / engineering (bio-inspired) - **Relates to:** Uses the peer-sampling/gossip substrate formalised in [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] and [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]]; exemplifies the structural/ensemble self-organisation advocated by [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] and the bio-inspired cognition of [[Computational Boundary of a Self]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"bio-inspired #p2p #superpeer #self-organization","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"10":2,"3":1,"30":2,"35":1,"50":2,"6":1,"95":1,"a":8,"absorb":1,"absorption":1,"across":1,"adaptation":1,"adaptive":1,"advocated":1,"after":2,"agent":1,"aggregation":1,"along":1,"and":13,"approaches":1,"approximately":1,"are":1,"as":1,"ascens":1,"at":1,"attack":2,"awareness":1,"based":3,"become":1,"bio":3,"biologically":1,"biomass":8,"boundary":1,"branch":1,"branching":3,"by":2,"capacities":1,"capacity":7,"catastrophic":4,"claim":1,"cognition":1,"comparable":1,"comparisons":1,"computational":1,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connected":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":1,"convergence":1,"converges":1,"count":2,"counts":1,"cs":1,"dept":1,"design":1,"distributed":1,"distributions":3,"drawing":1,"drexel":2,"driven":1,"dynamic":1,"dynamically":1,"each":2,"edu":1,"empirical":1,"engineering":1,"ensemble":1,"erasp":1,"evaluation":1,"exemplifies":1,"explore":1,"expression":1,"extend":1,"extending":1,"extension":1,"failure":1,"file":1,"flowing":1,"for":4,"formalised":1,"from":2,"full":1,"fungal":2,"fungi":1,"giuseppe":1,"gossip":7,"gossiping":1,"greenstadt":1,"growth":2,"heals":1,"heterogeneous":1,"high":2,"highest":1,"highly":1,"https":1,"hyphae":3,"hyphal":4,"ideas":1,"immobile":4,"in":5,"inspired":5,"introduced":1,"is":3,"it":1,"its":1,"key":1,"l":1,"large":2,"law":2,"layers":1,"links":1,"local":2,"loss":3,"maintain":1,"matches":1,"mechanism":1,"metaphor":1,"model":2,"modeled":1,"models":2,"move":1,"multi":1,"mycelia":1,"mycelium":2,"myconet":4,"near":3,"neighbours":1,"networks":2,"new":1,"newscast":4,"node":1,"number":1,"obtained":1,"of":8,"on":3,"only":1,"optimal":4,"or":1,"organisation":1,"organising":2,"organization":2,"organizing":1,"outperforms":1,"over":1,"overlay":3,"overlays":1,"p2p":2,"patterns":1,"paul":1,"pdf":1,"peer":9,"peers":6,"population":1,"power":2,"productive":2,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"providing":1,"quickly":1,"rachel":1,"rapid":1,"reaches":1,"realistic":1,"reconvergence":1,"recovery":2,"reference":1,"regions":2,"relates":1,"reports":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"resistance":1,"rounds":1,"rules":1,"sampling":2,"saso2009":1,"saturated":1,"saturation":1,"science":1,"self":12,"service":1,"sg":1,"shows":2,"simulation":1,"snyder":1,"source":1,"stability":1,"stance":1,"state":2,"states":1,"stigmergic":1,"stigmergy":2,"stronger":1,"structural":1,"style":1,"substrate":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":10,"superpeers":4,"systems":3,"tags":1,"targeted":2,"tech":1,"that":1,"the":6,"these":1,"three":1,"to":8,"top":1,"topologies":2,"topology":2,"toward":3,"transitions":3,"tuned":1,"under":1,"uniform":2,"university":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"utilised":1,"utilization":3,"valetto":1,"via":1,"well":1,"when":1,"while":1,"with":5,"www":1,"yielding":1}},{"dl":386,"n":"Gossiping in Distributed Systems","s":"papers/gossip-p2p/gossiping-in-distributed-systems","secs":[{"h":"Gossiping in Distributed Systems","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Maarten van Steen (2007). *ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review*, Vol. 41, No. 5. Source file: `Gossiping_in_distributed_systems.pdf`. [URL](https://www.distributed-systems.net/my-data/papers/2007.osr.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This tutorial surveys the \"gossip revival\" in distributed systems, providing a unifying framework for reasoning about the broad space of gossip-based protocols now used far beyond their original role as epidemic reliable multicast. The authors organize gossip protocols by three crucial parameters: *peer selection* (who to talk to), *data exchanged* (what to send), and *data processing* (what to do with what arrives); varying these three gives rise to dissemination, peer sampling, aggregation, overlay/topology construction, resource monitoring, and slicing protocols. They illustrate each axis with canonical examples — Lpbcast and Newscast for membership, Push-Sum and T-Man for aggregation and overlay construction, Astrolabe for monitoring — and highlight why gossip's randomized, local-only interactions produce emergent convergent global behavior with exceptional robustness to churn and failures. The paper emphasizes gossip's use in *convergent*, not just divergent (epidemic) behaviors."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three-parameter gossip framework: peer selection, data exchanged, data processing. - Applications: dissemination, peer sampling, aggregation, topology construction, monitoring, slicing. - Convergent behavior from local random pairwise exchanges. - Peer sampling service is the common substrate most gossip protocols assume. - Robustness through probabilistic redundancy and randomization."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** The sprawling family of gossip-based algorithms can be unified as a three-parameter design space — peer selection, data exchanged, data processing — and the same substrate supports not just epidemic dissemination but convergent behaviours including aggregation, overlay construction, and monitoring. - **Mechanism:** Presents a generic active/passive-thread gossip skeleton; classifies protocols along the three parameters with canonical instances (Lpbcast, Newscast, Cyclon, T-Man, Push-Sum, Astrolabe, GEMS); highlights how peer-sampling acts as the common foundational service enabling higher-level applications. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Gossip Framework]], [[Peer Selection]], [[Data Exchange]], [[Data Processing]], [[Peer Sampling Service]], [[Convergent Gossip]], [[Epidemic Dissemination]], [[Overlay Construction]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Provides the taxonomy that situates [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] (aggregation), [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] (Push-Sum), [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] (topology construction), and the gossip-training mode surveyed in [[Edge Intelligence Survey]]. Anchor for [[Gossip Protocols]] hub."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"gossip #survey #epidemic #overlay","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"2007":2,"41":1,"5":1,"a":3,"about":1,"acm":1,"active":1,"acts":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":1,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":6,"algorithms":1,"along":1,"anchor":1,"and":11,"anne":1,"applications":2,"arrives":1,"as":3,"assume":1,"astrolabe":2,"authors":1,"axis":1,"based":4,"be":1,"behavior":2,"behaviors":1,"behaviours":1,"beyond":1,"broad":1,"but":1,"by":1,"can":1,"canonical":2,"churn":1,"claim":1,"classifies":1,"common":2,"computation":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"construction":6,"contribution":1,"convergent":5,"crucial":1,"cyclon":1,"data":9,"design":1,"dissemination":4,"distributed":3,"divergent":1,"do":1,"dynamic":1,"each":1,"edge":1,"emergent":1,"emphasizes":1,"enabling":1,"epidemic":5,"examples":1,"exceptional":1,"exchange":1,"exchanged":3,"exchanges":1,"failures":1,"family":1,"far":1,"file":1,"for":5,"foundational":1,"framework":3,"from":1,"fungi":1,"gems":1,"generic":1,"gives":1,"global":1,"gossip":17,"gossiping":1,"higher":1,"highlight":1,"highlights":1,"how":1,"https":1,"hub":1,"ideas":1,"illustrate":1,"in":5,"including":1,"information":1,"inspired":1,"instances":1,"intelligence":1,"interactions":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"just":2,"kermarrec":1,"key":1,"large":1,"level":1,"local":2,"lpbcast":2,"maarten":1,"man":2,"marie":1,"mechanism":1,"membership":1,"mode":1,"monitoring":4,"most":1,"multi":1,"multicast":1,"my":1,"myconet":1,"net":1,"networks":1,"newscast":2,"no":1,"not":2,"now":1,"of":3,"only":1,"operating":1,"organize":1,"original":1,"osr":1,"overlay":6,"pairwise":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"parameter":2,"parameters":2,"passive":1,"pdf":1,"peer":9,"presents":1,"probabilistic":1,"processing":4,"produce":1,"protocols":7,"provides":1,"providing":1,"push":3,"random":1,"randomization":1,"randomized":1,"reasoning":1,"redundancy":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"reliable":1,"resource":1,"review":1,"revival":1,"rise":1,"robustness":2,"role":1,"s":2,"same":1,"sampling":5,"selection":4,"self":1,"send":1,"service":3,"sigops":1,"situates":1,"skeleton":1,"slicing":2,"source":1,"space":2,"sprawling":1,"stance":1,"steen":1,"substrate":2,"sum":3,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"supports":1,"survey":3,"surveyed":1,"surveys":1,"systems":6,"t":2,"tags":1,"talk":1,"taxonomy":1,"that":1,"the":11,"their":1,"these":1,"they":1,"this":1,"thread":1,"three":5,"through":1,"to":7,"topology":3,"training":1,"tutorial":1,"unified":1,"unifying":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":2,"van":1,"varying":1,"vol":1,"what":3,"who":1,"why":1,"with":4,"www":1}},{"dl":435,"n":"Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information","s":"papers/gossip-p2p/gossip-based-computation-of-aggregate-information","secs":[{"h":"Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** David Kempe, Alin Dobra, Johannes Gehrke (2003). *FOCS 2003 (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science)*. Source file: `focs2003-gossip.pdf`. [URL](https://david-kempe.com/publications/aggregation.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper analyzes simple gossip protocols (epidemic-style, randomized pairwise exchanges) for computing aggregate functions — sums, averages, quantiles, random samples — over values held by nodes in highly dynamic distributed systems like P2P networks and sensor networks. The key contribution is the *Push-Sum* protocol, which distributes weight alongside value so that the ratio stored at each node converges exponentially fast to the true average, even in the face of node failures and message loss. The second contribution is a precise *diffusion speed* formalism linking protocol convergence to random walk / Markov chain mixing times, letting the authors analyze uniform gossip, flooding, and other mechanisms uniformly. Push-Sum converges in O(log n + log 1/ε + log 1/δ) rounds with exponentially small message sizes, making it suitable for massive, volatile networks."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Push-Sum: maintain (value, weight) pairs, exchange halves with random peer; ratio converges to global average. - Mass conservation invariant underlies correctness. - Diffusion speed = convergence rate, mapped to Markov chain mixing times. - Robust to node/link failures — degraded guarantee scales with 1/(1-µ)^2. - Extends to sums, quantiles, random samples, and arbitrary linear syntactic aggregates."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]] - [[Large Population Models]] - [[CALM Theorem]] — mass-conservation aggregation is the canonical monotonic primitive - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Monotonic Logic]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Aggregates (sums, averages, quantiles, random samples) over a massive, volatile network can be computed by simple gossip protocols that converge exponentially fast; a mass-conservation trick (Push-Sum) gives precise averages with only local pairwise exchange. - **Mechanism:** Introduces Push-Sum (each node maintains a (value, weight) pair and halves on exchange; ratio = average), generalises it to Push-Vector and Push-Synopses for linear synopses; defines diffusion speed connecting protocol convergence to random-walk mixing times on the communication graph; proves O(log n + log 1/ε + log 1/δ) convergence with robustness under message loss and node failure. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Push-Sum]], [[Mass Conservation]], [[Diffusion Speed]], [[Uniform Gossip]], [[Flooding]], [[Push-Synopses]], [[Random Walks on Graphs]], [[Aggregate Functions]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic / foundational (for gossip-based distributed algorithms) - **Relates to:** Theoretical foundation for [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] (which re-derives Push-Sum empirically as averaging) and underpins the aggregation primitives surveyed in [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] and [[Gossip Protocols]]; gossip training in [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] inherits this analysis."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"gossip #aggregation #distributed-computing #randomized-algorithms","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":6,"2":1,"2003":2,"a":4,"adaptive":1,"agent":1,"aggregate":3,"aggregates":2,"aggregation":5,"algorithms":2,"alin":1,"alongside":1,"analysis":1,"analyze":1,"analyzes":1,"and":9,"arbitrary":1,"as":1,"at":1,"authors":1,"average":3,"averages":3,"averaging":1,"based":3,"be":1,"by":2,"calm":2,"can":1,"canonical":1,"chain":2,"claim":1,"com":1,"communication":1,"computation":1,"computed":1,"computer":1,"computing":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connecting":1,"connections":1,"conservation":4,"consistency":1,"contribution":3,"converge":1,"convergence":4,"converges":3,"correctness":1,"david":2,"defines":1,"degraded":1,"derives":1,"diffusion":4,"distributed":5,"distributes":1,"dobra":1,"dynamic":2,"each":2,"easy":1,"edge":1,"empirically":1,"epidemic":1,"even":1,"exchange":3,"exchanges":1,"exponentially":3,"extends":1,"face":1,"failure":1,"failures":2,"fast":2,"file":1,"flooding":2,"focs":1,"for":5,"formal":1,"formalism":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"functions":2,"gehrke":1,"generalises":1,"gives":1,"global":1,"gossip":11,"gossiping":1,"graph":1,"graphs":1,"guarantee":1,"halves":2,"held":1,"highly":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"in":7,"information":1,"inherits":1,"intelligence":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"invariant":1,"is":4,"it":2,"johannes":1,"keeping":1,"kempe":2,"key":2,"large":2,"letting":1,"like":1,"linear":2,"link":1,"linking":1,"local":1,"log":6,"logic":1,"loss":2,"maintain":1,"maintains":1,"making":1,"mapped":1,"markov":2,"mass":4,"massive":2,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"message":3,"mixing":3,"models":1,"monotonic":2,"multi":1,"n":2,"network":1,"networks":4,"node":5,"nodes":1,"o":2,"of":3,"on":4,"only":1,"other":1,"over":2,"p2p":1,"pair":1,"pairs":1,"pairwise":2,"paper":1,"pdf":1,"peer":2,"population":1,"precise":2,"primitive":1,"primitives":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":4,"proves":1,"publications":1,"push":10,"quantiles":3,"random":7,"randomized":2,"rate":1,"ratio":3,"re":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"robust":1,"robustness":1,"rounds":1,"samples":3,"sampling":1,"scales":1,"science":1,"second":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"sensor":1,"service":1,"simple":2,"sizes":1,"small":1,"so":1,"source":1,"speed":4,"stance":1,"stored":1,"style":1,"suitable":1,"sum":7,"summary":1,"sums":3,"survey":1,"surveyed":1,"symposium":1,"synopses":3,"syntactic":1,"systems":4,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":10,"theorem":1,"theoretical":1,"this":2,"times":3,"to":9,"training":1,"trick":1,"true":1,"under":1,"underlies":1,"underpins":1,"uniform":2,"uniformly":1,"url":1,"used":1,"value":3,"values":1,"vector":1,"volatile":2,"walk":2,"walks":1,"weight":3,"when":1,"which":2,"with":5,"µ":1,"δ":2,"ε":2}},{"dl":414,"n":"Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks","s":"papers/gossip-p2p/gossip-based-aggregation-in-large-dynamic-networks","secs":[{"h":"Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Márk Jelasity, Alberto Montresor, Ozalp Babaoglu (2005). *ACM Transactions on Computer Systems*, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 219-252. Source file: `gossip.pdf`. [URL](http://www.cs.unibo.it/bison/publications/aggregation-tocs.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The paper presents a proactive, gossip-based protocol for continuously computing aggregate functions (averages, sums, counts, variances, network size, extremal values) over huge dynamic networks such as P2P and grid systems. Each node periodically picks a random neighbor and performs a push-pull exchange; pairwise averaging drives the variance of estimates to zero at a geometric rate while preserving the global mean (\"mass conservation\"). All nodes thus converge to the correct aggregate and adaptively track changes over time. Beyond core averaging, the authors show how to compute more complex aggregates (variance, network size via a single seed) and evaluate robustness under node churn and message loss, including a PlanetLab deployment. The protocol is attractive because it is simple, scalable, lightweight, and requires no centralized infrastructure — only a peer-sampling service."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Push-pull averaging: w_p, w_q ← (w_p + w_q)/2 drives variance to zero exponentially. - Mass conservation preserves global sum so global average remains unchanged. - Reactive vs. proactive aggregation; this work targets proactive, always-on aggregates. - Robustness to dynamism, churn, and message loss. - Underlying assumption: a peer-sampling service supplies uniform random neighbors."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[CALM Theorem]] — push-pull averaging is monotonic, hence coordination-free - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** A simple push-pull averaging gossip protocol — paired with a peer-sampling service — provides proactive, continuously-updated aggregates (average, sum, count, variance, network size, extrema) at large scale with geometric-rate convergence and robustness to churn and message loss. - **Mechanism:** Each node periodically picks a random neighbour via getNeighbor(), exchanges local estimate, and replaces both with their average; variance analysis as iterative reduction gives convergence factor independent of network size; adaptive restart mechanism handles dynamism; PlanetLab deployment validates the theory. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Push-Pull Gossip]], [[Proactive Aggregation]], [[Peer Sampling Service]], [[Variance Reduction]], [[Mass Conservation]], [[Convergence Factor]], [[Adaptive Protocols]] - **Stance:** engineering / empirical with formal analysis - **Relates to:** Practical complement to the theoretical [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] (Push-Sum); cited as a canonical aggregation example in [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]]; the peer-sampling substrate it assumes is the same used by [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] and other bio-inspired overlays."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"gossip #aggregation #p2p #adaptive","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"2":1,"2005":1,"219":1,"23":1,"252":1,"3":1,"a":12,"acm":1,"adaptive":4,"adaptively":1,"agent":1,"aggregate":3,"aggregates":3,"aggregation":6,"alberto":1,"all":1,"always":1,"analysis":2,"and":11,"as":3,"assumes":1,"assumption":1,"at":2,"attractive":1,"authors":1,"average":3,"averages":1,"averaging":5,"babaoglu":1,"based":3,"because":1,"beyond":1,"bio":1,"bison":1,"both":1,"by":1,"calm":2,"canonical":1,"centralized":1,"changes":1,"churn":3,"cited":1,"claim":1,"complement":1,"complex":1,"computation":1,"compute":1,"computer":1,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"conservation":3,"consistency":1,"continuously":2,"contribution":1,"converge":1,"convergence":3,"coordination":1,"core":1,"correct":1,"count":1,"counts":1,"cs":1,"deployment":2,"distributed":2,"drives":2,"dynamic":2,"dynamism":2,"each":2,"easy":1,"empirical":1,"engineering":1,"estimate":1,"estimates":1,"evaluate":1,"example":1,"exchange":1,"exchanges":1,"exponentially":1,"extrema":1,"extremal":1,"factor":2,"file":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"free":1,"functions":1,"fungi":1,"geometric":2,"getneighbor":1,"gives":1,"global":3,"gossip":7,"gossiping":1,"grid":1,"handles":1,"hence":1,"how":1,"http":1,"huge":1,"ideas":1,"in":3,"including":1,"independent":1,"information":1,"infrastructure":1,"inspired":2,"introduced":1,"is":5,"it":3,"iterative":1,"jelasity":1,"keeping":1,"key":1,"large":2,"lightweight":1,"local":1,"loss":3,"mass":3,"mean":1,"mechanism":2,"message":3,"monotonic":1,"montresor":1,"more":1,"multi":1,"myconet":1,"márk":1,"neighbor":1,"neighbors":1,"neighbour":1,"network":4,"networks":2,"no":2,"node":3,"nodes":1,"of":3,"on":2,"only":1,"other":1,"over":2,"overlay":1,"overlays":1,"ozalp":1,"p":2,"p2p":2,"paired":1,"pairwise":1,"paper":1,"pdf":1,"peer":5,"performs":1,"periodically":2,"picks":2,"planetlab":2,"pp":1,"practical":1,"presents":1,"preserves":1,"preserving":1,"proactive":5,"protocol":3,"protocols":2,"provides":1,"publications":1,"pull":5,"push":6,"q":2,"random":3,"rate":2,"reactive":1,"reduction":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"remains":1,"replaces":1,"requires":1,"restart":1,"robustness":3,"same":1,"sampling":5,"scalable":1,"scale":1,"seed":1,"self":1,"service":4,"show":1,"simple":2,"single":1,"size":4,"so":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"substrate":1,"such":1,"sum":3,"summary":1,"sums":1,"superpeer":1,"supplies":1,"systems":5,"tags":1,"targets":1,"the":10,"their":1,"theorem":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"thus":1,"time":1,"to":8,"tocs":1,"track":1,"transactions":1,"unchanged":1,"under":1,"underlying":1,"unibo":1,"uniform":1,"updated":1,"url":1,"used":2,"validates":1,"values":1,"variance":6,"variances":1,"via":2,"vol":1,"vs":1,"w":4,"when":1,"while":1,"with":4,"work":1,"www":1,"zero":2}},{"dl":366,"n":"Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models","s":"papers/trust-rep/review-on-computational-trust-and-reputation-models","secs":[{"h":"Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sabater, Sierra (2005). *Artificial Intelligence Review*. Source file: `Review_on_Computational_Trust_and_Reputation_Model.pdf`. [URL](https://www.iiia.csic.es/~jsabater/Publications/2005-AIR.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A panoramic review of computational trust and reputation models developed for multi-agent systems and electronic commerce. Sabater and Sierra classify models along several dimensions: conceptual basis (cognitive vs. game-theoretical), information sources (direct experience, witness information, sociological signals, prejudice), visibility (global vs. subjective), granularity (single- vs. multi-context), assumptions about cheating behavior, type of exchanged information, and provision of reliability measures. The survey then applies this framework to representative models (Marsh's early trust model, Sporas, Histos, ReGreT, AFRAS, FIRE, eBay-style mechanisms, Yu & Singh's evidential model, etc.), identifying under-explored aspects: sociological information, multi-context reasoning, and principled handling of liars. It argues that as MAS applications grow more complex, trust models must become richer to accommodate social structures and contextual reasoning."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Trust as cognitive belief vs. game-theoretic subjective probability. - Direct experience, witness (word-of-mouth), sociological signals, prejudice. - Global (online reputation) vs. subjective trust per partner. - Three levels of cheating-resistance: ignored, biasing-only, liars. - Need for multi-context, sociologically-aware trust."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Computational trust/reputation must be classified along several independent dimensions (conceptual basis, information sources, visibility, granularity, cheating assumptions) if models are to be compared and composed rather than merely enumerated. - **Mechanism:** The authors propose a multi-axis taxonomy and apply it to a dozen canonical models (Marsh, Sporas, Histos, ReGreT, AFRAS, FIRE, eBay-style aggregation, Yu & Singh), using each axis to surface gaps: sociological signals, multi-context trust, and principled liar handling are under-served despite being pivotal for realistic MAS. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Trust]], [[Reputation]], [[Direct Experience]], [[Witness Reputation]], [[Sociological Reputation]], [[Prejudice]], [[ReGreT]], [[FIRE]], [[Cognitive Trust]], [[Game-Theoretic Trust]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Supplies the conceptual vocabulary picked up by self-organisation work such as [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] (DSmT trust fusion) and contextualises verifiability debates in [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]; links to [[Gossip Protocols]] through witness-information propagation."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"trust #reputation #multi-agent #survey","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"2005":2,"a":4,"about":1,"accommodate":1,"afras":2,"agent":6,"aggregation":1,"air":1,"along":2,"an":1,"and":12,"applications":1,"applies":1,"apply":1,"are":2,"argues":1,"artificial":1,"as":3,"aspects":1,"assumptions":2,"authors":1,"aware":1,"axis":2,"basis":2,"be":2,"become":1,"behavior":1,"being":1,"belief":1,"biasing":1,"by":1,"canonical":1,"cheating":3,"claim":1,"classified":1,"classify":1,"cognitive":3,"commerce":1,"communication":2,"compared":1,"complex":1,"composed":1,"composite":1,"computational":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":4,"connections":1,"context":4,"contextual":1,"contextualises":1,"contribution":1,"csic":1,"debates":1,"despite":1,"developed":1,"dimensions":2,"direct":3,"dozen":1,"dsmt":1,"each":1,"early":1,"ebay":2,"electronic":1,"enumerated":1,"es":1,"etc":1,"evidential":1,"exchanged":1,"experience":3,"explored":1,"file":1,"fire":3,"for":3,"framework":1,"fusion":1,"game":3,"gaps":1,"global":2,"gossip":2,"granularity":2,"grow":1,"handling":2,"histos":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifying":1,"if":1,"ignored":1,"iiia":1,"in":2,"independent":1,"information":6,"intelligence":1,"introduced":1,"it":2,"jsabater":1,"key":1,"languages":2,"levels":1,"liar":1,"liars":2,"links":1,"marsh":2,"mas":2,"measures":1,"mechanism":2,"mechanisms":1,"merely":1,"model":2,"models":7,"more":1,"mouth":1,"multi":8,"must":2,"need":1,"negotiation":1,"network":1,"of":6,"on":1,"online":1,"only":1,"organisation":2,"panoramic":1,"partner":1,"pdf":1,"per":1,"picked":1,"pivotal":1,"prejudice":3,"principled":2,"principles":1,"probability":1,"propagation":1,"propose":1,"protocols":2,"provision":1,"publications":1,"rather":1,"realistic":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"regret":3,"relates":1,"reliability":1,"representative":1,"reputation":9,"resistance":1,"rethinking":1,"review":3,"richer":1,"s":2,"sabater":2,"self":2,"served":1,"several":2,"sierra":2,"signals":3,"singh":2,"single":1,"social":1,"sociological":5,"sociologically":1,"source":1,"sources":2,"sporas":2,"stance":1,"structures":1,"style":2,"subjective":3,"such":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"surface":1,"survey":3,"systems":2,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":4,"then":1,"theoretic":2,"theoretical":1,"this":1,"three":1,"through":1,"to":7,"trust":15,"type":1,"under":2,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"verifiability":1,"visibility":2,"vocabulary":1,"vs":5,"witness":4,"word":1,"work":1,"www":1,"yu":2}},{"dl":407,"n":"Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS","s":"papers/trust-rep/self-adaptation-self-expression-self-awareness-ascens","secs":[{"h":"On Self-adaptation, Self-expression, and Self-awareness in Autonomic Service Component Ensembles","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Franco Zambonelli, Nicola Bicocchi, Giacomo Cabri, Letizia Leonardi, Mariachiara Puviani (2011). *SASO Workshops 2011*. Source file: `On_Self-Adaptation_Self-Expression_and_Self-Awaren.pdf`. [URL](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6114583/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This ASCENS-project position paper frames three research issues for building autonomic service-component ensembles: (i) schemes that enable self-adaptive behavior in individual components and ensembles, (ii) mechanisms for *self-expression* — dynamic changes to the structure of interaction protocols and coordination topology — and (iii) *self-awareness* — components knowing enough about context and peers to choose appropriate adaptation schemes. The authors organize adaptation along two dimensions: *where* (individual vs. collective) and *what* (behavioral self-adaptation vs. structural self-expression). A swarm/leader/corridor robotics case study illustrates that different situations call for qualitatively different adaptation regimes, and that moving between regimes requires self-awareness. The paper surveys the state of the art and argues for unified frameworks that span individual and ensemble-level adaptation while keeping human cognitive load manageable."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Two-dimensional taxonomy of adaptation: where (individual/collective) × what (behavior/structure). - Self-expression = dynamically changing interaction protocols and topology. - Self-awareness as meta-capability enabling choice among adaptation schemes. - Robotics case study: leader, corridor, swarm regimes. - ASCENS roadmap for autonomic component ensembles."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]] - [[Large Population Models]] - [[Interaction Protocols]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Building autonomic service-component ensembles requires distinguishing three complementary self-* capabilities — self-adaptation (behaviour), self-expression (structure/protocols/topology), and self-awareness (meta-choice among schemes) — along two orthogonal dimensions: individual vs. collective and behavioural vs. structural. - **Mechanism:** Position paper layout: 2×2 adaptation taxonomy; distinction between self-adaptation and self-expression; robotics case study with three regimes (Leader, Corridor/Peers, Swarm) showing each calls for different adaptation schemes; articulation of four self-awareness sub-issues (understand amount/level of context, capabilities, trade-offs, scheme properties). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Self-Adaptation]], [[Self-Expression]], [[Self-Awareness]], [[Autonomic Service Component Ensembles]], [[ASCENS]], [[Adaptation Dimensions]], [[Interaction Protocol Change]], [[Meta-Adaptation]] - **Stance:** foundational / survey / position - **Relates to:** Provides the conceptual scaffolding picked up by bio-inspired self-organisation work such as [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] and [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]; self-awareness thread resonates with agency/Selfhood arguments in [[Computational Boundary of a Self]]; protocol-change motif connects to [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"self-adaptation #autonomic-computing #ascens #ensembles","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"2":2,"2011":2,"6114583":1,"a":4,"about":1,"adaptation":16,"adaptive":2,"agency":1,"agent":2,"along":2,"among":2,"amount":1,"an":1,"and":14,"appropriate":1,"argues":1,"arguments":1,"art":1,"articulation":1,"as":2,"ascens":4,"authors":1,"autonomic":6,"awareness":8,"behavior":2,"behavioral":1,"behaviour":1,"behavioural":1,"between":2,"bicocchi":1,"bio":1,"boundary":1,"building":2,"by":1,"cabri":1,"call":1,"calls":1,"capabilities":2,"capability":1,"case":3,"change":2,"changes":1,"changing":1,"choice":2,"choose":1,"claim":1,"cognitive":1,"collective":3,"communication":1,"complementary":1,"component":5,"components":2,"composite":1,"computational":1,"computing":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"connections":1,"connects":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"coordination":1,"corridor":3,"different":3,"dimensional":1,"dimensions":3,"distinction":1,"distinguishing":1,"document":1,"dynamic":1,"dynamically":1,"each":1,"edge":1,"enable":1,"enabling":1,"enough":1,"ensemble":1,"ensembles":7,"expression":7,"file":1,"for":7,"foundational":1,"four":1,"frames":1,"frameworks":1,"franco":1,"fungi":1,"giacomo":1,"https":1,"human":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"ieee":1,"ieeexplore":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"illustrates":1,"in":4,"individual":5,"inspired":2,"intelligence":1,"interaction":4,"introduced":1,"issues":2,"keeping":1,"key":1,"knowing":1,"large":1,"layout":1,"leader":3,"leonardi":1,"letizia":1,"level":2,"llms":1,"load":1,"loop":1,"manageable":1,"mariachiara":1,"mechanism":2,"mechanisms":1,"meta":3,"metacognitive":1,"models":1,"motif":1,"moving":1,"multi":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"nicola":1,"of":7,"offs":1,"on":1,"org":1,"organisation":2,"organize":1,"orthogonal":1,"overlay":1,"paper":3,"peers":2,"picked":1,"population":1,"position":3,"project":1,"properties":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":4,"provides":1,"puviani":1,"qualitatively":1,"reference":1,"regimes":4,"relates":1,"requires":2,"research":1,"resonates":1,"roadmap":1,"robotics":3,"saso":1,"scaffolding":1,"scalable":1,"scheme":1,"schemes":5,"self":27,"selfhood":1,"service":4,"showing":1,"situations":1,"source":1,"span":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"structural":2,"structure":3,"study":3,"sub":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"survey":1,"surveys":1,"swarm":3,"systems":2,"tags":1,"taxonomy":2,"that":4,"the":6,"this":1,"thread":1,"three":3,"to":4,"topology":3,"trade":1,"two":3,"understand":1,"unified":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vs":4,"what":2,"where":2,"while":1,"with":2,"work":1,"workshops":1,"zambonelli":1}},{"dl":388,"n":"A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network","s":"papers/trust-rep/a-composite-self-organisation-mechanism-in-an-agent-network","secs":[{"h":"A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Ye, D., Zhang, M., Bai, Q. (2011). *WISE 2011, LNCS 6997, Springer*. Source file: `WISE2011-2.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24434-6_19)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors propose a decentralized self-organization mechanism that lets agents in a collaborative task-allocation network dynamically adapt their weighted relations (peer-to-peer and subordinate-superior) to improve overall profit. The mechanism combines two components: a Dezert-Smarandache-theory-based trust model that fuses direct experience and neighbor opinions to select candidate partners, and a multi-agent Q-learning algorithm that learns which relation-adaptation actions (enhance/weaken the relation type) pay off. Unlike prior approaches that assume crisp binary relations, this model uses weighted relation strengths in [0,1], allowing gradual rather than sudden social change. Agents aim to minimize communication, computation, and management cost while maximizing subtask benefit. Reward matrices defined over action pairs couple the two learners so that joint optimal adaptations emerge."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Weighted relations replace crisp relations for realism. - DSmT trust model fuses self and witness evidence. - Multi-agent Q-learning for joint relation adaptation. - Profit = benefit − (communication + computation + management costs). - Decentralized, resilient to single-node failures."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]] - [[Negotiation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":25,"t":"- **Claim:** Decentralised task-allocation networks self-organise more effectively when agents adapt weighted (rather than binary) relations via a composite mechanism that fuses a DSmT-based trust model with multi-agent Q-learning. - **Mechanism:** Each pair of agents maintains peer-to-peer and subordinate-superior weights in [0,1]. Candidate partners for a subtask are selected using Dezert-Smarandache-theory fusion of direct experience and neighbour opinions (handling conflicting/paradoxical evidence). A multi-agent Q-learning algorithm with coupled reward matrices learns enhance/weaken adaptation actions on those weights, optimising profit = subtask benefit − (communication + computation + management) cost. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Self-Organisation]], [[Weighted Relation]], [[Dezert-Smarandache Theory]], [[Multi-Agent Q-Learning]], [[Trust Fusion]], [[Relation Adaptation]], [[Task Allocation Network]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Operationalises ideas surveyed in [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] (witness + direct evidence fusion); complements gossip-style information exchange in [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]]; the decentralised resilience theme echoes [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":32,"t":""},{"h":"self-organization #multi-agent #q-learning #trust","l":33,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":2,"1":2,"10":1,"1007":1,"19":1,"2011":2,"24434":1,"3":1,"6":1,"642":1,"6997":1,"978":1,"a":9,"action":1,"actions":2,"adapt":2,"adaptation":4,"adaptations":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":8,"agents":4,"aggregation":1,"aim":1,"algorithm":2,"allocation":3,"allowing":1,"an":1,"and":9,"approaches":1,"are":1,"assume":1,"authors":1,"automata":1,"bai":1,"based":3,"benefit":3,"binary":2,"candidate":2,"change":1,"claim":1,"collaborative":1,"combines":1,"communication":3,"complements":1,"components":1,"composite":2,"computation":3,"computational":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conflicting":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"cost":2,"costs":1,"couple":1,"coupled":1,"crisp":2,"d":1,"decentralised":2,"decentralized":2,"defined":1,"dezert":3,"direct":3,"doi":1,"dsmt":2,"dynamic":1,"dynamically":1,"each":1,"echoes":1,"effectively":1,"emerge":1,"engineering":1,"enhance":2,"evidence":3,"exchange":1,"experience":2,"failures":1,"file":1,"for":3,"fuses":3,"fusion":3,"gossip":3,"gradual":1,"handling":1,"https":1,"ideas":2,"improve":1,"in":7,"information":1,"introduced":1,"joint":2,"key":1,"large":1,"learners":1,"learning":6,"learns":2,"lets":1,"lncs":1,"m":1,"maintains":1,"management":3,"matrices":2,"maximizing":1,"mechanism":5,"minimize":1,"model":4,"models":1,"more":1,"multi":7,"negotiation":1,"neighbor":1,"neighbour":1,"network":3,"networks":2,"node":1,"of":3,"off":1,"on":2,"operationalises":1,"opinions":2,"optimal":1,"optimising":1,"org":1,"organisation":2,"organise":1,"organization":2,"over":1,"overall":1,"pair":1,"pairs":1,"paradoxical":1,"partners":2,"pay":1,"peer":5,"prior":1,"profit":3,"propose":1,"protocols":1,"q":7,"rather":2,"realism":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"relation":6,"relations":5,"replace":1,"reproducing":1,"reputation":2,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"review":1,"reward":2,"sampling":1,"select":1,"selected":1,"self":8,"service":1,"single":1,"smarandache":3,"so":1,"social":1,"source":1,"springer":1,"stance":1,"strengths":1,"style":1,"subordinate":2,"subtask":3,"sudden":1,"summary":1,"superior":2,"surveyed":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"task":3,"than":2,"that":6,"the":5,"their":1,"theme":1,"theory":4,"this":1,"those":1,"to":7,"trust":7,"two":2,"type":1,"unlike":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"via":1,"weaken":2,"weighted":5,"weights":2,"when":1,"which":1,"while":1,"wise":1,"with":2,"witness":2,"ye":1,"zhang":1}},{"dl":448,"n":"Computational Boundary of a Self","s":"papers/trust-rep/computational-boundary-of-a-self","secs":[{"h":"The Computational Boundary of a \"Self\": Developmental Bioelectricity Drives Multicellularity and Scale-Free Cognition","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Michael Levin (2019). *Frontiers in Psychology*, Vol. 10, Article 2688. Source file: `fpsyg-10-02688.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02688)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Levin proposes a biologically grounded, scale-free definition of cognitive \"Individuals\" based on their capacity to pursue goals at a characteristic level of scale and organization. A Self is demarcated by a *computational surface* — a spatio-temporal \"cognitive light cone\" defining what events it can measure, model, and influence. Higher goal-directed agency, he argues, evolves smoothly from the primal homeostatic TOTE loop that living things use to reduce stress between current and life-optimal conditions. The central mechanism is *developmental bioelectricity* — the ability of cells to form bioelectrical networks (via gap junctions, ion channels) that process information and guide embryogenesis, regeneration, and possibly higher cognition. Levin sketches gradual evolutionary steps from physiological homeostasis in single cells to memory, prediction, and complex cognition, proposing that multi-scale Individuals emerge from the \"scale-up of the basic drive of infotaxis.\" Implications span cancer biology, AI, bioengineering, and exobiology."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Individuals defined by goal-pursuit capability and cognitive light cone, not anatomy. - Developmental bioelectricity as substrate for scale-free cognition. - Continuum from stimulus-response to predictive agency (TOTE loops). - Cancer as a shift in the boundary of the Self to a single-cell scope. - Testable predictions for biomedicine, evolutionary biology, and AI."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[Weak Agency]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Large Population Models]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** A cognitive \"Individual\" is demarcated not by anatomy but by a computational surface — the spatio-temporal cognitive light cone over which it can measure, model, and act — and such Selves scale up smoothly via developmental bioelectricity from single cells to multicellular organisms. - **Mechanism:** Synthesises cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and developmental physiology; defines Individuality by goal-pursuit capacity at a level of organisation; proposes a continuum of cognitive powers (TOTE loops parametrised by memory/prediction depth); argues gap-junctional bioelectric networks are the substrate that binds sub-agents into larger Selves, with cancer as a concrete boundary-shrinkage phenomenon. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Cognitive Light Cone]], [[Scale-Free Cognition]], [[Developmental Bioelectricity]], [[Individuality]], [[TOTE Loop]], [[Infotaxis]], [[Computational Surface]], [[Goal-Directedness]] - **Stance:** foundational / theoretical-biology - **Relates to:** Provides a biological grounding for the multi-scale agency assumptions behind [[Multi-Agent Systems]] and [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]]; the TOTE/homeostasis framing connects to control-loop views in [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]; informs what \"agent\" could mean for [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] and bio-inspired coordination."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"bioelectricity #cognition #agency #multi-scale #levin","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"02688":1,"10":2,"2019":2,"2688":1,"3389":1,"a":15,"ability":1,"act":1,"adaptation":1,"adaptive":1,"agency":6,"agent":5,"agents":1,"ai":2,"an":1,"anatomy":2,"and":15,"are":1,"argues":2,"article":1,"as":3,"ascens":1,"assumptions":1,"at":2,"awareness":1,"based":1,"basic":1,"behind":1,"between":1,"binds":1,"bio":1,"bioelectric":1,"bioelectrical":1,"bioelectricity":6,"bioengineering":1,"biological":1,"biologically":1,"biology":4,"biomedicine":1,"boundary":3,"but":1,"by":6,"can":2,"cancer":3,"capability":1,"capacity":2,"cell":1,"cells":3,"central":1,"channels":1,"characteristic":1,"claim":1,"cognition":6,"cognitive":8,"complex":1,"composite":1,"computational":4,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conditions":1,"cone":4,"connections":1,"connects":1,"continuum":2,"contribution":1,"control":1,"coordination":1,"could":1,"current":1,"defined":1,"defines":1,"defining":1,"definition":1,"demarcated":2,"depth":1,"developmental":6,"directed":1,"directedness":1,"doi":1,"drive":1,"drives":1,"embryogenesis":1,"emerge":1,"events":1,"evolutionary":3,"evolves":1,"exobiology":1,"expression":1,"file":1,"for":4,"form":1,"foundational":1,"fpsyg":1,"framing":1,"free":4,"from":5,"frontiers":1,"fungi":1,"gap":2,"goal":4,"goals":1,"gradual":1,"grounded":1,"grounding":1,"guide":1,"he":1,"higher":2,"homeostasis":2,"homeostatic":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implications":1,"in":5,"individual":1,"individuality":2,"individuals":3,"influence":1,"information":1,"informs":1,"infotaxis":2,"inspired":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"ion":1,"is":3,"it":2,"junctional":1,"junctions":1,"key":1,"large":1,"larger":1,"level":2,"levin":4,"life":1,"light":4,"living":1,"loop":4,"loops":2,"mean":1,"measure":2,"mechanism":3,"memory":2,"mental":1,"metacognitive":1,"michael":1,"model":2,"models":1,"multi":5,"multicellular":1,"multicellularity":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"networks":2,"not":2,"of":9,"on":1,"optimal":1,"org":1,"organisation":2,"organisms":1,"organization":1,"oriented":1,"over":1,"overlay":1,"parametrised":1,"phenomenon":1,"physiological":1,"physiology":1,"population":1,"possibly":1,"powers":1,"prediction":2,"predictions":1,"predictive":1,"primal":1,"process":1,"programming":1,"proposes":2,"proposing":1,"provides":1,"psychology":1,"pursue":1,"pursuit":2,"reduce":1,"reference":1,"regeneration":1,"relates":1,"response":1,"scale":10,"science":1,"scope":1,"self":8,"selves":2,"shift":1,"shrinkage":1,"single":3,"sketches":1,"smoothly":2,"source":1,"span":1,"spatio":2,"stance":1,"state":1,"steps":1,"stimulus":1,"stress":1,"strong":1,"sub":1,"substrate":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"superpeer":1,"surface":3,"synthesises":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"temporal":2,"testable":1,"that":4,"the":12,"their":1,"theoretical":1,"things":1,"to":9,"tote":5,"up":2,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"via":2,"views":1,"vol":1,"weak":1,"what":2,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":419,"n":"A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages","s":"papers/extensibility/a-modular-approach-to-metatheoretic-reasoning-for-extensible-languages","secs":[{"h":"A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Dawn Michaelson, Gopalan Nadathur, and Eric Van Wyk (2023). *arXiv:2312.14374v1*. Source file: `2312.14374v1.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14374)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Addresses the problem of proving metatheoretic properties (e.g. type preservation, information-flow non-interference) for languages composed from a host and a library of independently developed extensions. The authors propose decomposing proofs around language fragments and introducing a priori constraints — notably *projection constraints* that let extensions describe how their constructs behave at a distance — so that complete soundness proofs for any composed language can be automatically stitched together from per-extension partial proofs. The framework distinguishes *foundational* properties (known to the host, like type preservation) from *auxiliary* properties (introduced by a later extension, like a security analysis). The paper develops the machinery in a relational logic with rule-based specifications and motivates the Extensibella and Sterling tool systems."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Modular metatheory: per-extension partial proofs composed automatically - Projection constraints let extensions reason about unknown other extensions at a distance - Foundational vs auxiliary properties require different modularity treatments - Relational rule-based specifications with fixed-point semantics - Connects language-workbench practice to formal metatheory"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Metatheoretic properties (type preservation, information-flow soundness, etc.) of an *extensible* language — built by composing a host language with a library of independently-developed extensions — can be proven modularly: each extension supplies a partial proof, and the host + projection-constraints framework guarantees these partial proofs compose soundly without a closed-world assumption. - **Mechanism:** Distinguish *foundational* properties (known at host-language design time; each extension contributes a local proof obligation) from *auxiliary* properties (introduced later by some extension; proofs must use *projection relations* to reason about other extensions' constructs \"at a distance\"). Formalise the framework via a rule-based logic with least-fixed-point semantics; sketch realisation in the Extensibella and Sterling systems. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Metatheoretic Reasoning]], [[Modular Proofs]], [[Projection Relations]], [[Foundational vs Auxiliary Properties]], [[Language Workbenches]], [[Type Preservation]], [[Attribute Grammars]], [[Closed World Assumption]], [[Fixpoint Semantics]], [[Relational Logic]] - **Stance:** formal / programming-language theory - **Relates to:** Supplies the metatheoretic rigour that [[Creating Languages in Racket]] and [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] implicitly assume but don't prove. Directly addresses the theoretical obstacles Standish flagged in [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] for orthophrase-style extensions. The modular-composition instinct parallels Event-B refinement in [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"language-design #metatheory #extensibility #formal-methods","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"14374":1,"14374v1":1,"2023":1,"2312":2,"a":16,"about":2,"abs":1,"addresses":2,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":8,"any":1,"approach":1,"around":1,"arxiv":2,"assume":1,"assumption":2,"at":4,"attribute":1,"authors":1,"automatically":2,"auxiliary":4,"b":1,"based":3,"be":2,"behave":1,"blockchain":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":3,"can":2,"claim":1,"closed":2,"complete":1,"compose":1,"composed":3,"composing":1,"composition":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"connects":1,"constraints":4,"constructs":2,"contributes":1,"contribution":1,"creating":2,"dawn":1,"decomposing":1,"describe":1,"design":4,"developed":2,"develops":1,"different":1,"directly":1,"distance":3,"distinguish":1,"distinguishes":1,"don":1,"e":1,"each":2,"eric":1,"etc":1,"event":1,"extensibella":2,"extensibility":3,"extensible":4,"extension":6,"extensions":7,"file":1,"fixed":2,"fixpoint":1,"flagged":1,"flow":2,"for":4,"formal":3,"formalise":2,"foundational":4,"fragments":1,"framework":3,"from":4,"g":1,"gopalan":1,"graham":2,"grammars":1,"guarantees":1,"host":5,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implicitly":1,"in":8,"independently":2,"information":2,"instinct":1,"interference":1,"interoperability":1,"introduced":3,"introducing":1,"key":1,"known":2,"language":14,"languages":4,"later":2,"least":1,"let":2,"library":2,"like":2,"local":1,"logic":3,"machinery":1,"mechanism":1,"metatheoretic":5,"metatheory":3,"methods":1,"michaelson":1,"modular":4,"modularity":1,"modularly":1,"motivates":1,"must":1,"nadathur":1,"non":1,"notably":1,"obligation":1,"obstacles":1,"of":4,"org":1,"orthophrase":1,"other":2,"paper":1,"parallels":1,"partial":4,"patterns":1,"per":2,"point":2,"practice":1,"preservation":4,"priori":1,"problem":1,"programming":3,"projection":5,"proof":2,"proofs":7,"properties":8,"propose":1,"prove":1,"proven":1,"proving":1,"racket":2,"realisation":1,"reason":2,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"refinement":1,"relates":1,"relational":3,"relations":2,"require":1,"rigour":1,"rule":3,"security":1,"semantics":3,"sketch":1,"so":1,"some":1,"soundly":1,"soundness":2,"source":1,"specifications":2,"stance":1,"standish":3,"sterling":2,"stitched":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"supplies":2,"systems":2,"t":1,"tags":1,"that":3,"the":15,"their":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"these":1,"time":1,"to":5,"together":1,"tool":1,"treatments":1,"type":4,"unknown":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"van":1,"via":1,"vs":2,"with":4,"without":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":2,"world":2,"wyk":1}},{"dl":407,"n":"The Spoofax Language Workbench","s":"papers/extensibility/the-spoofax-language-workbench","secs":[{"h":"The Spoofax Language Workbench: Rules for Declarative Specification of Languages and IDEs","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Kats, L. C. L., Visser, E. (2010). *Proc. OOPSLA 2010, ACM SIGPLAN Notices*. Source file: `The_Spoofax_Language_Workbench_Rules_for_Declarati.pdf`. [URL](https://lennart.cl/publications/the-spoofax-language-workbench/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Spoofax is an Eclipse-based language workbench that lets developers define a DSL's syntax, semantics, and full IDE support (syntax highlighting, content completion, reference resolution, refactoring, error marking, code generation) entirely via concise declarative specifications. Syntax is expressed in SDF with permissive error-recovery grammars; transformations, name analysis, and code generation are written in Stratego; editor services are declared in rule-based service descriptors. The architecture separates language-parametric infrastructure from language-specific definitions and supports agile development: language definitions can be dynamically loaded into the same Eclipse instance and tested side-by-side. The paper describes component dependencies (grammar-driven presentation services, semantic services derived from name analysis) and contrasts Spoofax with EMFText, MPS, Xtext, and the Synthesizer Generator. The result is a coherent, concise toolchain for agile DSL + IDE development."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Single declarative spec drives both compiler and IDE services. - SDF grammars + Stratego rewrites as the semantic base. - Permissive grammars for error recovery. - Editor service descriptors separate \"which\" from \"what\". - Dynamic loading enables agile language development."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[Code as Data]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** A language and its IDE can be specified together, declaratively, from a single set of high-level rules — removing the gulf between compiler front-ends and interactive tooling that has historically doomed DSLs to poor editor support. - **Mechanism:** Spoofax composes SDF (scannerless generalized-LR grammars, with permissive error-recovery productions), Stratego (rewrite-based transformations for name analysis, type checking, code generation), and editor-service descriptors that declare syntax highlighting, reference resolution, completion, outline, and refactoring. The Eclipse plug-in hot-loads new language definitions, enabling round-trip agile development; grammar-driven services are separated from semantics-driven services to manage dependencies. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Language Workbench]], [[SDF]], [[Stratego]], [[Editor Service Descriptor]], [[Permissive Grammar]], [[Declarative Specification]], [[Meta-Programming]], [[DSL]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** A concrete instance of the \"whole-language\" tooling vision behind [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] and [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]]; the rule-based services resonate with [[Creating Languages in Racket]], and the formal-analysis possibilities connect to the dependability specification of [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"language-workbench #dsl #ide #meta-programming","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"2010":2,"a":6,"acm":1,"agent":1,"agile":4,"an":1,"analysis":4,"and":14,"approach":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":3,"as":3,"base":1,"based":4,"be":2,"behind":1,"between":1,"both":1,"by":1,"c":1,"can":2,"checking":1,"cl":1,"claim":1,"code":4,"coherent":1,"compiler":2,"completion":2,"component":1,"composes":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concise":2,"concrete":1,"connect":1,"connections":1,"content":1,"contrasts":1,"contribution":1,"creating":1,"data":1,"declarative":4,"declaratively":1,"declare":1,"declared":1,"define":1,"definitions":3,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"dependencies":2,"derived":1,"describes":1,"descriptor":1,"descriptors":3,"design":1,"developers":1,"development":4,"doomed":1,"driven":3,"drives":1,"dsl":4,"dsls":1,"dynamic":1,"dynamically":1,"e":1,"eclipse":3,"editor":5,"emftext":1,"enables":1,"enabling":1,"ends":1,"engineering":1,"entirely":1,"error":4,"expressed":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"for":6,"formal":1,"from":5,"front":1,"full":1,"generalized":1,"generation":3,"generator":1,"grammar":3,"grammars":4,"gulf":1,"has":1,"high":1,"highlighting":2,"historically":1,"hot":1,"https":1,"ide":5,"ideas":1,"ides":1,"in":6,"infrastructure":1,"instance":2,"interactive":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"is":3,"its":1,"kats":1,"key":1,"l":2,"language":15,"languages":3,"lennart":1,"lets":1,"level":1,"loaded":1,"loading":1,"loads":1,"lr":1,"macros":1,"manage":1,"marking":1,"mechanism":1,"meta":2,"metatheoretic":1,"modular":1,"mps":1,"name":3,"new":1,"notices":1,"of":4,"oopsla":1,"oriented":1,"outline":1,"paper":1,"parametric":1,"patterns":1,"permissive":4,"plug":1,"poor":1,"possibilities":1,"presentation":1,"proc":1,"productions":1,"programming":4,"publications":1,"racket":1,"reasoning":1,"recovery":3,"refactoring":2,"reference":3,"relates":1,"removing":1,"resolution":2,"resonate":1,"result":1,"rewrite":1,"rewrites":1,"round":1,"rule":2,"rules":2,"s":1,"same":1,"scannerless":1,"sdf":4,"semantic":2,"semantics":2,"separate":1,"separated":1,"separates":1,"service":4,"services":7,"set":1,"side":2,"sigplan":1,"single":2,"software":1,"sol":1,"source":1,"spec":1,"specific":1,"specification":3,"specifications":1,"specified":1,"spoofax":5,"stance":1,"standish":1,"stratego":4,"summary":1,"support":2,"supports":1,"syntax":4,"synthesizer":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tested":1,"that":3,"the":14,"to":5,"together":1,"toolchain":1,"tooling":2,"transformations":2,"trip":1,"type":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":1,"vision":1,"visser":1,"what":1,"which":1,"whole":1,"with":4,"workbench":5,"workbenches":1,"written":1,"xtext":1}},{"dl":412,"n":"Programming Erlang Second Edition","s":"papers/extensibility/programming-erlang-second-edition","secs":[{"h":"Programming Erlang: Software for a Concurrent World (Second Edition)","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Armstrong, J. (2013). *The Pragmatic Bookshelf*. Source file: `cbcl-ref/programming-erlang-2nd-edition.pdf`. [URL](https://pragprog.com/titles/jaerlang2/programming-erlang-2nd-edition/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Joe Armstrong's second-edition textbook introduces Erlang as a language and runtime for building highly concurrent, distributed, and fault-tolerant systems. Part I motivates concurrency and tours the shell, modules, and compilation. Part II teaches sequential Erlang: atoms, tuples, lists, pattern matching, funs, records/maps, error handling with try/catch, binaries and the bit syntax, and the type system with Dialyzer. Part III covers the concurrency primitives (spawn/send/receive), error handling in concurrent programs (links, monitors, supervised fault-tolerance), and distributed programming over Erlang nodes. Part IV covers libraries and frameworks (ports for C interfacing, files, sockets, web/WebSocket applications, ETS/DETS and Mnesia databases, and profiling/debugging/tracing). The book is widely cited as a canonical introduction to the Actor model and the \"let it crash\" philosophy that informs modern reactive and distributed-agent systems."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Actor-model concurrency: processes + asynchronous message passing. - \"Let it crash\" + supervision trees for fault tolerance. - Pattern matching as pervasive control structure. - Distributed programming built on the same primitives as local. - Mnesia, ETS/DETS for in-memory and persistent storage."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Distributed Security]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Concurrent, distributed and fault-tolerant software is simpler and more reliable when built on isolated processes that share nothing and communicate only by asynchronous messages, with failures handled by supervision rather than defensive programming (\"let it crash\"). - **Mechanism:** Armstrong teaches the Erlang trinity of spawn / send / receive, reinforces isolation via immutability and pattern matching, and then layers links, monitors and supervisor trees for systemic recovery. Distribution uses the same primitives as local concurrency, so topology becomes deployment-time. Supporting libraries (ports for C, sockets, ETS/DETS, Mnesia, tracing/profiling, web/WebSocket) show how the model scales to realistic systems. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Actor Model]], [[Let It Crash]], [[Supervision Tree]], [[Erlang Process]], [[Pattern Matching]], [[Link and Monitor]], [[Mnesia]], [[ETS-DETS]], [[Bit Syntax]], [[OTP]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** The practical counterpart to the fault-tolerance philosophy of [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] and the architectural dependability of [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]; its message-passing primitives underpin agent frameworks surveyed in [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] and mesh with the calculus-level treatment in [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"erlang #concurrency #actors #fault-tolerance #textbook","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"2013":1,"2nd":1,"a":3,"actor":3,"actors":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":4,"agents":1,"and":23,"applications":1,"architectural":2,"armstrong":3,"as":5,"asynchronous":2,"atoms":1,"automata":1,"becomes":1,"binaries":1,"bit":2,"book":1,"bookshelf":1,"building":1,"built":2,"by":2,"c":2,"calculus":1,"canonical":1,"catch":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"com":1,"communicate":1,"communications":1,"compilation":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrency":5,"concurrent":4,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"counterpart":1,"covers":2,"crash":4,"databases":1,"debugging":1,"defensive":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"deployment":1,"dets":4,"dialyzer":1,"distributed":7,"distribution":1,"edition":3,"engineering":1,"erlang":8,"error":2,"ets":4,"failures":1,"fault":6,"file":1,"files":1,"for":9,"frameworks":2,"funs":1,"gossip":1,"handled":1,"handling":2,"highly":1,"how":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"iii":1,"immutability":1,"in":4,"informs":1,"intelligent":1,"interfacing":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"introduction":1,"is":2,"isolated":1,"isolation":1,"it":4,"its":1,"iv":1,"j":1,"jaerlang2":1,"joe":1,"key":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"layers":1,"let":4,"level":1,"libraries":2,"link":1,"links":2,"lists":1,"local":2,"maps":1,"matching":4,"mechanism":1,"memory":1,"mesh":1,"message":2,"messages":1,"mnesia":4,"model":4,"modern":1,"modules":1,"monitor":1,"monitors":2,"more":1,"motivates":1,"multi":1,"nodes":1,"nothing":1,"of":4,"on":2,"only":1,"oriented":1,"otp":1,"over":1,"part":4,"passing":2,"pattern":4,"patterns":1,"persistent":1,"pervasive":1,"philosophy":2,"ports":2,"practical":1,"practice":1,"pragmatic":1,"pragprog":1,"primitives":4,"process":1,"processes":2,"processing":1,"profiling":2,"programming":6,"programs":1,"protocols":1,"rather":1,"reactive":1,"realistic":1,"receive":2,"records":1,"recovery":1,"reference":1,"reinforces":1,"relates":1,"reliable":1,"reproducing":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"same":2,"scales":1,"second":2,"secure":1,"security":1,"self":2,"send":2,"sequential":1,"share":1,"shell":1,"show":1,"simpler":1,"so":1,"sockets":2,"software":3,"sol":1,"source":1,"spawn":2,"stance":1,"storage":1,"structure":1,"summary":1,"supervised":1,"supervision":3,"supervisor":1,"supporting":1,"surveyed":1,"syntax":2,"system":1,"systemic":1,"systems":6,"tags":1,"teaches":2,"textbook":2,"than":1,"that":2,"the":16,"then":1,"theory":2,"time":1,"titles":1,"to":4,"tolerance":4,"tolerant":2,"topology":1,"tours":1,"tracing":2,"treatment":1,"tree":1,"trees":2,"trinity":1,"try":1,"tuples":1,"type":1,"underpin":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"via":1,"web":2,"websocket":2,"when":1,"widely":1,"with":4,"world":1}},{"dl":377,"n":"The Extensible Language - Graham","s":"papers/extensibility/the-extensible-language---graham","secs":[{"h":"The Extensible Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Paul Graham (1993). *On Lisp (Chapter 1)*. Source file: `01theExtensibleLanguage.pdf`. [URL](http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Opening chapter of Graham's *On Lisp* that argues Lisp's defining quality is its extensibility: the language can be molded into a dialect suited to the program being written. Graham distinguishes top-down from bottom-up design and claims Lisp programmers customarily do both — building the language up toward the problem while writing the program down toward it. The chapter introduces macros, embedded languages, and the idea that a mature Lisp program looks \"as if the language had been designed for it.\" It argues that software extensibility (where users extend a program in its own implementation language) is a more honest outgrowth of bottom-up programming than traditional black-box designs."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Bottom-up design: grow the language toward the problem via new operators and macros - Lisp programs are data — macros are programs that write programs - Embedded languages as a natural idiom; Common Lisp includes several (e.g. CLOS) - Extensible software as a paradigm; language *and* program co-evolve"},{"h":"Connections","l":16,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":22,"t":"- **Claim:** A language's power lies not in a fixed feature set but in its capacity to be grown, by its users, into a problem-specific dialect — Lisp's distinguishing virtue is that it makes this routine. - **Mechanism:** Code-as-data (s-expressions) + macros + first-class functions enable users to add operators indistinguishable from built-ins; bottom-up design then layers embedded languages on top of the base. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Bottom-up Programming]], [[Macros as Language Extension]], [[Embedded Languages]], [[Domain-Specific Languages]], [[Language Workbenches]], [[Code as Data]], [[S-expressions]], [[Lisp]] - **Stance:** engineering / manifesto - **Relates to:** Shares a through-line with [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] (paraphrase/orthophrase/metaphrase taxonomy), [[Creating Languages in Racket]] (macro-based language-oriented programming), and [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] (formal reasoning about user-added language fragments). The same \"grow the language toward the problem\" instinct reappears in agent-communication as Agora's emergent Protocol Documents in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":29,"t":""},{"h":"lisp #language-design #extensibility #macros","l":30,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1993":1,"a":13,"about":1,"add":1,"added":1,"agent":1,"agora":1,"and":5,"approach":2,"are":2,"argues":2,"as":7,"base":1,"based":1,"be":2,"been":1,"being":1,"black":1,"both":1,"bottom":5,"box":1,"building":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":1,"can":1,"capacity":1,"chapter":3,"claim":1,"claims":1,"class":1,"clos":1,"co":1,"code":2,"com":1,"common":1,"communication":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"creating":2,"customarily":1,"data":3,"defining":1,"design":6,"designed":1,"designs":1,"dialect":2,"distinguishes":1,"distinguishing":1,"do":1,"documents":1,"domain":1,"down":2,"e":1,"embedded":4,"emergent":1,"enable":1,"engineering":1,"evolve":1,"expressions":2,"extend":1,"extensibility":5,"extensible":4,"extension":1,"feature":1,"file":1,"first":1,"fixed":1,"for":4,"formal":1,"fragments":1,"from":2,"functions":1,"g":1,"graham":3,"grow":2,"grown":1,"had":1,"honest":1,"html":1,"http":1,"idea":1,"ideas":1,"idiom":1,"if":1,"implementation":1,"in":9,"includes":1,"indistinguishable":1,"ins":1,"instinct":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":3,"it":4,"its":4,"key":1,"language":17,"languages":9,"layers":1,"lies":1,"line":1,"lisp":10,"llms":1,"looks":1,"macro":1,"macros":6,"makes":1,"manifesto":1,"mature":1,"mechanism":1,"metaphrase":1,"metatheoretic":2,"modular":2,"molded":1,"more":1,"natural":1,"networks":1,"new":1,"not":1,"of":4,"on":3,"onlisp":1,"opening":1,"operators":2,"oriented":1,"orthophrase":1,"outgrowth":1,"own":1,"paradigm":1,"paraphrase":1,"paul":1,"paulgraham":1,"power":1,"problem":4,"program":5,"programmers":1,"programming":5,"programs":3,"protocol":2,"quality":1,"racket":2,"reappears":1,"reasoning":3,"reference":1,"relates":1,"routine":1,"s":7,"same":1,"scalable":1,"set":1,"several":1,"shares":1,"software":2,"source":1,"specific":2,"stance":1,"standish":2,"suited":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"that":5,"the":15,"then":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":6,"top":2,"toward":4,"traditional":1,"up":6,"url":1,"used":1,"user":1,"users":3,"via":1,"virtue":1,"where":1,"while":1,"with":1,"workbenches":2,"write":1,"writing":1,"written":1,"www":1}},{"dl":348,"n":"Creating Languages in Racket","s":"papers/extensibility/creating-languages-in-racket","secs":[{"h":"Creating Languages in Racket","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Matthew Flatt (2012). *Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55, No. 1*. Source file: `2063176.2063195.pdf`. [URL](https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2068896)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Practitioner-oriented introduction to Racket's support for *language-oriented programming*: building domain-specific languages as a natural extension of ordinary programming. Flatt develops a text-adventure game incrementally, starting from Racket's core, adding pattern-matching macros (`define-syntax-rule`) for `define-place`, `define-thing`, `define-verb`, then packaging these extensions into a module language (`#lang txtadv`) with its own non-parenthesised reader syntax and IDE (DrRacket) support. The article demonstrates the full spectrum from simple syntactic abstraction via macros up through module languages that replace the default reader, showing how Racket smooths the path from library to full DSL."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Language-oriented programming as a practical paradigm - `define-syntax-rule` and syntax-case macros for pattern-based extension - Module languages (`#lang ...`) package extensions as first-class languages - Static checks can be implemented via macro-level type tagging - DrRacket provides IDE integration for custom languages"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Language Workbenches]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Language-oriented programming — building a small DSL exactly fitted to a task — should be cheap and incremental, not a heavyweight \"build a compiler\" affair; Racket's macro system and module-language machinery make this the normal way to program. - **Mechanism:** Walk through a text-adventure game implementation that evolves from plain-Racket library → syntactic abstractions (`define-syntax-rule` for `define-place`, `define-thing`) → a full `#lang txtadv` module language with custom reader, static checks via compile-time elaboration, and replaceable surface syntax; show each step as a small syntactic or module addition rather than a rewrite. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Language-oriented Programming]], [[Racket Macros]], [[Module Languages]], [[Syntactic Abstraction]], [[DSLs]], [[Domain-Specific Languages]], [[Language Workbenches]], [[Hygienic Macros]], [[Macros as Language Extension]] - **Stance:** engineering / tutorial - **Relates to:** Modern realisation of the paraphrase-extension ideal diagnosed in [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] and evangelised in [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]. Provides the *practice* for which [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] supplies a metatheoretic backbone."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"racket #dsl #language-oriented-programming #macros","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"2012":1,"2068896":1,"55":1,"a":15,"abstraction":2,"abstractions":1,"acm":2,"adding":1,"addition":1,"adventure":2,"affair":1,"and":6,"approach":2,"article":1,"as":5,"backbone":1,"based":1,"be":2,"build":1,"building":2,"can":1,"case":1,"cfm":1,"cheap":1,"checks":2,"claim":1,"class":1,"communications":1,"compile":1,"compiler":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"core":1,"creating":1,"custom":2,"default":1,"demonstrates":1,"design":2,"detail":1,"develops":1,"diagnosed":1,"domain":2,"drracket":2,"dsl":3,"dsls":1,"each":1,"elaboration":1,"engineering":1,"evangelised":1,"evolves":1,"exactly":1,"extensibility":2,"extensible":4,"extension":4,"extensions":2,"file":1,"first":1,"fitted":1,"flatt":2,"for":8,"from":4,"full":3,"game":2,"graham":2,"heavyweight":1,"how":1,"https":1,"hygienic":1,"id":1,"ide":2,"ideal":1,"ideas":1,"implementation":1,"implemented":1,"in":5,"incremental":1,"incrementally":1,"integration":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduction":1,"its":1,"key":1,"language":15,"languages":10,"level":1,"library":2,"machinery":1,"macro":2,"macros":7,"make":1,"matching":1,"matthew":1,"mechanism":1,"metatheoretic":3,"modern":1,"modular":2,"module":7,"natural":1,"no":1,"non":1,"normal":1,"not":1,"of":3,"or":1,"ordinary":1,"org":1,"oriented":6,"own":1,"package":1,"packaging":1,"paradigm":1,"paraphrase":1,"parenthesised":1,"path":1,"pattern":2,"plain":1,"practical":1,"practice":1,"practitioner":1,"program":1,"programming":8,"provides":2,"queue":1,"racket":8,"rather":1,"reader":3,"realisation":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"replace":1,"replaceable":1,"rewrite":1,"s":3,"should":1,"show":1,"showing":1,"simple":1,"small":2,"smooths":1,"source":1,"specific":2,"spectrum":1,"stance":1,"standish":2,"starting":1,"static":2,"step":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"support":2,"surface":1,"syntactic":4,"syntax":3,"system":1,"tagging":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"text":2,"than":1,"that":2,"the":10,"then":1,"these":1,"this":1,"through":2,"time":1,"to":7,"tutorial":1,"type":1,"up":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":3,"vol":1,"walk":1,"way":1,"which":1,"with":2,"workbenches":2}},{"dl":349,"n":"Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish","s":"papers/extensibility/extensibility-in-programming-language-design---standish","secs":[{"h":"Extensibility in Programming Language Design","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Thomas A. Standish (1975). *National Computer Conference 1975 (AFIPS)*. Source file: `1499949.1500003.pdf`. [URL](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/51x8c453)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A retrospective on the 1960s-70s \"extensible languages\" movement. Standish catalogues extension techniques (paraphrase, orthophrase, metaphrase), reviews what the early community hoped for — a universal base language that any user could tailor with modest effort — and explains why those hopes were only partly realised. He concludes that extensibility relates to high-level languages the way macros relate to assembly: useful for suppressing low-level detail and masking irritating features, but not the programming revolution once promised. The paper is an early, honest assessment of why language extension is harder than anticipated, introducing vocabulary still used today."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Paraphrase: defining new forms via existing ones (macros, procedures) - Orthophrase: adding orthogonal features that cannot be paraphrased - Metaphrase: altering interpretation rules (scoping, evaluation) - Early euphoria vs realistic assessment of labour/skill costs - 27 extensible languages proposed by 55 people by 1975"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** The 1960s-70s dream of universal extensible languages largely failed because extension techniques divide into qualitatively different kinds with very different labor costs; only the cheapest (paraphrase, macros) proved practically useful. - **Mechanism:** Taxonomy of extension techniques — *paraphrase* (define new forms in terms of existing ones: macros, procedures, syntax macros, data/operator definitions), *orthophrase* (add genuinely new features outside the base language's span, e.g. I/O primitives), and *metaphrase* (alter interpretation rules: scoping, evaluation order). Argues orthophrase/metaphrase require near-compiler-writer expertise and rarely pay off. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Paraphrase]], [[Orthophrase]], [[Metaphrase]], [[Macros as Language Extension]], [[Language Extensibility Taxonomy]], [[Extensible Languages Movement]], [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - **Stance:** retrospective-critique / taxonomic - **Relates to:** Direct intellectual ancestor of [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] and [[Creating Languages in Racket]], both of which represent the paraphrase/macro wing that Standish judged successful. [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] tackles the metatheoretic difficulties Standish foresaw for orthophrase extensions."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"language-design #extensibility #history #macros","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"1960s":2,"1975":3,"27":1,"51x8c453":1,"55":1,"70s":2,"a":5,"add":1,"adding":1,"afips":1,"alter":1,"altering":1,"an":1,"ancestor":1,"and":5,"anticipated":1,"any":1,"approach":2,"argues":1,"as":1,"assembly":1,"assessment":2,"base":2,"be":1,"because":1,"both":1,"but":1,"by":2,"cannot":1,"catalogues":1,"cheapest":1,"claim":1,"community":1,"compiler":1,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concludes":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"costs":2,"could":1,"creating":2,"critique":1,"data":1,"define":1,"defining":1,"definitions":1,"design":2,"detail":1,"different":2,"difficulties":1,"direct":1,"divide":1,"domain":1,"dream":1,"e":1,"early":3,"effort":1,"escholarship":1,"euphoria":1,"evaluation":2,"existing":2,"expertise":1,"explains":1,"extensibility":4,"extensible":8,"extension":5,"extensions":1,"failed":1,"features":3,"file":1,"for":5,"foresaw":1,"forms":2,"g":1,"genuinely":1,"graham":2,"harder":1,"he":1,"high":1,"history":1,"honest":1,"hoped":1,"hopes":1,"https":1,"i":1,"ideas":1,"in":4,"intellectual":1,"interpretation":2,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introducing":1,"irritating":1,"is":2,"item":1,"judged":1,"key":1,"kinds":1,"labor":1,"labour":1,"language":10,"languages":10,"largely":1,"level":2,"low":1,"macro":1,"macros":7,"masking":1,"mechanism":1,"metaphrase":5,"metatheoretic":3,"modest":1,"modular":2,"movement":2,"national":1,"near":1,"new":3,"not":1,"o":1,"of":7,"off":1,"on":1,"once":1,"ones":2,"only":2,"operator":1,"order":1,"org":1,"orthogonal":1,"orthophrase":6,"outside":1,"paper":1,"paraphrase":6,"paraphrased":1,"partly":1,"pay":1,"people":1,"practically":1,"primitives":1,"procedures":2,"programming":2,"promised":1,"proposed":1,"proved":1,"qualitatively":1,"racket":2,"rarely":1,"realised":1,"realistic":1,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"relate":1,"relates":2,"represent":1,"require":1,"retrospective":2,"reviews":1,"revolution":1,"rules":2,"s":1,"scoping":2,"skill":1,"source":1,"span":1,"specific":1,"stance":1,"standish":4,"still":1,"successful":1,"summary":1,"suppressing":1,"syntax":1,"tackles":1,"tags":1,"tailor":1,"taxonomic":1,"taxonomy":2,"techniques":3,"terms":1,"than":1,"that":4,"the":12,"thomas":1,"those":1,"to":5,"today":1,"uc":1,"universal":2,"url":1,"used":2,"useful":2,"user":1,"very":1,"via":1,"vocabulary":1,"vs":1,"way":1,"were":1,"what":1,"which":1,"why":2,"wing":1,"with":2,"workbenches":1,"writer":1}},{"dl":329,"n":"Agent Communication And Institutional Reality","s":"papers/acl/agent-communication-and-institutional-reality","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication and Institutional Reality","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Fornara, Viganò, Colombetti (2005). *Agent Communication II, LNAI 3396, Springer*. Source file: `978-3-540-32258-0_1.pdf`. [URL](https://people.lu.usi.ch/fornaran/papers/AC2004FornaraViganoColombetti.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Fornara, Viganò, and Colombetti propose regarding an Agent Communication Language as a set of conventions acting on a fragment of *institutional reality*, defined within an artificial institution. They reformulate commitment-based ACL semantics so that all commonly used communicative act types reduce to a single basic type, *declarations*, within a Basic Institution that regulates the lifecycle of social commitments. Special institutions (e.g., English Auctions) extend the Basic Institution with ontological and normative elements. The approach is notable for making the semantics of speech acts publicly verifiable and independent of agents' mental states, while retaining a uniform formal account of institutional actions and counts-as relations."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- ACL messages are institutional actions governed by counts-as rules. - Basic Institution manages creation/update/cancellation of social commitments. - All speech act types reducible to declarations within the institution. - Special institutions layer domain norms and ontologies on top. - English Auction given as worked example."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** An [[Agent Communication Languages|ACL]] is best understood as a set of conventions operating on *institutional reality*; all communicative act types reduce to declarations within a Basic Institution that governs the lifecycle of social commitments. - **Mechanism:** Defines artificial institutions with counts-as rules; models message effects as declarations creating/updating/cancelling commitments; layers domain norms in Special Institutions (English Auction worked example). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Commitment-based Semantics]], [[Institutional Reality]], [[Counts-as Rules]], [[Declarations]], [[Performatives]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Public Semantics]], [[Verifiable Semantics]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Ontologies]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Offers the publicly-verifiable alternative to mental-state semantics of [[FIPA-ACL]], which [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] then unifies via roles; grounded philosophically in [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"acl #commitments #institutions #multi-agent-systems","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"2005":1,"3396":1,"a":9,"ac2004fornaraviganocolombetti":1,"account":1,"acl":7,"acls":2,"act":5,"acting":1,"actions":2,"acts":1,"agent":7,"agents":1,"all":3,"alternative":1,"an":3,"and":6,"approach":1,"are":1,"artificial":2,"as":8,"auction":2,"auctions":1,"based":2,"basic":5,"best":1,"by":1,"cancellation":1,"cancelling":1,"ch":1,"claim":1,"colombetti":2,"commitment":2,"commitments":5,"common":2,"commonly":1,"communication":5,"communicative":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"conventions":2,"counts":4,"creating":1,"creation":1,"declarations":5,"defined":1,"defines":1,"domain":2,"e":1,"effects":1,"elements":1,"english":3,"example":2,"extend":1,"file":1,"fipa":3,"for":1,"formal":2,"fornara":2,"fornaran":1,"foundations":1,"fragment":1,"g":1,"given":1,"governed":1,"governs":1,"grounded":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"ii":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"independent":1,"institution":6,"institutional":6,"institutions":5,"introduced":1,"is":2,"key":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"layer":1,"layers":1,"lifecycle":2,"lnai":1,"logic":1,"lu":1,"making":1,"manages":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":1,"message":1,"messages":1,"models":1,"multi":2,"normative":1,"norms":2,"notable":1,"of":13,"offers":1,"on":3,"ontological":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":2,"operating":1,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"people":1,"performatives":1,"philosophically":1,"propose":1,"public":1,"publicly":2,"reality":4,"reduce":2,"reducible":1,"reference":1,"reformulate":1,"regarding":1,"regulates":1,"relates":1,"relations":1,"retaining":1,"roles":1,"rules":3,"semantic":1,"semantics":7,"set":2,"single":1,"so":1,"social":3,"source":1,"special":3,"speech":4,"springer":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"states":1,"summary":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"that":3,"the":7,"then":1,"theory":2,"they":1,"to":5,"top":1,"type":1,"types":3,"understood":1,"unifies":1,"uniform":1,"update":1,"updating":1,"url":1,"used":2,"usi":1,"verifiable":3,"via":1,"viganò":2,"which":1,"while":1,"with":2,"within":4,"worked":2}},{"dl":564,"n":"KQML - A Language And Protocol For Knowledge And Information Exchange","s":"papers/acl/kqml---a-language-and-protocol-for-knowledge-and-information-exchange","secs":[{"h":"KQML - A Language and Protocol for Knowledge and Information Exchange","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Finin, Fritzson, McKay, McEntire (1994). *AAAI Technical Report WS-94-02, Workshop on Knowledge-Based Collaboration Systems*. Source file: `WS94-02-007.pdf`. [URL](https://cdn.aaai.org/Workshops/1994/WS-94-02/WS94-02-007.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This is one of the canonical early KQML papers, describing the Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language as both a message format and a message-handling protocol for run-time knowledge sharing among intelligent agents. Developed as part of the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort (KSE), KQML is presented as an enabling technology for building large-scale, sharable, reusable knowledge bases and for letting independently developed systems interoperate at the knowledge level rather than at the level of raw RPC or ad-hoc protocols. The paper introduces the core architectural commitments of KQML: an extensible set of performatives (reserved speech-act-like operations that agents perform on each other's knowledge and goal stores), a three-layer message structure (content, message/communication, and communication mechanics), and a special class of facilitator agents that coordinate interactions and provide services such as brokering, recruitment, and content-based routing. Performatives fall into seven categories (basic query, multi-response query, response, generic informational, generator, capability-definition, networking) including ask-one, ask-all, tell, untell, achieve, subscribe, advertise, broker, recommend, and recruit. The authors sketch KQML's semantics informally in terms of effects on an agent's belief and intention stores (e.g., tell(S) is an assertion by the sender that S is in its virtual belief store; achieve(S) asks the recipient to add S to its intention store), and note ongoing work on formal semantics via definite clause grammars and on interoperability with KIF and Ontolingua ontologies."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- KQML as both message format and message-handling protocol; focused on pragmatics, secondarily on semantics. - Three-layer message structure: content, communication/message, communication mechanics. - Extensible performative set organized into seven categories. - Facilitator agents: brokers, matchmakers, recruiters, content-based routers. - Synchronous, asynchronous, streaming, and subscription interaction protocols. - Performatives as speech-act-like operations on agents' belief and goal stores. - Integration with KIF for content and shared ontologies for semantic grounding. - Part of the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort (KSE): Interlingua, KRSS, SRKB, External Interfaces working groups."},{"h":"Connections","l":22,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[ACL Design Principles]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":31,"t":"- **Claim:** Heterogeneous intelligent systems can share knowledge at run time if they agree on a protocol of speech-act-like performatives over a common content language and shared ontology, coordinated by specialized facilitator agents. - **Mechanism:** Defines an extensible parenthesized message syntax with reserved performative names and keyword/value arguments; layers communication (sender/receiver/identifier), message (performative, ontology, language), and content; routes messages through facilitators that implement brokering, matchmaking, and content-based subscription; gives informal speech-act semantics in terms of effects on virtual belief and intention stores. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[KQML]], [[Performatives]], [[Facilitator Agents]], [[KIF]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Ontologies]], [[Agent Communication Languages]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** One of the defining sources for [[KQML]] and [[Agent Communication Languages]] in this vault; direct precursor to [[FIPA-ACL]]; establishes the performative/speech-act framing critiqued and refined in [[ACL Design Principles]], [[ACL Rethinking Principles]], and [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]; the facilitator concept informs [[Agent Discovery]] and [[Agent Hub]] patterns."},{"h":"Tags","l":38,"t":""},{"h":"kqml #acl #speech-acts #agent-communication #multi-agent-systems #ontologies","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"007":1,"02":3,"1994":2,"94":2,"a":8,"aaai":2,"achieve":2,"acl":6,"acls":1,"act":7,"acts":1,"ad":1,"add":1,"advertise":1,"agent":9,"agents":7,"agree":1,"all":1,"among":1,"an":5,"and":28,"architectural":1,"arguments":1,"arpa":2,"as":6,"ask":2,"asks":1,"assertion":1,"asynchronous":1,"at":3,"authors":1,"based":4,"bases":1,"basic":1,"belief":4,"both":2,"broker":1,"brokering":2,"brokers":1,"building":1,"by":2,"can":1,"canonical":1,"capability":1,"categories":2,"cdn":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"clause":1,"collaboration":1,"commitments":1,"common":2,"communication":10,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":8,"contribution":1,"coordinate":1,"coordinated":1,"core":1,"critiqued":1,"defines":1,"defining":1,"definite":1,"definition":1,"describing":1,"design":2,"developed":2,"direct":1,"discovery":1,"e":1,"each":1,"early":1,"effects":2,"effort":2,"enabling":1,"establishes":1,"exchange":1,"extensible":3,"external":1,"facilitator":5,"facilitators":1,"fall":1,"file":1,"finin":1,"fipa":2,"focused":1,"for":7,"formal":1,"format":2,"foundational":1,"framing":1,"fritzson":1,"g":1,"generator":1,"generic":1,"gives":1,"goal":2,"grammars":1,"grounding":1,"groups":1,"handling":2,"heterogeneous":1,"hoc":1,"https":1,"hub":1,"ideas":1,"identifier":1,"if":1,"implement":1,"in":5,"including":1,"independently":1,"informal":1,"informally":1,"information":1,"informational":1,"informs":1,"integration":1,"intelligent":2,"intention":3,"interaction":1,"interactions":1,"interfaces":1,"interlingua":1,"interoperability":1,"interoperate":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":4,"its":2,"key":1,"keyword":1,"kif":3,"knowledge":10,"kqml":10,"krss":1,"kse":2,"language":4,"languages":4,"large":1,"layer":2,"layers":1,"letting":1,"level":2,"like":3,"manipulation":1,"matchmakers":1,"matchmaking":1,"mcentire":1,"mckay":1,"mechanics":2,"mechanism":1,"message":10,"messages":1,"multi":2,"names":1,"networking":1,"note":1,"of":12,"on":10,"one":3,"ongoing":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":5,"ontology":3,"operations":2,"or":1,"org":1,"organized":1,"other":1,"over":1,"paper":1,"papers":1,"parenthesized":1,"part":2,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"perform":1,"performative":4,"performatives":5,"pragmatics":1,"precursor":1,"presented":1,"principles":4,"protocol":4,"protocols":2,"provide":1,"query":3,"rather":1,"raw":1,"receiver":1,"recipient":1,"recommend":1,"recruit":1,"recruiters":1,"recruitment":1,"reference":1,"refined":1,"relates":1,"report":1,"reserved":2,"response":2,"rethinking":2,"reusable":1,"routers":1,"routes":1,"routing":1,"rpc":1,"run":2,"s":7,"scale":1,"secondarily":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":4,"sender":2,"services":1,"set":2,"seven":2,"sharable":1,"share":1,"shared":2,"sharing":3,"sketch":1,"source":1,"sources":1,"special":1,"specialized":1,"speech":8,"srkb":1,"stance":1,"store":2,"stores":4,"streaming":1,"structure":2,"subscribe":1,"subscription":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"synchronous":1,"syntax":1,"systems":4,"tags":1,"technical":1,"technology":1,"tell":2,"terms":2,"than":1,"that":4,"the":15,"theory":2,"they":1,"this":2,"three":2,"through":1,"time":2,"to":4,"untell":1,"url":1,"used":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"virtual":2,"with":3,"work":1,"working":1,"workshop":1,"workshops":1,"ws":2,"ws94":1}},{"dl":343,"n":"A Common Ontology Of ACLs","s":"papers/acl/a-common-ontology-of-acls","secs":[{"h":"A Common Ontology of Agent Communication Languages: Modeling Mental Attitudes and Social Commitments using Roles","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Boella, Damiano, Hulstijn, van der Torre (2006). *Applied Ontology 3(1-3)*. Source file: `ao07b.pdf`. [URL](https://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/ao07b.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors propose a common ontology that bridges the two dominant semantic traditions for Agent Communication Languages: mental-attitude-based semantics (FIPA-ACL) and social-commitment-based semantics (Singh, Colombetti). The unifying device is the *role*: each agent plays role instances in dialogue sessions, and both beliefs/intentions and commitments are attributed to role instances rather than to private mental states, sidestepping the unverifiability problem. They develop Role-SL, a BDI logic extended with roles and dialogue sessions, then show translation schemes from FIPA speech acts and from action/propositional commitment semantics into this role-based ontology. The framework accommodates mixed dialogues (e.g., persuasion intertwined with negotiation) that neither tradition handles cleanly alone."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Roles as first-class carriers of public mental attitudes. - Role-SL: extension of FIPA-SL with role instances and dialogue sessions. - Mappings from FIPA-ACL and commitment-based ACLs into one ontology. - Public beliefs/intentions sidestep mental-state unverifiability. - Distinguishes action commitments (request/propose) from propositional (assert/challenge)."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Ontologies]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Mental-attitude and social-commitment ACL semantics can be unified under a common ontology by attributing both to *roles* instantiated in dialogue sessions, rather than to private agent minds. - **Mechanism:** Extends FIPA-SL into Role-SL (BDI + roles + dialogue sessions); provides translation schemes from FIPA speech acts and from action/propositional commitment semantics; handles mixed dialogues (persuasion + negotiation). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Roles]], [[BDI]], [[Commitment-based Semantics]], [[Mental Attitudes]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Public Semantics]], [[Verifiable Semantics]], [[Dialogue Sessions]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Ontologies]], [[Agent Communication Languages]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Bridges the two traditions typified by [[FIPA-ACL]] (mentalist) and [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] (commitment-based); uses ontology machinery catalogued in [[Handbook On Ontologies]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"acl #ontology #commitments #roles #semantics","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"2006":1,"3":2,"a":4,"accommodates":1,"acl":7,"acls":1,"act":2,"action":3,"acts":2,"agent":8,"alone":1,"and":13,"ao07b":1,"applied":1,"are":1,"as":1,"assert":1,"attitude":2,"attitudes":3,"attributed":1,"attributing":1,"authors":1,"based":6,"bdi":3,"be":1,"beliefs":2,"boella":1,"both":2,"bridges":2,"by":2,"can":1,"carriers":1,"catalogued":1,"challenge":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"cleanly":1,"colombetti":1,"commitment":7,"commitments":4,"common":3,"communication":6,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"damiano":1,"der":1,"develop":1,"device":1,"dialogue":6,"dialogues":2,"distinguishes":1,"dominant":1,"e":1,"each":1,"extended":1,"extends":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"fipa":9,"first":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"framework":1,"from":6,"g":1,"handbook":1,"handles":2,"https":1,"hulstijn":1,"icr":1,"ideas":1,"in":3,"instances":3,"instantiated":1,"institutional":2,"intentions":2,"intertwined":1,"into":3,"introduced":1,"is":1,"key":1,"languages":4,"leonvandertorre":1,"logic":1,"lu":1,"machinery":1,"mappings":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":7,"mentalist":1,"mentalistic":1,"minds":1,"mixed":2,"modeling":1,"negotiation":2,"neither":1,"of":3,"on":1,"one":1,"ontologies":3,"ontology":8,"papers":1,"pdf":1,"persuasion":2,"plays":1,"private":2,"problem":1,"propose":2,"propositional":3,"provides":1,"public":3,"rather":2,"reality":2,"reference":1,"relates":1,"request":1,"role":8,"roles":7,"schemes":2,"semantic":2,"semantics":10,"sessions":6,"show":1,"sidestep":1,"sidestepping":1,"singh":1,"sl":5,"social":3,"source":1,"speech":4,"stance":1,"state":1,"states":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"than":2,"that":2,"the":7,"then":1,"theory":2,"they":1,"this":1,"to":5,"torre":1,"tradition":1,"traditions":2,"translation":2,"two":2,"typified":1,"under":1,"uni":1,"unified":1,"unifying":1,"unverifiability":2,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"van":1,"verifiable":1,"with":3}},{"dl":377,"n":"Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations","s":"papers/acl/coordinating-agents-using-acl-conversations","secs":[{"h":"Coordinating Agents using Agent Communication Languages Conversations","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** R. Scott Cost, Yannis Labrou, Tim Finin (2000). *Springer-Verlag book chapter*, March 2000. Source file: `Coordinating_Agents_using_Agent_Communication_Lang.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04401-8_7)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This chapter argues that ACLs like KQML and FIPA-ACL provide the vocabulary for exchanging propositional attitudes but not the higher-level coordination structures agents need when carrying out task-oriented interactions. The authors advocate *conversation protocols* — pre-arranged message-exchange patterns — as the missing layer above individual speech acts, giving context for interpretation and enabling agents to expect and verify sequences of messages. They survey existing approaches (COOL state machines, Dooley Graphs, Push-Down Transducers, DCGs) and propose a formalism based on Colored Petri Nets (CPNs) for specifying conversation protocols. The CPN-based specification enables concurrency modeling, role/participant tracking, and formal verification of properties like liveness and reachability. The approach positions shareable conversation protocol specifications as \"abstract agent interfaces\" (AAIs)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- ACLs alone do not encode expectations about response sequences; conversation protocols fill that gap. - Conversation = pre-arranged coordination protocol giving pragmatic context to messages. - Colored Petri Nets offer concurrency and verifiability lacking in FSM-based approaches. - Three issues for conversations: specification, sharing, and aggregation into services. - Specialization and composition of conversations, analogous to OO subclassing."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Interaction Protocols]] - [[Conversation Policy]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Negotiation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Isolated speech-act messages are insufficient for agent coordination; shareable, verifiable conversation protocols — best specified as Colored Petri Nets — are the appropriate layer above ACL performatives. - **Mechanism:** Survey of FSM/DFA/DCG conversation models (COOL, Dooley Graphs, ATM, PDTs) and their expressivity limitations; stepwise translation of a KQML Register conversation from JDFA to an equivalent CPN that captures role constraints, concurrency, message ordering, and a negotiation example; argues CPNs enable liveness/reachability verification. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Conversation Protocols]], [[Colored Petri Nets]], [[Propositional Attitudes]], [[Abstract Agent Interfaces]], [[Conversation Specialization]], [[Conversation Composition]], [[Speech Acts]] - **Stance:** engineering / formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Complements [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] (runtime reasoning over conversation state) and shares motivation with [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] — both insist ACL semantics be externally checkable. Builds on [[KQML Overview]] and [[FIPA-ACL]] performative sets."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"conversations #petri-nets #coordination #protocols","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"04401":1,"10":1,"1007":1,"2000":2,"3":1,"662":1,"7":1,"8":1,"978":1,"a":3,"aais":1,"about":1,"above":2,"abstract":2,"acl":5,"acls":3,"acre":1,"act":2,"acts":2,"advocate":1,"agent":7,"agents":3,"aggregation":1,"alone":1,"an":1,"analogous":1,"and":13,"approach":1,"approaches":2,"appropriate":1,"are":2,"argues":2,"arranged":2,"as":3,"atm":1,"attitudes":2,"authors":1,"based":3,"be":1,"best":1,"book":1,"both":1,"builds":1,"but":1,"captures":1,"carrying":1,"chapter":2,"checkable":1,"claim":1,"colored":4,"communication":2,"complements":1,"composition":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concurrency":3,"connections":1,"constraints":1,"context":2,"contribution":1,"conversation":14,"conversations":4,"cool":2,"coordinating":1,"coordination":4,"cost":1,"cpn":2,"cpns":2,"dcg":1,"dcgs":1,"dfa":1,"do":1,"doi":1,"dooley":2,"down":1,"enable":1,"enables":1,"enabling":1,"encode":1,"engine":1,"engineering":1,"equivalent":1,"example":1,"exchange":1,"exchanging":1,"existing":1,"expect":1,"expectations":1,"expressivity":1,"externally":1,"file":1,"fill":1,"finin":1,"fipa":3,"for":6,"formal":2,"formalism":1,"from":1,"fsm":2,"gap":1,"giving":2,"graphs":2,"higher":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"in":1,"individual":1,"insist":1,"insufficient":1,"interaction":1,"interactions":1,"interfaces":2,"interpretation":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"isolated":1,"issues":1,"jdfa":1,"key":1,"kqml":4,"labrou":1,"lacking":1,"languages":2,"layer":2,"level":1,"like":2,"limitations":1,"liveness":2,"machines":1,"march":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"messages":3,"missing":1,"modeling":1,"models":1,"motivation":1,"multi":1,"need":1,"negotiation":2,"nets":5,"not":2,"of":5,"offer":1,"on":2,"oo":1,"ordering":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"out":1,"over":1,"overview":1,"participant":1,"patterns":1,"pdts":1,"performative":1,"performatives":2,"petri":5,"policy":1,"positions":1,"pragmatic":1,"pre":2,"properties":1,"propose":1,"propositional":2,"protocol":2,"protocols":7,"provide":1,"push":1,"r":1,"reachability":2,"reasoning":2,"reference":1,"register":1,"relates":1,"response":1,"role":2,"runtime":1,"scott":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":2,"sequences":2,"services":1,"sets":1,"shareable":2,"shares":1,"sharing":1,"source":1,"specialization":2,"specification":2,"specifications":1,"specified":1,"specifying":1,"speech":4,"springer":1,"stance":1,"state":2,"stepwise":1,"structures":1,"subclassing":1,"summary":1,"survey":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"task":1,"that":3,"the":7,"their":1,"theory":1,"they":1,"this":1,"three":1,"tim":1,"to":5,"tracking":1,"transducers":1,"translation":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":2,"verification":2,"verify":1,"verlag":1,"vocabulary":1,"when":1,"with":1,"yannis":1}},{"dl":383,"n":"ACL Rethinking Principles","s":"papers/acl/acl-rethinking-principles","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Munindar P. Singh (1998). *IEEE Computer*, December 1998, pp. 40-47. Source file: `computer-acl-98.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1109/2.735849)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Singh surveys the state of Agent Communication Languages (ACLs) such as KQML and FIPA/Arcol, and argues that their dominant mental-agency semantics (defining communicative acts in terms of beliefs and intentions) is conceptually unsatisfying and practically untestable because we cannot read agents' minds. He proposes a conceptual shift to *social agency*: ACL semantics should be grounded in a public perspective on commitments, roles, and societies, so compliance with the standard is observable and testable. The paper maps the ACL design space along two critical dimensions — *meaning* (perspective, type, basis, context, coverage of communicative acts) and *agent construction* (design vs. execution autonomy) — and shows how both KQML and Arcol emphasize private, mental-state semantics and thus fail to enable true heterogeneous interoperation. Singh's alternative emphasizes protocols, roles, and \"society management\" infrastructure as a richer public substrate for ACLs."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Mental-agency ACL semantics (KQML, Arcol, early FIPA) cannot be verified without inspecting agent internals. - ACLs need a *public* perspective, conventional meaning, pragmatics, and full coverage of communicative act categories. - Seven categories of communicative acts: assertives, directives, commissives, permissives, prohibitives, declaratives, expressives. - Social agency replaces BDI with commitments, roles, and societies as the semantic basis. - Dialects/idiolects arise when only private perspectives are considered."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[KQML]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":24,"t":"- **Claim:** Agent Communication Language semantics must abandon mental agency (beliefs/intentions) and be grounded in a public, social perspective (commitments, roles, societies) in order to be testable and support heterogeneous interoperation. - **Mechanism:** Surveys KQML, Arcol, FIPA; lays out a two-dimensional design space (meaning × agent construction); shows that mental-state semantics cannot determine compliance; proposes social-agency framework using protocols, roles, and \"society management\" infrastructure. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Public Semantics]], [[Social Agency]], [[Commitments]], [[Communicative Acts]], [[Verifiable Semantics]], [[Interoperability]], [[Dialects and Idiolects]] - **Stance:** critique / foundational - **Relates to:** Direct antecedent to [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] (Wooldridge) which formalises the verification problem Singh names. Sharpens the critique of the mentalistic approach underlying [[KQML Overview]] and [[FIPA-ACL]], and motivates commitment-based frameworks such as [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":31,"t":""},{"h":"acl #semantics #social-agency #interoperability","l":32,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1109":1,"1998":2,"2":1,"40":1,"47":1,"735849":1,"a":6,"abandon":1,"acl":6,"acls":4,"act":2,"acts":4,"agency":8,"agent":9,"agents":1,"along":1,"alternative":1,"and":20,"antecedent":1,"approach":1,"arcol":4,"are":1,"argues":1,"arise":1,"as":4,"assertives":1,"autonomy":1,"based":1,"basis":2,"bdi":1,"be":4,"because":1,"beliefs":2,"both":1,"cannot":3,"categories":2,"claim":1,"commissives":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":4,"communication":5,"communicative":5,"compliance":2,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"conceptually":1,"connections":1,"considered":1,"construction":2,"context":1,"contribution":1,"conventional":1,"coverage":2,"critical":1,"critique":2,"december":1,"declaratives":1,"defining":1,"design":3,"determine":1,"dialects":2,"dimensional":1,"dimensions":1,"direct":1,"directives":1,"doi":1,"dominant":1,"early":1,"emphasize":1,"emphasizes":1,"enable":1,"execution":1,"expressives":1,"fail":1,"file":1,"fipa":5,"for":2,"formalises":1,"foundational":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"full":1,"grounded":2,"he":1,"heterogeneous":2,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"idiolects":2,"ieee":1,"in":4,"infrastructure":2,"inspecting":1,"institutional":1,"intentions":2,"internals":1,"interoperability":2,"interoperation":2,"introduced":1,"is":2,"key":1,"kqml":6,"language":1,"languages":3,"lays":1,"management":2,"maps":1,"meaning":3,"mechanism":1,"mental":5,"mentalistic":2,"minds":1,"motivates":1,"multi":1,"munindar":1,"must":1,"names":1,"need":1,"observable":1,"of":6,"on":1,"only":1,"order":1,"org":1,"out":1,"overview":1,"p":1,"paper":1,"permissives":1,"perspective":4,"perspectives":1,"pp":1,"practically":1,"pragmatics":1,"principles":1,"private":2,"problem":1,"prohibitives":1,"proposes":2,"protocols":2,"public":5,"read":1,"reality":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"replaces":1,"rethinking":1,"richer":1,"roles":5,"s":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":11,"seven":1,"sharpens":1,"shift":1,"should":1,"shows":2,"singh":4,"so":1,"social":6,"societies":3,"society":2,"source":1,"space":2,"speech":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"state":3,"substrate":1,"such":2,"summary":1,"support":1,"surveys":2,"systems":1,"tags":1,"terms":1,"testable":2,"that":2,"the":9,"their":1,"theory":1,"thus":1,"to":5,"true":1,"two":2,"type":1,"underlying":1,"unsatisfying":1,"untestable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"using":1,"verifiable":2,"verification":1,"verified":1,"vs":1,"we":1,"when":1,"which":1,"with":2,"without":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":431,"n":"Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles","s":"papers/acl/agent-communication-languages---rethinking-the-principles","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Singh, M. P. (1998). *IEEE Computer (December 1998)*. Source file: `singh-acl.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1109/2.735849)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Singh argues that mainstream ACLs like KQML and FIPA/Arcol are built on an untenable mentalistic semantics — grounding message meaning in the sender's beliefs and intentions — which cannot be verified from the outside and therefore cannot serve as a compliance standard. For true interoperability in heterogeneous multi-agent systems, he proposes shifting to a *social agency* model in which ACL semantics is defined in terms of public commitments, roles, and conventions rather than private mental states. The paper maps the design space of ACLs along perspective (private/public), type of meaning (personal/conventional), basis (semantic/pragmatic), context (fixed/flexible), coverage (of communicative acts), and construction autonomy (design/execution). It motivates \"societies\" of agents with published protocols, where compliance becomes testable and dialects can usefully coexist. The move from mental to social semantics underpins later work on commitment-based protocols."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Mentalistic ACL semantics is non-verifiable => poor basis for standards. - Social agency: commitments, roles, conventions as public meaning. - Design/execution autonomy orthogonal and both important. - Dialects are OK; idiolects are not. - Protocols as flexible specifications, not fixed FSMs."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[KQML]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Public Semantics]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Interaction Protocols]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":30,"t":"- **Claim:** Mentalistic ACL semantics (KQML, FIPA/ARCOL) cannot ground interoperability because compliance with sincerity and belief conditions is externally unverifiable; ACLs should be rebuilt on a social semantics of public commitments, roles and conventions. - **Mechanism:** Singh maps the ACL design space along six axes — perspective (private/public), meaning type (personal/conventional), basis (semantic/pragmatic), context (fixed/flexible), coverage (communicative-act repertoire), and construction autonomy (design-time vs. run-time). He uses this scheme to argue that FIPA/KQML occupy an untenable region, and sketches a social-agency alternative in which agents belong to \"societies\" with published protocols, commitments are first-class, and dialects (but not idiolects) are tolerated. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Social Agency]], [[Commitment-Based Semantics]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Conversation Policy]], [[Dialect vs Idiolect]], [[Design Autonomy]], [[Execution Autonomy]], [[ACL Verifiability]] - **Stance:** critique - **Relates to:** Directly targets the mentalistic stance of [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]], and [[FIPA-ACL]]; its social-semantic programme is operationalised by [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] (commitment-based Mercurio/JaCaMo) and cited approvingly by the surveys [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] and [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":37,"t":""},{"h":"acl #social-agency #commitments #interoperability","l":38,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1109":1,"1998":2,"2":1,"735849":1,"a":4,"acl":8,"acls":3,"act":2,"acts":1,"agency":5,"agent":9,"agents":2,"along":2,"alternative":1,"an":4,"and":15,"approvingly":1,"arcol":2,"are":5,"argue":1,"argues":1,"art":1,"as":4,"autonomy":5,"axes":1,"based":4,"basis":3,"be":2,"because":1,"becomes":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":1,"belong":1,"both":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":2,"can":1,"cannot":3,"cited":1,"claim":1,"class":1,"coexist":1,"commitment":4,"commitments":5,"communication":5,"communicative":2,"compliance":3,"computer":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"construction":2,"context":2,"contribution":1,"conventional":2,"conventions":3,"conversation":2,"coverage":2,"critique":1,"december":1,"defined":1,"design":6,"dialect":1,"dialects":3,"directly":1,"doi":1,"environments":1,"execution":3,"externally":1,"file":1,"fipa":5,"first":1,"fixed":3,"flexible":3,"for":3,"framework":1,"from":2,"fsms":1,"ground":1,"grounding":1,"he":2,"heterogeneous":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"idiolect":1,"idiolects":2,"ieee":1,"important":1,"in":7,"intentions":1,"interaction":2,"interoperability":3,"introduced":1,"is":4,"it":1,"its":1,"jacamo":1,"key":1,"kqml":5,"language":2,"languages":3,"later":1,"like":1,"m":1,"mainstream":1,"maps":2,"meaning":4,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":6,"mercurio":1,"message":1,"model":1,"motivates":1,"move":1,"multi":2,"non":1,"not":3,"occupy":1,"of":8,"ok":1,"on":3,"open":1,"operationalised":1,"org":1,"oriented":2,"orthogonal":1,"outside":1,"p":1,"paper":1,"personal":2,"perspective":2,"policy":2,"poor":1,"pragmatic":2,"principles":1,"private":3,"programme":1,"programming":1,"proposes":1,"protocols":5,"public":6,"published":2,"rather":1,"rebuilt":1,"reference":1,"region":1,"relates":1,"repertoire":1,"rethinking":1,"roles":3,"run":1,"s":1,"scheme":1,"semantic":3,"semantics":12,"sender":1,"serve":1,"shifting":1,"should":1,"sincerity":1,"singh":3,"six":1,"sketches":1,"social":8,"societies":2,"source":1,"space":2,"specifications":1,"speech":1,"stance":2,"standard":1,"standards":1,"state":1,"states":1,"summary":1,"surveys":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"targets":1,"terms":1,"testable":1,"than":1,"that":2,"the":11,"theory":1,"therefore":1,"this":1,"time":2,"to":5,"tolerated":1,"trends":1,"true":1,"type":2,"underpins":1,"untenable":2,"unverifiable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"usefully":1,"uses":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":2,"verified":1,"vs":2,"where":1,"which":3,"with":3,"work":1}},{"dl":432,"n":"KQML Overview","s":"papers/acl/kqml-overview","secs":[{"h":"An Overview of KQML: A Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** KQML Advisory Group — Tim Finin, Don McKay, Rich Fritzson (and Hans Chalupsky, Stuart Shapiro, Gio Wiederhold) (1992/1993). *Technical report, DARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort*. Source file: `kqmloverview.pdf`. [URL](https://www.csee.umbc.edu/csee/research/kqml/papers/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This foundational technical report introduces KQML, the language and protocol designed under the DARPA-sponsored Knowledge Sharing Effort to enable interoperability among heterogeneous intelligent agents and knowledge-based systems. It identifies the canonical module types — End User Applications (EUAs), Knowledge-Based Systems (KBs), Knowledge Base Repositories (KBRs), Databases (DBs), and Active Sensors (ASs) — and enumerates the fifteen possible interfaces between them, selecting KB-to-KB knowledge interchange as the central target. KQML is organized as three layers: a content layer (domain content in KIF or other logic), a message layer (performatives like `tell`, `ask-one`, `subscribe`, `advertise`, `register`), and a communication layer (sender, receiver, reply-ids, transport). The report details performatives, facilitators/routers (SKTP), ontology/topic matching, and a Prolog-based implementation. It set the vocabulary and architectural template for nearly all subsequent agent-communication work."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Three-layer design: content, message, communication. - Performatives as named speech-act-like primitives (tell, ask, subscribe, advertise). - Facilitators/mediators (SKTP) for routing and knowledge-based-service discovery. - Module taxonomy: EUA, KB, KBR, DB, AS. - Separation of content language (KIF) from communication language (KQML)."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Facilitators]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]] — journal companion - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] — tutorial companion - [[KQML - A Language And Protocol For Knowledge And Information Exchange]] — 1994 workshop original - [[KIF]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Conceptualization]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** Large heterogeneous knowledge-based systems need a standard high-level language and protocol for interchange that separates domain content (ontologies/KIF) from communicative intent (performatives) and from transport — KQML provides this missing middle layer. - **Mechanism:** Defines module taxonomy (EUA, KB, KBR, DB, AS) and their 15 interfaces; proposes KQML's three-layer architecture (content / message / communication); specifies performatives (tell, ask-one/all, stream, subscribe, advertise, register, broker, recruit, recommend) inspired by speech acts; specifies SKTP (facilitator) protocol for routing, ontology matching, and service discovery; gives a Prolog reference implementation. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[KQML]], [[Performatives]], [[Facilitator]], [[SKTP]], [[Content Language]], [[KIF]], [[Knowledge Sharing Effort]], [[Ontology Matching]], [[Speech Acts]] - **Stance:** engineering / foundational - **Relates to:** The language critiqued in [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] and [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] for its mentalistic informal semantics; its performatives are inherited by [[FIPA-ACL]] and the conversation work in [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]]; its ontology-sharing aspirations are addressed by [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"kqml #knowledge-sharing #darpa #performatives","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"15":1,"1992":1,"1993":1,"1994":1,"a":8,"acl":4,"acls":1,"act":2,"active":1,"acts":2,"addressed":1,"advertise":2,"advisory":1,"agent":3,"agents":2,"all":2,"among":1,"an":2,"and":19,"applications":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":2,"as":6,"ask":2,"aspirations":1,"ass":1,"base":1,"based":5,"between":1,"broker":1,"by":3,"canonical":1,"central":1,"chalupsky":1,"claim":1,"communication":7,"communicative":1,"companion":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualization":1,"connections":1,"content":7,"contribution":1,"conversation":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"critiqued":1,"csee":2,"darpa":3,"databases":1,"db":2,"dbs":1,"defines":1,"design":1,"designed":1,"details":1,"discovery":2,"domain":2,"don":1,"edu":1,"effort":3,"enable":1,"end":1,"engineering":1,"enumerates":1,"eua":2,"euas":1,"exchange":1,"facilitator":2,"facilitators":3,"fifteen":1,"file":1,"finin":1,"fipa":2,"for":7,"foundational":2,"fritzson":1,"from":3,"gio":1,"gives":1,"group":1,"hans":1,"heterogeneous":2,"high":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"ids":1,"implementation":2,"in":3,"informal":1,"information":1,"inherited":1,"inspired":1,"intelligent":1,"intent":1,"interchange":2,"interfaces":2,"interoperability":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":1,"it":2,"its":3,"journal":1,"kb":4,"kbr":2,"kbrs":1,"kbs":1,"key":1,"kif":5,"knowledge":12,"kqml":14,"language":10,"languages":1,"large":1,"layer":6,"layers":1,"level":1,"like":2,"logic":1,"manipulation":1,"matching":3,"mckay":1,"mechanism":1,"mediators":1,"mentalistic":2,"message":3,"middle":1,"missing":1,"module":3,"named":1,"nearly":1,"need":1,"of":2,"one":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":5,"or":1,"organized":1,"original":1,"other":1,"overview":1,"papers":1,"performatives":9,"portable":1,"possible":1,"primitives":1,"principles":1,"prolog":2,"proposes":1,"protocol":5,"provides":1,"query":1,"receiver":1,"recommend":1,"recruit":1,"reference":2,"register":1,"relates":1,"reply":1,"report":3,"repositories":1,"research":1,"rethinking":1,"rich":1,"routers":1,"routing":2,"s":1,"selecting":1,"semantics":3,"sender":1,"sensors":1,"separates":1,"separation":1,"service":2,"set":1,"shapiro":1,"sharing":5,"sktp":4,"source":1,"specifications":1,"specifies":2,"speech":4,"sponsored":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stream":1,"stuart":1,"subscribe":2,"subsequent":1,"summary":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"target":1,"taxonomy":2,"technical":2,"tell":2,"template":1,"that":1,"the":9,"their":1,"them":1,"theory":1,"this":2,"three":3,"tim":1,"to":3,"topic":1,"transport":2,"tutorial":1,"types":1,"umbc":1,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"user":1,"using":1,"verifiable":1,"vocabulary":1,"wiederhold":1,"work":2,"workshop":1,"www":1}},{"dl":408,"n":"KQML Language And Protocol","s":"papers/acl/kqml-language-and-protocol","secs":[{"h":"KQML - A Language and Protocol for Knowledge and Information Exchange","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Finin, Fritzson, McKay, McEntire (1994). *AAAI Technical Report WS-94-02* (ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort). Source file: `741.pdf`. [URL](https://cdn.aaai.org/Workshops/1994/WS-94-02/WS94-02-007.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"This paper describes the design of the Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language (KQML), an agent communication language developed under the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort. KQML is both a message format and a message-handling protocol supporting run-time knowledge sharing among cooperating intelligent agents. Its core contribution is an extensible set of *performatives* (speech-act-style operations such as tell, ask-if, ask-all, subscribe, advertise, broker, recruit) that define what an agent may do with another agent's knowledge and goal stores. KQML is organised as three layers - content, message, and communication - where the message layer carries a performative and metadata while the content layer is treated as opaque (often KIF). The paper introduces *facilitators* - special agents that coordinate others via content-based routing, brokering, recruiting, and matchmaking - and describes KRILs (KQML Router Interface Libraries) for embedding KQML into Lisp, Prolog, C, and SQL applications."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Performative-based messaging grounded in speech act theory. - Three-layer architecture: content, message, communication. - Facilitators for content-based routing, brokering, recruiting. - KRILs as embedding libraries for existing systems. - Prototype uses: ARPA Rome Planning Initiative, CAD/CAM, intelligent databases."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[KQML - A Language And Protocol For Knowledge And Information Exchange]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Knowledge sharing among heterogeneous intelligent agents is best realised by a layered, performative-based message protocol whose content is opaque and whose routing is mediated by special facilitator agents. - **Mechanism:** Defines a three-layer architecture (content / message / communication), a set of extensible performatives grounded in [[Speech Act Theory]], facilitators for brokering/recruiting/matchmaking, and KRIL embedding libraries for Lisp/Prolog/C/SQL. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[KQML]], [[Performatives]], [[Facilitators]], [[Content Languages]], [[KIF]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Ontologies]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]], [[Agent Communication Languages]] - **Stance:** foundational / engineering - **Relates to:** Direct philosophical descendant of [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] and sibling proposal to [[Common Business Communication Language]]; becomes the ancestor that [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]], [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], and the modern surveys ([[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]], [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]) all build on or critique."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"kqml #acl #speech-acts #foundational #agent-communication","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"007":1,"02":3,"1994":2,"94":2,"a":9,"aaai":2,"acl":3,"acls":1,"act":5,"acts":1,"advertise":1,"agent":12,"agents":4,"ai":1,"all":2,"among":2,"an":4,"ancestor":1,"and":17,"another":1,"applications":1,"architecture":2,"arpa":3,"as":5,"ask":2,"based":4,"becomes":1,"best":1,"both":1,"broker":1,"brokering":3,"build":1,"business":1,"by":2,"c":2,"cad":1,"cam":1,"carries":1,"cdn":1,"claim":1,"common":2,"communication":10,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":8,"contribution":2,"cooperating":1,"coordinate":1,"core":1,"critique":1,"databases":1,"define":1,"defines":1,"descendant":1,"describes":2,"design":1,"developed":1,"direct":1,"do":1,"effort":2,"embedding":3,"engineering":1,"exchange":2,"existing":1,"extensible":2,"facilitator":1,"facilitators":4,"file":1,"finin":1,"fipa":2,"for":7,"format":1,"foundational":2,"foundations":1,"fritzson":1,"goal":1,"grounded":2,"handling":1,"heterogeneous":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"information":2,"initiative":1,"institutional":1,"intelligent":3,"interface":1,"interoperability":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"is":7,"its":1,"key":1,"kif":2,"knowledge":8,"kqml":11,"kril":1,"krils":2,"language":6,"languages":3,"layer":4,"layered":1,"layers":1,"libraries":3,"lisp":2,"logic":1,"manipulation":1,"matchmaking":2,"may":1,"mcentire":1,"mckay":1,"mechanism":1,"mediated":1,"message":7,"messaging":1,"metadata":1,"modern":1,"multi":2,"of":8,"often":1,"on":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":1,"opaque":2,"operations":1,"or":1,"org":1,"organised":1,"others":1,"overview":1,"paper":2,"pdf":1,"performative":3,"performatives":3,"philosophical":1,"planning":1,"prolog":2,"proposal":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":2,"prototype":1,"query":1,"realised":1,"reality":1,"recruit":1,"recruiting":3,"reference":1,"relates":1,"report":1,"rome":1,"router":1,"routing":3,"run":1,"s":1,"set":2,"sharing":4,"sibling":1,"source":1,"special":2,"speech":6,"sql":2,"stance":1,"stores":1,"style":1,"subscribe":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"supporting":1,"survey":2,"surveys":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"technical":1,"tell":1,"that":3,"the":8,"theory":4,"this":1,"three":3,"time":1,"to":2,"treated":1,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"via":1,"what":1,"where":1,"while":1,"whose":2,"with":1,"workshops":1,"ws":2,"ws94":1}},{"dl":458,"n":"Semantics and Conversations for an ACL","s":"papers/acl/semantics-and-conversations-for-an-acl","secs":[{"h":"Semantics and Conversations for an Agent Communication Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Yannis Labrou and Tim Finin (1998). In *Readings in Agents* (Huhns & Singh eds., Morgan Kaufmann), reprinted from IJCAI-97. Source file: `labrou-finin-1998.pdf`. [URL](https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/9809034)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Labrou and Finin supply the missing formal semantics for KQML. They treat KQML performatives as speech acts and, drawing on Searle and Vanderveken, describe each reserved performative (`tell`, `ask-if`, `advertise`, `sorry`, `broker-one`, ...) by its preconditions, postconditions, and completion conditions over the cognitive states (`BEL`, `KNOW`, `WANT`, `INT`) of sender and receiver. On top of this performative-level semantics they add a *conversation policy* layer: a Definite Clause Grammar specifying legal sequences of performatives (conversations), giving KQML a two-tier account of meaning — individual acts plus interaction protocols. This is the canonical mentalistic semantics that [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] critiques: KQML's meaning is defined by what the agents are supposed to believe, know, and intend before and after sending each message, which is exactly the private, unverifiable mental-state grounding Singh objects to."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- KQML performatives carry *illocutionary force*; their meaning is given by speech-act-style preconditions and postconditions over agent mental states. - Four primitive mental-state operators: `BEL(A,X)`, `KNOW(A,X)`, `WANT(A,X)`, `INT(A,X)`; conjunctions and negations permitted but disjunction forbidden inside `BEL`/`KNOW`/`WANT`/`INT`. - Each performative specifies: intuitive meaning, content description, `Pre(A)`/`Pre(B)` preconditions, `Post(A)`/`Post(B)` postconditions, `Completion` condition, and an expected *response* performative. - `advertise` is analysed as a *commissive* — the sender commits to being able to process a later performative of the advertised type; `tell` as assertive; `ask-if` as directive. - Conversation policies: legal message sequences expressed as a DCG so that agents can plan and recognise multi-step exchanges (register-then-advertise-then-ask, broker patterns, etc.). - Negation of a mental-state expression means \"not provable\" from the agent's knowledge base — making the semantics relative to the particular agent's reasoner."},{"h":"Connections","l":18,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Conversation Policies]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** An Agent Communication Language acquires meaning at two layers — (1) per-performative speech-act semantics expressed as pre/post-conditions over the sender's and receiver's beliefs, knowledge, wants, and intentions, and (2) conversation policies expressed as a formal grammar over sequences of performatives — and this combination suffices to specify KQML. - **Mechanism:** Adopts Austin/Searle/Vanderveken speech-act categories, introduces the `BEL/KNOW/WANT/INT` operators, writes out pre/post/completion schemas for five reserved performatives (`advertise`, `ask-if`, `tell`, `sorry`, `broker-one`), and layers a Definite Clause Grammar to compose them into conversations. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[Performatives]], [[Illocutionary Force]], [[Conversation Policies]], [[Preconditions and Postconditions]], [[Commissives]] - **Stance:** constructive / foundational - **Relates to:** Direct target of the [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] critique — Singh names this mental-state grounding as the reason KQML compliance cannot be verified. Supplies the machinery later reused by [[FIPA-ACL]] and problematised by [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] and [[Commitment-based Semantics]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"acl #kqml #semantics #speech-acts #mentalistic","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1998":1,"2":1,"97":1,"9809034":1,"a":9,"able":1,"abs":1,"account":1,"acl":6,"acls":1,"acquires":1,"act":4,"acts":3,"add":1,"adopts":1,"advertise":1,"advertised":1,"after":1,"agent":6,"agents":3,"an":3,"analysed":1,"and":21,"are":1,"arxiv":1,"as":8,"ask":1,"assertive":1,"at":1,"austin":1,"base":1,"based":1,"be":1,"before":1,"being":1,"beliefs":1,"believe":1,"broker":1,"but":1,"by":5,"can":1,"cannot":1,"canonical":1,"carry":1,"categories":1,"claim":1,"clause":2,"cognitive":1,"combination":1,"commissive":1,"commissives":1,"commitment":1,"commits":1,"communication":3,"completion":2,"compliance":1,"compose":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":1,"conditions":2,"conjunctions":1,"connections":1,"constructive":1,"content":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":5,"conversations":3,"critique":1,"critiques":1,"cs":1,"dcg":1,"defined":1,"definite":2,"describe":1,"description":1,"direct":1,"directive":1,"disjunction":1,"drawing":1,"each":3,"eds":1,"etc":1,"exactly":1,"exchanges":1,"expected":1,"expressed":3,"expression":1,"file":1,"finin":2,"fipa":2,"five":1,"for":4,"forbidden":1,"force":2,"formal":2,"foundational":1,"four":1,"from":2,"given":1,"giving":1,"grammar":3,"grounding":2,"https":1,"huhns":1,"ideas":1,"ijcai":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":2,"individual":1,"inside":1,"intend":1,"intentions":1,"interaction":1,"into":1,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"intuitive":1,"is":5,"its":1,"kaufmann":1,"key":1,"know":1,"knowledge":2,"kqml":9,"labrou":2,"language":2,"languages":1,"later":2,"layer":1,"layers":2,"legal":2,"level":1,"machinery":1,"making":1,"meaning":5,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":5,"mentalistic":4,"message":2,"missing":1,"morgan":1,"multi":1,"names":1,"negation":1,"negations":1,"not":1,"objects":1,"of":8,"on":2,"operators":2,"org":1,"out":1,"over":4,"particular":1,"patterns":1,"per":1,"performative":6,"performatives":6,"permitted":1,"plan":1,"plus":1,"policies":4,"policy":1,"post":2,"postconditions":4,"pre":2,"preconditions":4,"primitive":1,"principles":3,"private":1,"problematised":1,"process":1,"protocols":1,"provable":1,"readings":1,"reason":1,"reasoner":1,"receiver":2,"recognise":1,"reference":1,"register":1,"relates":1,"relative":1,"reprinted":1,"reserved":2,"response":1,"rethinking":3,"reused":1,"s":5,"schemas":1,"searle":2,"semantics":11,"sender":3,"sending":1,"sequences":3,"singh":3,"so":1,"source":1,"specifies":1,"specify":1,"specifying":1,"speech":6,"stance":1,"state":4,"states":2,"step":1,"style":1,"suffices":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"supply":1,"supposed":1,"tags":1,"target":1,"that":2,"the":15,"their":1,"them":1,"then":2,"theory":1,"they":2,"this":4,"tier":1,"tim":1,"to":8,"top":1,"treat":1,"two":2,"type":1,"unverifiable":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vanderveken":2,"verifiable":1,"verified":1,"wants":1,"what":1,"which":1,"writes":1,"yannis":1}},{"dl":389,"n":"The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages","s":"papers/acl/the-state-of-the-art-in-agent-communication-languages","secs":[{"h":"The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Kone, Shimazu, Nakajima (2000). *Knowledge and Information Systems, Springer*. Source file: `The_State_of_the_Art_in_Agent_Communication_Langua.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00013712)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"A critical review of ACL design circa 2000. The authors lay out a generalized ACL framework structured around eight principles (heterogeneity, cooperation/coordination, separation, interoperability, transparency, extensibility/scalability, performance, and security). They distill ACL specifications into four components: message format, semantic model, interaction protocols, and shared ontologies/content language. The paper surveys major ACLs — KQML with KIF and facilitator mediation, France Telecom's ARCOL with its rational-action semantics, the FIPA standard derived from ARCOL, OAA's ICL, and mobile-agent LOGOS — documenting each approach's advantages and limitations (lack of formal semantics, low heterogeneity, missing shared ontologies, weak negotiation protocols). It closes by identifying open issues and pointing to the social-agency approach of Singh as a promising direction."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Eight ACL design principles as evaluation yardstick. - Four-part ACL spec: format, semantics, protocols, ontology. - KQML vs. ARCOL/FIPA as declarative approaches; OAA/LOGOS as procedural. - Speech-act-derived communicative act categories. - Key open issues: formal semantics, heterogeneity, shared ontologies."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Facilitators]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Public Semantics]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[Weak Agency]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":32,"t":"- **Claim:** An ACL should be evaluated against eight design principles and factored into four orthogonal components, revealing systematic gaps (formal semantics, heterogeneity, shared ontologies, negotiation) in the ACLs available at the turn of the millennium. - **Mechanism:** Kone, Shimazu and Nakajima enumerate eight principles (heterogeneity, cooperation/coordination, separation, interoperability, transparency, extensibility/scalability, performance, security) and a four-part ACL template (message format, semantic model, interaction protocols, shared ontology/content language). They apply this lens to KQML+KIF, ARCOL, FIPA-ACL, OAA's ICL and LOGOS, and close by endorsing Singh's social-agency direction. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[ACL Design Principles]], [[KQML]], [[KIF]], [[ARCOL]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[OAA ICL]], [[LOGOS]], [[Rational Action Semantics]], [[Facilitator]], [[Content Language]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** Sits alongside [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] as a companion turn-of-2000s assessment; its endorsement of social semantics anticipates [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and is realised by [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]; references ontology issues surveyed in [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":39,"t":""},{"h":"acl #survey #kqml #fipa #arcol","l":40,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1007":1,"2000":2,"2000s":1,"a":5,"acl":12,"acls":2,"act":3,"action":2,"advantages":1,"against":1,"agency":4,"agent":7,"alongside":1,"an":2,"and":14,"anticipates":1,"apply":1,"approach":2,"approaches":1,"arcol":6,"around":1,"art":1,"as":5,"assessment":1,"at":1,"authors":1,"available":1,"be":1,"by":3,"categories":1,"change":1,"circa":1,"claim":1,"classification":1,"close":1,"closes":1,"communication":4,"communicative":1,"companion":1,"components":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"content":3,"contribution":1,"cooperation":2,"coordination":2,"critical":1,"declarative":1,"derived":2,"design":4,"direction":2,"distill":1,"documenting":1,"doi":1,"each":1,"eight":4,"endorsement":1,"endorsing":1,"enumerate":1,"environments":1,"evaluated":1,"evaluation":1,"extensibility":2,"facilitator":2,"facilitators":1,"factored":1,"file":1,"fipa":6,"for":1,"formal":3,"format":3,"four":4,"framework":2,"france":1,"from":1,"gaps":1,"generalized":1,"heterogeneity":5,"https":1,"icl":3,"ideas":1,"identifying":1,"in":4,"information":1,"interaction":3,"interoperability":2,"into":2,"introduced":1,"is":1,"issues":3,"it":1,"its":2,"key":2,"kif":3,"knowledge":1,"kone":2,"kqml":6,"lack":1,"language":4,"languages":3,"lay":1,"lens":1,"limitations":1,"logos":4,"low":1,"major":1,"mechanism":1,"mediation":1,"mentalistic":1,"message":2,"millennium":1,"missing":1,"mobile":1,"model":2,"multi":1,"nakajima":2,"negotiation":3,"oaa":4,"of":7,"ontologies":5,"ontology":4,"open":3,"org":1,"oriented":1,"orthogonal":1,"out":1,"paper":1,"part":2,"performance":2,"performatives":1,"pl00013712":1,"pointing":1,"principles":6,"procedural":1,"promising":1,"protocols":4,"public":1,"rational":2,"realised":1,"reference":1,"references":1,"relates":1,"rethinking":1,"revealing":1,"review":1,"s":5,"scalability":2,"security":2,"semantic":2,"semantics":9,"separation":2,"shared":5,"shimazu":2,"should":1,"singh":2,"sits":1,"social":3,"source":1,"spec":1,"specifications":1,"speech":2,"springer":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"state":1,"strong":1,"structured":1,"summary":1,"survey":3,"surveyed":1,"surveys":1,"systematic":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"telecom":1,"template":1,"the":10,"theory":1,"they":2,"this":1,"to":3,"transparency":2,"trends":1,"turn":2,"url":1,"used":1,"vs":1,"weak":2,"with":2,"yardstick":1}},{"dl":427,"n":"KQML as an Agent Communication Language","s":"papers/acl/kqml-as-an-agent-communication-language","secs":[{"h":"KQML as an Agent Communication Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Tim Finin, Richard Fritzson, Don McKay, and Robin McEntire (1994). *CIKM '94 (Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management)*. Source file: `191246.191322.pdf`. [URL](https://research.cs.umbc.edu/kqml/papers/kqml-acl-html/root2.html)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Foundational paper on the Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language (KQML), developed under the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort. KQML is both a message format and a message-handling protocol for run-time knowledge sharing among intelligent agents. It builds on speech-act theory: each message (a *performative*) carries an illocutionary force (ask, tell, subscribe, advertise, recommend, broker, recruit, etc.) atop a content language (often KIF) and an ontology reference. The paper describes the three-layer structure (content / message / communication), facilitator agents that provide matchmaking, brokering and content-based routing, and implementations including routers, facilitators, and KRIL interface libraries. KQML became the reference point against which later ACLs (notably FIPA-ACL) were designed."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Performatives as speech-act-inspired message types - Separation of content language, message layer, and transport - Facilitators for advertise/subscribe, brokering, recruitment, routing - Reserved performatives: ask-if/ask-all, tell, stream-all, subscribe, monitor, advertise, recruit - KIF + ontologies as the assumed content layer"},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]] - [[KQML - A Language And Protocol For Knowledge And Information Exchange]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** Interoperable knowledge sharing among heterogeneous intelligent agents requires a three-layer communication language (content / message / communication) whose message layer is built from speech-act-inspired *performatives*, and whose runtime infrastructure provides facilitator agents for matchmaking and brokering. - **Mechanism:** Specify ~30 reserved performatives (ask-if, tell, subscribe, advertise, recruit, broker-one, …) that wrap a content expression (typically KIF) with an ontology reference and transport metadata; implement via routers, facilitators, and per-application KRIL interface libraries; demonstrate advertise/subscribe, content-based routing, and recruitment patterns. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[KQML]], [[Performatives]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[Facilitators]], [[Facilitator Agents]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]], [[KIF]], [[Ontologies]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Conversation Policy]], [[Interaction Protocols]] - **Stance:** engineering / standard-proposal - **Relates to:** Foundational reference against which [[FIPA-ACL]], [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]], [[ACL Rethinking Principles]], and [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] argue (over mentalistic vs commitment-based semantics). Performatives-as-protocol anticipates Agora's Protocol Documents in [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] and the MCP/A2A/ANP layer of modern LLM agents ([[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]])."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"kqml #acl #agent-communication #speech-acts #knowledge-sharing","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"1994":1,"30":1,"94":1,"a":10,"a2a":1,"acl":6,"acls":2,"act":5,"acts":1,"advertise":5,"against":2,"agent":9,"agents":6,"agora":1,"all":2,"among":2,"an":4,"and":19,"anp":1,"anticipates":1,"application":1,"argue":1,"arpa":1,"as":4,"ask":4,"assumed":1,"atop":1,"based":3,"became":1,"both":1,"broker":2,"brokering":3,"builds":1,"built":1,"carries":1,"cikm":1,"claim":1,"commitment":1,"common":1,"communication":10,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"connections":1,"content":8,"context":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":1,"cs":1,"demonstrate":1,"describes":1,"designed":1,"developed":1,"documents":1,"don":1,"each":1,"edu":1,"effort":1,"engineering":1,"etc":1,"exchange":1,"expression":1,"facilitator":3,"facilitators":4,"file":1,"finin":1,"fipa":3,"for":6,"force":1,"format":1,"foundational":2,"fritzson":1,"from":1,"handling":1,"heterogeneous":1,"html":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":2,"illocutionary":1,"implement":1,"implementations":1,"in":1,"including":1,"information":2,"infrastructure":1,"inspired":2,"intelligent":2,"interaction":1,"interface":2,"international":1,"interoperable":1,"introduced":1,"is":2,"it":1,"key":1,"kif":4,"knowledge":7,"kqml":12,"kril":2,"language":7,"languages":3,"later":1,"layer":6,"libraries":2,"llm":1,"llms":2,"management":1,"manipulation":1,"matchmaking":2,"mcentire":1,"mckay":1,"mcp":1,"mechanism":1,"mentalistic":2,"message":8,"metadata":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"monitor":1,"multi":1,"network":1,"networks":2,"notably":1,"of":6,"often":1,"on":3,"one":1,"ontologies":3,"ontology":3,"over":1,"overview":1,"paper":2,"papers":1,"patterns":1,"per":1,"performative":1,"performatives":6,"point":1,"policy":1,"principles":2,"proceedings":1,"proposal":1,"protocol":10,"protocols":1,"provide":1,"provides":1,"query":1,"recommend":1,"recruit":3,"recruitment":2,"reference":5,"relates":1,"requires":1,"research":1,"reserved":2,"rethinking":2,"richard":1,"robin":1,"root2":1,"routers":2,"routing":3,"run":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"scalable":2,"semantics":2,"separation":1,"sharing":4,"source":1,"specify":1,"speech":6,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stream":1,"structure":1,"subscribe":5,"summary":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tell":3,"that":2,"the":9,"theory":3,"third":1,"three":2,"tim":1,"time":1,"to":2,"transport":2,"types":1,"typically":1,"umbc":1,"under":1,"url":1,"used":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"were":1,"which":2,"whose":2,"with":1,"wrap":1}},{"dl":413,"n":"Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs","s":"papers/acl/toward-automated-evolution-of-acls","secs":[{"h":"Toward Automated Evolution of Agent Communication Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz, Matthew Summers, Dhruva Gopal (2001). *AAAI* (American Association for Artificial Intelligence). Source file: `gmytrasiewicz02towardAutomated.pdf`. [URL](https://www.cs.uic.edu/bin/view/Piotr/Publications)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Instead of designing ACLs centrally (like KQML or FIPA), the authors propose letting rational, self-interested agents *evolve* a shared ACL on the fly when they encounter each other. Each agent has its own internal knowledge representation language (KRL) and decides, via Bayesian decision theory and expected-utility calculations, which messages are worth sending and which new ACL constructs are worth negotiating into the shared vocabulary. Language creation is modeled as a negotiation game drawing on Rubinstein bargaining: agents propose grammatical rules and terminal labels, weigh them against translation/implementation costs and the value of faster communication, and reach Nash-equilibrium agreements. They illustrate with a Wumpus-world scenario, showing how pidgin ACLs grow into richer creole-like languages via unsupervised learning of transducers and negotiation of new lexicon/grammar productions."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- ACL emerges from pairwise negotiation instead of top-down standardization. - Rational agents use expected-utility gains from communication to drive language extension. - Translator modeled as a finite-state transducer between KRL and ACL. - Rubinstein bargaining gives closed-form agreement on new ACL constructs. - Evolution from pidgin to creole through repeated interaction."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Language Games]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Conceptualization]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":28,"t":"- **Claim:** Agent communication languages need not be standardised top-down (KQML, FIPA); rational agents can initiate, enrich, and evolve a shared ACL through game-theoretic negotiation driven by expected-utility gains from improved communication. - **Mechanism:** Each agent owns a private KRL and a finite-state transducer translating KRL ↔ ACL; decision-theoretic message selection (Bayesian, utility-maximising) identifies candidate new lexical/grammatical constructs; a Rubinstein-bargaining model with time discounting, implementation cost, and identity assumptions yields Nash-equilibrium agreements that extend the shared ACL grammar. Illustrated on a Wumpus-world example. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[ACL Evolution]], [[Knowledge Representation Language]], [[Finite-State Transducer]], [[Rubinstein Bargaining]], [[Pidgin and Creole]], [[Value of Communication]], [[Unsupervised Grammar Induction]], [[Mechanism Design]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic / engineering - **Relates to:** Offers a decentralised alternative to the standardisation stance of [[KQML Overview]] and [[FIPA-ACL]]; resonates with [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] and [[Emergent Communication]] which study language emergence from interaction; the bargaining apparatus parallels commitment-based approaches in [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":35,"t":""},{"h":"acl-evolution #negotiation #game-theory #language-emergence","l":36,"t":""}],"tf":{"2001":1,"a":10,"aaai":1,"acl":12,"acls":2,"against":1,"agent":8,"agents":4,"agreement":1,"agreements":2,"alternative":1,"american":1,"and":15,"apparatus":1,"approaches":1,"are":2,"artificial":1,"as":2,"association":1,"assumptions":1,"authors":1,"automated":1,"bargaining":5,"based":1,"bayesian":2,"be":1,"between":1,"bin":1,"by":1,"calculations":1,"can":1,"candidate":1,"centrally":1,"claim":1,"closed":1,"commitment":1,"communication":10,"compositional":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conceptualization":1,"connections":1,"constructs":3,"contribution":1,"cost":1,"costs":1,"creation":1,"creole":3,"cs":1,"decentralised":1,"decides":1,"decision":2,"design":1,"designing":1,"dhruva":1,"discounting":1,"down":2,"drawing":1,"drive":1,"driven":1,"each":3,"edu":1,"emergence":3,"emergent":2,"emerges":1,"encounter":1,"engineering":1,"enrich":1,"equilibrium":2,"evolution":4,"evolve":2,"example":1,"expected":3,"extend":1,"extension":1,"faster":1,"file":1,"finite":3,"fipa":4,"fly":1,"for":1,"form":1,"formal":1,"from":5,"gains":2,"game":3,"games":1,"gives":1,"gmytrasiewicz":1,"gopal":1,"grammar":3,"grammatical":2,"grounded":1,"grow":1,"has":1,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"identifies":1,"identity":1,"illustrate":1,"illustrated":1,"implementation":2,"improved":1,"in":2,"induction":1,"initiate":1,"instead":2,"institutional":1,"intelligence":1,"interaction":2,"interested":1,"internal":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"is":1,"its":1,"j":1,"key":1,"knowledge":2,"kqml":4,"krl":4,"labels":1,"language":8,"languages":4,"learning":1,"letting":1,"lexical":1,"lexicon":1,"like":2,"matthew":1,"maximising":1,"mechanism":2,"message":1,"messages":1,"model":1,"modeled":2,"multi":2,"nash":2,"need":1,"negotiating":1,"negotiation":6,"new":4,"not":1,"of":9,"offers":1,"on":4,"ontologies":1,"or":1,"other":1,"overview":1,"own":1,"owns":1,"pairwise":1,"parallels":1,"pidgin":3,"piotr":2,"populations":1,"private":1,"productions":1,"propose":2,"publications":1,"rational":3,"reach":1,"reality":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"repeated":1,"representation":2,"resonates":1,"richer":1,"rubinstein":4,"rules":1,"scenario":1,"selection":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"sending":1,"shared":4,"showing":1,"source":1,"stance":2,"standardisation":1,"standardised":1,"standardization":1,"state":3,"study":1,"summary":1,"summers":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"terminal":1,"that":1,"the":7,"them":1,"theoretic":2,"theory":2,"they":2,"through":2,"time":1,"to":4,"top":2,"toward":1,"transducer":3,"transducers":1,"translating":1,"translation":1,"translator":1,"uic":1,"unsupervised":2,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"utility":4,"value":2,"via":2,"view":1,"vocabulary":1,"weigh":1,"when":1,"which":3,"with":3,"world":2,"worth":2,"wumpus":2,"www":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":442,"n":"Common Business Communication Language","s":"papers/acl/common-business-communication-language","secs":[{"h":"The Common Business Communication Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** John McCarthy (1975/1982, revised 1998/1999). *Stanford CS Department*. Source file: `cbcl2.pdf`. [URL](http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/cbcl2.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"McCarthy's 1975 memo (revived in 1998 with footnotes anticipating XML and electronic commerce) sketches a Common Business Communication Language (CBCL) allowing computers from different organizations to exchange business messages - requests for quotations, offers, order status, delivery queries - without pre-arranged bilateral formats. The paper enumerates requirements: open-endedness, pre-existing compatibility, independence of internal data formats, and ability to fall back to human-readable form when a receiver does not understand a new message. He proposes messages as nested parenthesized lists (a Lisp-like syntax McCarthy argues is isomorphic to but simpler than XML), adjectival modifiers (ADJECTIVE FOO YELLOW), and Russell description operators for referring expressions. The essay prefigures KQML-style performatives and electronic data interchange, and closes with 1998 advice to XML, W3C, and ICE on extensibility, Lisp-style syntax, and standard time formats."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Inter-organizational computer communication without pre-arranged formats. - Lisp-style S-expression syntax isomorphic to but simpler than XML. - Adjectival modifiers (ADJECTIVE x y as a kind of y) for partial understanding. - Non-monotonic reasoning required for natural-language-like expressivity. - Proto-KQML vision of semantic business messaging."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Three Models For The Description Of Language]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — companion McCarthy proposal; CBCL messages are the inter-organisational counterpart of Elephant's intra-program speech acts. - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] — supplies the sense/denotation machinery CBCL tacitly relies on for descriptions. - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — the non-monotonic reading of ADJECTIVE and partial-understanding fallback rests on circumscription-style defaults. - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":27,"t":"- **Claim:** Organisations should exchange business messages in a common, open-ended language without pre-arranged bilateral formats; partial understanding must degrade gracefully to human-readable fallback. - **Mechanism:** Lisp-style S-expression messages (isomorphic to but simpler than XML), adjectival modifiers (ADJECTIVE x y) for partial-match semantics, Russell description operators for referring expressions, non-monotonic reasoning for NL-like expressivity; 1998 footnotes advise XML/W3C/ICE communities. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Common Business Communication Language]], [[S-expressions]], [[EDI]], [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]], [[Adjectival Modifiers]], [[Agent Communication Languages]], [[Ontologies]], [[Performatives]], [[Speech Act Theory]], [[KQML]] - **Stance:** foundational - **Relates to:** Anticipates the performative-based vision of [[KQML Language And Protocol]] and the open discovery ambitions of [[Agent Network Protocol]] / [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]; its syntactic minimalism resonates with REST's uniform interface in [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":34,"t":""},{"h":"foundational #communication-language #mccarthy #edi","l":35,"t":""}],"tf":{"1975":2,"1982":1,"1998":4,"1999":1,"2000":1,"a":8,"ability":1,"act":1,"acts":2,"adjectival":4,"adjective":4,"advice":1,"advise":1,"agent":4,"allowing":1,"ambitions":1,"and":11,"anticipates":1,"anticipating":1,"architecture":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"arranged":3,"as":2,"ascribing":1,"back":1,"based":2,"bilateral":2,"business":6,"but":3,"cbcl":3,"cbcl2":1,"circumscription":2,"claim":1,"closes":1,"commerce":1,"common":4,"communication":7,"communities":1,"companion":1,"compatibility":1,"computer":1,"computers":1,"concepts":2,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"counterpart":1,"cs":1,"data":2,"defaults":1,"degrade":1,"delivery":1,"denotation":1,"department":1,"description":3,"descriptions":1,"design":1,"different":1,"discovery":1,"does":1,"edi":2,"edu":1,"electronic":2,"elephant":2,"ended":1,"endedness":1,"enumerates":1,"essay":1,"exchange":2,"existing":1,"expression":2,"expressions":3,"expressivity":2,"extensibility":1,"fall":1,"fallback":2,"file":1,"first":1,"foo":1,"footnotes":2,"for":9,"form":2,"formal":1,"formats":5,"foundational":2,"from":1,"gracefully":1,"he":1,"http":1,"human":2,"ice":2,"ideas":1,"in":3,"independence":1,"individual":1,"inter":2,"interchange":1,"interface":1,"internal":1,"interoperability":1,"intra":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"isomorphic":3,"its":1,"jmc":1,"john":1,"key":1,"kind":1,"kqml":5,"language":9,"languages":2,"like":3,"lisp":4,"lists":1,"machinery":1,"machines":1,"match":1,"mccarthy":5,"mechanism":1,"memo":1,"mental":1,"message":1,"messages":5,"messaging":1,"minimalism":1,"models":1,"modern":1,"modifiers":4,"monotonic":4,"must":1,"natural":1,"nested":1,"network":1,"new":1,"nl":1,"non":4,"nonmonotonic":1,"not":1,"of":12,"offers":1,"on":4,"ontologies":2,"open":3,"operators":2,"order":2,"organisational":1,"organisations":1,"organizational":1,"organizations":1,"paper":1,"parenthesized":1,"partial":4,"pdf":1,"performative":1,"performatives":2,"pre":4,"prefigures":1,"principled":1,"program":1,"programming":1,"proposal":1,"proposes":1,"propositions":1,"proto":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"qualities":1,"queries":1,"quotations":1,"readable":2,"reading":1,"reasoning":4,"receiver":1,"reference":1,"referring":2,"relates":1,"relies":1,"requests":1,"required":1,"requirements":1,"resonates":1,"rest":1,"rests":1,"revised":1,"revived":1,"russell":2,"s":6,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"sense":1,"should":1,"simpler":3,"sketches":1,"source":1,"speech":3,"stance":1,"standard":1,"stanford":2,"status":1,"style":5,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"survey":1,"syntactic":1,"syntax":3,"tacitly":1,"tags":1,"than":3,"the":10,"theories":1,"theory":1,"three":1,"time":1,"to":10,"understand":1,"understanding":3,"uniform":1,"url":1,"used":1,"vision":2,"w3c":2,"web":1,"when":1,"with":3,"without":3,"www":1,"x":2,"xml":6,"y":3,"yellow":1}},{"dl":408,"n":"Trends in Agent Communication Language","s":"papers/acl/trends-in-agent-communication-language","secs":[{"h":"Trends in Agent Communication Language","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Chaib-draa, B., Dignum, F. (2002). *Computational Intelligence, Vol. 18, No. 2*. Source file: `trends-in-acl.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8640.00184)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Editorial introduction to a special issue on ACLs that surveys the field's major research threads. The authors review the origins of ACLs (KSE, KQML/KIF, FIPA-ACL based on ARCOL), situating them as intentional/social layers above transport protocols (TCP/IP, HTTP, IIOP). They highlight five core issues: theories of agency underpinning the semantics, ACL semantics proper (pre-/post-/completion conditions vs. rational effects), verification of compliance and protocols, treatment of ontologies, and completeness of message-type sets. The paper emphasizes tensions between mentalistic semantics (inherited from Searle/Cohen-Levesque speech-act theory) and social alternatives (Singh), and argues conversation policies/protocols are a primary practical vehicle for tractable agent interaction. It closes by reviewing ad-hoc treatment of ontologies and the limits of KQML and FIPA-ACL message-type coverage (e.g., missing commissives in FIPA-ACL)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- ACLs operate at intentional/social layer above transport. - Mentalistic (FIPA) vs. social (Singh) semantics tension. - Verifiability of sincerity/semantics is largely infeasible. - Conversation policies make ACL use tractable. - Ontology integration remains largely ad-hoc."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[KQML]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Conversation Policy]] - [[Interaction Protocols]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":31,"t":"- **Claim:** ACL research clusters around five persistent issues — theory of agency, ACL semantics, verification, ontologies, and completeness of message-type repertoires — and progress requires reconciling mentalistic and social semantics via practical conversation policies. - **Mechanism:** Chaib-draa and Dignum trace ACLs from the KSE through KQML/KIF to FIPA-ACL/ARCOL, situating them as an intentional/social layer above TCP/HTTP/IIOP transports, and survey each issue. They highlight Cohen–Levesque rational-effect semantics vs. Singh's social commitments, argue sincerity verification is generally infeasible, note FIPA-ACL's missing commissives, and promote conversation policies as the practical tractability lever. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[ACL Layering]], [[Rational Effect]], [[Conversation Policy]], [[Protocol Verification]], [[Commissives]], [[Theory of Agency]], [[Ontology Grounding]] - **Stance:** survey - **Relates to:** A companion to [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]]; summarises the tension sharpened in [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] and motivates the commitment-based turn realised in [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]; its ontology concern links to [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":38,"t":""},{"h":"acl #survey #semantics #conversation-policies","l":39,"t":""}],"tf":{"00184":1,"10":1,"1111":1,"1467":1,"18":1,"2":1,"2002":1,"8640":1,"a":3,"above":3,"acl":12,"acls":4,"act":2,"ad":2,"agency":3,"agent":7,"alternatives":1,"an":2,"and":14,"arcol":2,"are":1,"argue":1,"argues":1,"around":1,"art":1,"as":3,"at":1,"authors":1,"b":1,"based":3,"between":1,"by":1,"chaib":2,"change":1,"claim":1,"classification":1,"closes":1,"clusters":1,"cohen":2,"commissives":3,"commitment":2,"commitments":1,"communication":4,"companion":1,"completeness":2,"completion":1,"compliance":1,"computational":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concern":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"conversation":7,"core":1,"coverage":1,"dignum":2,"doi":1,"draa":2,"e":1,"each":1,"editorial":1,"effect":2,"effects":1,"emphasizes":1,"environments":1,"f":1,"field":1,"file":1,"fipa":7,"five":2,"for":2,"framework":1,"from":2,"g":1,"generally":1,"grounding":1,"highlight":2,"hoc":2,"http":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"iiop":2,"in":5,"infeasible":2,"inherited":1,"integration":1,"intelligence":1,"intentional":3,"interaction":3,"introduced":1,"introduction":1,"ip":1,"is":2,"issue":2,"issues":2,"it":1,"its":1,"key":1,"kif":2,"kqml":4,"kse":2,"language":1,"languages":3,"largely":2,"layer":2,"layering":1,"layers":1,"lever":1,"levesque":2,"limits":1,"links":1,"major":1,"make":1,"mechanism":1,"mentalistic":4,"message":3,"missing":2,"motivates":1,"multi":1,"no":1,"note":1,"of":12,"on":2,"ontologies":4,"ontology":4,"open":1,"operate":1,"org":1,"oriented":1,"origins":1,"paper":1,"performatives":1,"persistent":1,"policies":5,"policy":2,"post":1,"practical":3,"pre":1,"primary":1,"principles":1,"progress":1,"promote":1,"proper":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":4,"rational":3,"realised":1,"reconciling":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"remains":1,"repertoires":1,"requires":1,"research":2,"rethinking":1,"review":1,"reviewing":1,"s":3,"searle":1,"semantics":12,"sets":1,"sharpened":1,"sincerity":2,"singh":3,"situating":2,"social":7,"source":1,"special":1,"speech":2,"stance":1,"state":1,"summarises":1,"summary":1,"survey":4,"surveys":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tcp":2,"tension":2,"tensions":1,"that":1,"the":13,"them":2,"theories":1,"theory":4,"they":2,"threads":1,"through":1,"to":5,"trace":1,"tractability":1,"tractable":2,"transport":2,"transports":1,"treatment":2,"trends":1,"turn":1,"type":3,"underpinning":1,"url":1,"use":1,"used":1,"vehicle":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":4,"via":1,"vol":1,"vs":3}},{"dl":419,"n":"Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence","s":"papers/acl/towards-automating-the-evolution-of-linguistic-competence","secs":[{"h":"Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence in Artificial Agents","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Gmytrasiewicz, P. J., Gopal, D. (2000). *Technical article, University of Texas at Arlington*. Source file: `Towards_Automating_the_Evolution_of_Linguistic_Com.pdf`. [URL](https://www.cs.uic.edu/bin/view/Piotr/Publications)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Gmytrasiewicz and Gopal propose a decision-theoretic framework for artificial agents to autonomously enrich and evolve their shared agent communication language. Each agent has a frame/object-based knowledge representation language (KRL) encoding beliefs about the world and nested beliefs about other agents. Decisions about which messages to send are grounded in expected-utility computations over the effect on the hearer's mental state, so every well-defined message carries measurable value to the speaker. When the ACL proves inadequate to express content the agent wishes to communicate, the agents engage in game-theoretic negotiation (after Rubinstein-style alternating offers) over new lexicon items and grammatical rules. Utilities trade off implementation cost, time-discounting, and communicative gain. The framework thus gives a concrete mechanism for pidgin-like emergence of shared ACLs among rational, knowledge-based agents."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- KRL as agents' \"language of thought\"; ACL is a translation target. - Message value = expected-utility impact on hearer's mental state. - Negotiation over lexicon and grammar when ACL is insufficient. - Nested agent models enable rational communication choices. - Decision-theoretic, game-theoretic grounding for language emergence."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Negotiation]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Mental State]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":26,"t":"- **Claim:** The content and extension of an agent communication language can be derived from rational-decision principles: every message carries measurable expected utility, and when the current ACL is insufficient, agents rationally negotiate new lexicon and grammar. - **Mechanism:** Each agent has a frame-based KRL representing nested beliefs about others; message utility is computed as the expected change in the hearer's mental state weighed against action value. When no existing ACL expression suffices, Rubinstein-style alternating-offers bargaining over new lexicon items and grammar rules trades off implementation cost, time-discount, and future communicative gain, producing a pidgin-like convergence path. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Knowledge Representation Language]], [[Expected Utility Communication]], [[Rubinstein Bargaining]], [[Nested Beliefs]], [[Lexicon Negotiation]], [[Pidgin Emergence]], [[Decision-Theoretic ACL]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic - **Relates to:** Provides a decision-theoretic counterpart to the situated emergence of [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] and the neural emergence studied in [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]]; its utility-grounded messages contrast with the mentalistic sincerity conditions of [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] and [[FIPA-ACL]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":33,"t":""},{"h":"acl-evolution #decision-theory #negotiation #language-emergence","l":34,"t":""}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":7,"about":4,"acl":8,"acls":1,"act":1,"action":1,"after":1,"against":1,"agent":9,"agents":7,"alternating":2,"among":1,"an":1,"and":13,"are":1,"arlington":1,"article":1,"artificial":2,"as":2,"at":1,"automating":1,"autonomous":1,"autonomously":1,"bargaining":2,"based":3,"be":1,"beliefs":4,"bin":1,"can":1,"carries":2,"change":1,"choices":1,"claim":1,"communicate":1,"communication":7,"communicative":2,"competence":1,"computations":1,"computed":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"conditions":1,"connections":1,"content":2,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"convergence":1,"cost":2,"counterpart":1,"cs":1,"current":1,"d":1,"decision":6,"decisions":1,"defined":1,"derived":1,"discount":1,"discounting":1,"each":2,"edu":1,"effect":1,"emergence":6,"emergent":2,"enable":1,"encoding":1,"engage":1,"enrich":1,"every":2,"evolution":2,"evolve":1,"existing":1,"expected":5,"express":1,"expression":1,"extension":1,"file":1,"fipa":1,"for":4,"formal":1,"frame":2,"framework":2,"from":1,"future":1,"gain":2,"game":2,"games":1,"gives":1,"gmytrasiewicz":2,"gopal":2,"grammar":3,"grammatical":1,"grounded":2,"grounding":1,"has":2,"hearer":3,"https":1,"ideas":1,"impact":1,"implementation":2,"in":5,"inadequate":1,"insufficient":2,"introduced":1,"is":4,"items":2,"its":1,"j":1,"key":1,"knowledge":3,"krl":3,"language":9,"languages":1,"lexicon":5,"like":2,"linguistic":1,"measurable":2,"measuring":1,"mechanism":2,"mental":4,"mentalistic":1,"message":4,"messages":2,"models":1,"multi":1,"negotiate":1,"negotiation":5,"nested":4,"neural":1,"new":3,"no":1,"object":1,"of":8,"off":2,"offers":2,"on":3,"oriented":1,"other":1,"others":1,"over":4,"p":1,"path":1,"pidgin":3,"piotr":1,"pitfalls":1,"principles":1,"producing":1,"programming":1,"propose":1,"proves":1,"provides":1,"publications":1,"rational":3,"rationally":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"representation":2,"representing":1,"robots":1,"rubinstein":3,"rules":2,"s":3,"semantic":1,"send":1,"shared":2,"sincerity":1,"situated":1,"so":1,"source":1,"speaker":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"state":4,"studied":1,"style":2,"suffices":1,"summary":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"target":1,"technical":1,"texas":1,"the":17,"their":1,"theoretic":6,"theory":2,"thought":1,"thus":1,"time":2,"to":7,"towards":1,"trade":1,"trades":1,"translation":1,"uic":1,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"utilities":1,"utility":6,"value":3,"view":1,"weighed":1,"well":1,"when":4,"which":1,"wishes":1,"with":1,"workbenches":1,"world":1,"www":1}},{"dl":307,"n":"Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns","s":"papers/acl/semantic-description-for-agent-design-patterns","secs":[{"h":"A Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Sabatucci, Cossentino, Gaglio. *AT2AI-08 / University of Palermo & ICAR-CNR*. Source file: `at2ai08_sabatucci.pdf`. [URL](https://www.ofai.at/agents/conf/at2ai6/papers/Sabatucci.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The authors propose a fine-grained design language for formalizing and composing agent design patterns, integrated with the PASSI methodology for multi-agent system development. Patterns are represented as semantic networks (Pattern Semantic Description diagrams) whose nodes are *Pattern Description Elements* - participants, collaborators, events, and actions - typed against a MAS meta-model. Four composition operators (Unification, Conjunction, Concealing, Externalization) let designers blend patterns systematically, preserving traceability of pattern contributions in the resulting structure. A worked example composes GenericAgent and Request patterns into SequentialShareResource, illustrating how FIPA-Request-compliant service agents can be built through pattern composition."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- PSD diagrams: semantic networks of Participants and Collaborators. - Composition operators: Unification, Conjunction, Concealing, Externalization. - Patterns typed against a MAS meta-model (agent, role, task, communication). - Integrated with PASSI design process. - Worked example of FIPA-Request service pattern composition."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Ontologies]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Agent design patterns should be formalised as typed semantic networks with explicit composition operators, so that FIPA-compliant systems can be built by pattern algebra rather than ad-hoc composition. - **Mechanism:** Introduces Pattern Semantic Description (PSD) diagrams typed against a MAS meta-model; defines Unification, Conjunction, Concealing, and Externalization operators; integrates with the PASSI methodology; worked example composes GenericAgent + Request into SequentialShareResource. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Design Patterns]], [[PASSI Methodology]], [[MAS Meta-model]], [[Pattern Composition]], [[Interaction Protocols]], [[Roles]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[Ontologies]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Supplies a pattern language for the protocol-level conversations tracked by [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]]; its MAS meta-model leans on ontology foundations surveyed in [[Handbook On Ontologies]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"design-patterns #agent-engineering #passi #mas","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"08":1,"a":7,"acl":2,"acre":1,"actions":1,"ad":1,"against":3,"agent":11,"agents":2,"algebra":1,"and":5,"are":2,"as":2,"at":1,"at2ai":1,"at2ai6":1,"authors":1,"be":3,"blend":1,"built":2,"by":2,"can":2,"claim":1,"cnr":1,"collaborators":2,"communication":1,"compliant":2,"composes":2,"composing":1,"composition":7,"concealing":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"conf":1,"conjunction":3,"connections":1,"contribution":1,"contributions":1,"conversation":1,"conversations":1,"cossentino":1,"defines":1,"description":4,"design":7,"designers":1,"development":1,"diagrams":3,"elements":1,"engine":1,"engineering":2,"events":1,"example":3,"explicit":1,"externalization":3,"file":1,"fine":1,"fipa":5,"for":4,"formalised":1,"formalizing":1,"foundations":1,"four":1,"gaglio":1,"genericagent":2,"grained":1,"handbook":1,"hoc":1,"how":1,"https":1,"icar":1,"ideas":1,"illustrating":1,"in":2,"integrated":2,"integrates":1,"interaction":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"introduces":1,"its":1,"key":1,"language":2,"leans":1,"let":1,"level":1,"mas":6,"mechanism":1,"meta":5,"methodology":3,"model":5,"multi":3,"networks":3,"nodes":1,"of":4,"ofai":1,"on":2,"ontologies":3,"ontology":1,"operators":4,"oriented":2,"palermo":1,"papers":1,"participants":2,"passi":5,"pattern":9,"patterns":9,"pdf":1,"preserving":1,"process":1,"programming":2,"propose":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"psd":2,"rather":1,"reasoning":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"represented":1,"request":4,"resulting":1,"role":1,"roles":1,"sabatucci":2,"semantic":6,"sequentialshareresource":2,"service":2,"should":1,"so":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"structure":1,"summary":1,"supplies":1,"surveyed":1,"system":1,"systematically":1,"systems":3,"tags":1,"task":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":5,"through":1,"to":1,"traceability":1,"tracked":1,"typed":4,"unification":3,"university":1,"url":1,"used":1,"whose":1,"with":4,"worked":3,"www":1}},{"dl":321,"n":"ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine","s":"papers/acl/acre-agent-conversation-reasoning-engine","secs":[{"h":"ACRE: Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Lillis & Collier (University College Dublin). Source file: `ACRE_Agent_Conversation_Reasoning_Engine.pdf`. [URL](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228725198_ACRE_Agent_Conversation_Reasoning_Engine)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"ACRE complements existing rule-based agent programming languages (AFAPL2, AgentSpeak, Jason, Jack) with explicit support for modelling, managing, and reasoning about complex multi-message conversations. Rather than handling each FIPA-ACL message individually, ACRE represents conversations as instances of *protocols* specified as Coloured Petri Nets or Dooley Graphs, so agents can track which performatives are expected next and react accordingly. The paper integrates ACRE with the Agent Factory framework: conversations are exposed via a `conversation-id` parameter, and plan pre/postconditions in AFAPL2 reason over `BELIEF(status(...))` predicates derived from ACRE. A Vickrey auction example shows how an Auctioneer agent uses ACRE-tracked conversations to issue `cfp`, collect `propose`/`refuse` messages, and broadcast `accept-proposal`/`reject-proposal`."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Protocols are first-class citizens, separate from individual messages. - Conversations tracked via Coloured Petri Nets / Dooley Graphs. - Integration with AFAPL2: conversation state surfaces as beliefs for plan reasoning. - Code verification check that agent plans honour protocol expectations. - Vickrey auction case study using FIPA Contract Net-style interactions."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":23,"t":"- **Claim:** Agents need conversations, not just messages, as first-class abstractions; existing AOP languages (AgentSpeak, Jason, AFAPL2) lack native protocol reasoning. - **Mechanism:** Models FIPA-ACL interaction protocols as Coloured Petri Nets / Dooley Graphs instantiated per conversation-id; surfaces conversation state as `BELIEF(status(...))` predicates usable in plan pre/postconditions; validated via Vickrey auction (Contract Net). - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Interaction Protocols]], [[Coloured Petri Nets]], [[Dooley Graphs]], [[Conversations]], [[Conversation Policy]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Performatives]], [[Contract Net Protocol]], [[BDI]], [[Agent-Oriented Programming]], [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - **Stance:** engineering - **Relates to:** Operationalises the protocol-tracking needs implicit in [[FIPA-ACL]] and [[KQML]]; its plan-level conversation awareness is an ancestor of task/session tracking in modern [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] as covered by [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":30,"t":""},{"h":"acl #conversations #fipa #agent-programming","l":31,"t":""}],"tf":{"228725198":1,"a":2,"about":1,"abstractions":1,"accordingly":1,"acl":6,"acre":7,"afapl2":4,"agent":15,"agents":2,"agentspeak":2,"an":2,"ancestor":1,"and":5,"aop":1,"are":3,"as":7,"auction":3,"auctioneer":1,"awareness":1,"based":1,"bdi":1,"beliefs":1,"broadcast":1,"by":1,"can":1,"case":1,"check":1,"citizens":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"code":1,"collect":1,"college":1,"collier":1,"coloured":4,"communication":1,"complements":1,"complex":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":1,"contract":3,"contribution":1,"conversation":7,"conversations":8,"covered":1,"derived":1,"dooley":4,"dublin":1,"each":1,"engine":2,"engineering":1,"example":1,"existing":2,"expectations":1,"expected":1,"explicit":1,"exposed":1,"factory":1,"file":1,"fipa":7,"first":2,"for":2,"framework":1,"from":2,"graphs":4,"handling":1,"honour":1,"how":1,"https":1,"id":1,"ideas":1,"implicit":1,"in":4,"individual":1,"individually":1,"instances":1,"instantiated":1,"integrates":1,"integration":1,"interaction":2,"interactions":1,"interoperability":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"issue":1,"its":1,"jack":1,"jason":2,"just":1,"key":1,"kqml":1,"lack":1,"languages":3,"level":1,"lillis":1,"managing":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"messages":3,"modelling":1,"models":1,"modern":1,"multi":3,"native":1,"need":1,"needs":1,"net":4,"nets":4,"next":1,"not":1,"of":3,"operationalises":1,"or":1,"oriented":2,"over":1,"paper":1,"parameter":1,"per":1,"performatives":2,"petri":4,"plan":4,"plans":1,"policy":1,"postconditions":2,"pre":2,"predicates":2,"programming":4,"protocol":5,"protocols":5,"publication":1,"rather":1,"react":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":5,"reference":1,"relates":1,"represents":1,"researchgate":1,"rule":1,"separate":1,"session":1,"shows":1,"so":1,"source":1,"specified":1,"stance":1,"state":2,"study":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"surfaces":2,"survey":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"task":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":3,"to":3,"track":1,"tracked":2,"tracking":2,"university":1,"url":1,"usable":1,"used":1,"uses":1,"using":1,"validated":1,"verification":1,"via":3,"vickrey":3,"which":1,"with":3,"www":1}},{"dl":458,"n":"Verifiable Semantics for ACLs","s":"papers/acl/verifiable-semantics-for-acls","secs":[{"h":"Verifiable Semantics for Agent Communication Languages","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Michael Wooldridge (1998). *ICMAS-98 (International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems)*. Source file: `icmas98.pdf`. [URL](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMAS.1998.699219)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"Wooldridge tackles a central problem for ACL standardization: how can an external observer verify that an agent conforms to an ACL's semantics when semantics are expressed in modal BDI logic (beliefs, desires, intentions)? He formalizes an *agent communication framework* as a tuple containing agent programs, local states, a communication language, a semantic language, and interpretation functions, and defines precisely what it means for a framework to be *verifiable*: whether one can decide, from program text alone, that the semantic conditions for a sent message are satisfied. He shows that KQML and FIPA-97 ACL, which define the \"sincerity condition\" for an `inform` act using multi-modal quantified logics like SL, are not practically verifiable — deciding whether an agent program really believes what it says requires checking undecidable properties. In contrast, he gives two example frameworks with verifiable (even co-NP-complete) semantics by grounding meaning in program states rather than unobservable mental attitudes. The paper's upshot: practical ACL conformance testing requires public, state-based semantics."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":10,"t":"- Formal agent communication framework as a 2n+4 tuple. - Verifiability = decidability of semantic conformance from program text. - KQML and FIPA-97 semantics (SL modal logic) are not practically verifiable. - Grounding semantics in program states yields co-NP-complete verifiability. - Motivates social/public commitment-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"Connections","l":17,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Public Semantics]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[BDI]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":29,"t":"- **Claim:** An ACL standard is only useful if one can check whether an implementation respects it; existing ACLs (KQML, FIPA-97) whose semantics are given in multi-modal BDI logics are not practically verifiable, so ACL semantics should instead be grounded in program states. - **Mechanism:** Formalises an agent communication framework as a (2n+4)-tuple of agent programs, local states, communication language L_C, semantic language L_S, and interpretations; defines verifiability as decidability (in polynomial time) of whether an agent program respects a message's semantic precondition; shows FIPA's SL semantics undecidable; constructs two verifiable example frameworks (classical propositional logic, grounded propositional epistemic logic) with co-NP-complete verification. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Verifiable Semantics]], [[Agent Communication Framework]], [[Sincerity Condition]], [[Grounded Semantics]], [[Program Semantics]], [[Model Checking]], [[BDI Logic]], [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - **Stance:** formal-semantic / critique - **Relates to:** Formal companion to [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] — Singh's social-agency argument becomes Wooldridge's verifiability theorem. Undermines the semantic ambitions of [[KQML Overview]] and [[FIPA-ACL]]; motivates commitment-based approaches such as [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] and the program-grounded framework in [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]."},{"h":"Tags","l":36,"t":""},{"h":"acl #semantics #verification #modal-logic","l":37,"t":""}],"tf":{"10":1,"1109":1,"1998":2,"2n":2,"4":2,"699219":1,"97":3,"98":1,"a":9,"acl":11,"acls":1,"act":2,"agency":1,"agent":13,"alone":1,"ambitions":1,"an":10,"and":8,"approaches":1,"are":6,"argument":1,"as":5,"attitudes":1,"based":4,"bdi":4,"be":2,"becomes":1,"beliefs":1,"believes":1,"by":1,"c":1,"can":3,"central":1,"check":1,"checking":2,"claim":1,"classical":1,"co":3,"commitment":3,"communication":9,"companion":1,"complete":3,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"condition":2,"conditions":1,"conference":1,"conformance":2,"conforms":1,"connections":1,"constructs":1,"containing":1,"contrast":1,"contribution":1,"critique":1,"decidability":2,"decide":1,"deciding":1,"define":1,"defines":2,"desires":1,"doi":1,"epistemic":1,"even":1,"example":2,"existing":1,"expressed":1,"external":1,"file":1,"fipa":6,"for":5,"formal":3,"formalises":1,"formalizes":1,"foundations":1,"framework":6,"frameworks":2,"from":2,"functions":1,"given":1,"gives":1,"grounded":4,"grounding":2,"he":3,"how":1,"https":1,"icmas":2,"ideas":1,"if":1,"illocutionary":1,"implementation":1,"in":8,"instead":1,"institutional":1,"intentions":1,"international":1,"interpretation":1,"interpretations":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"it":3,"key":1,"kqml":5,"l":2,"language":4,"languages":2,"like":1,"local":2,"logic":7,"logics":2,"meaning":1,"means":1,"mechanism":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":2,"message":2,"michael":1,"modal":5,"model":1,"motivates":2,"multi":3,"not":3,"np":3,"observer":1,"of":5,"on":1,"one":2,"only":1,"org":1,"overview":1,"paper":1,"polynomial":1,"practical":1,"practically":3,"precisely":1,"precondition":1,"principles":1,"problem":1,"program":9,"programs":2,"properties":1,"propositional":2,"public":3,"quantified":1,"rather":1,"reality":1,"really":1,"reference":1,"relates":1,"requires":2,"respects":2,"rethinking":1,"s":7,"satisfied":1,"says":1,"semantic":7,"semantics":20,"sent":1,"should":1,"shows":2,"sincerity":2,"singh":1,"sl":3,"so":1,"social":2,"source":1,"speech":1,"stance":1,"standard":1,"standardization":1,"state":2,"states":5,"such":1,"summary":1,"systems":1,"tackles":1,"tags":1,"testing":1,"text":2,"than":1,"that":3,"the":5,"theorem":1,"theory":1,"time":1,"to":4,"tuple":3,"two":2,"undecidable":2,"undermines":1,"unobservable":1,"upshot":1,"url":1,"used":1,"useful":1,"using":1,"verifiability":4,"verifiable":9,"verification":2,"verify":1,"what":2,"when":1,"whether":4,"which":1,"whose":1,"with":2,"wooldridge":3,"yields":1}},{"dl":686,"n":"EROS - A Fast Capability System","s":"papers/ocap/eros---a-fast-capability-system","secs":[{"h":"EROS: A Fast Capability System","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Shapiro, Jonathan S.; Smith, Jonathan M.; Farber, David J. \"EROS: A Fast Capability System.\" In *Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP '99)*, Kiawah Island, SC, December 1999. Published as *ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review* 34(5):170-185. [URL](https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~chris/teaching/cs290/doc/eros-sosp99.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"EROS (Extremely Reliable Operating System) is the third-generation reimplementation of the GNOSIS/KeyKOS capability architecture - the lineage created by Norm Hardy et al. at Tymshare in 1982 - clean-roomed in C++ for x86 by Jonathan Shapiro, Jonathan Smith, and David Farber at Penn. The paper's central claim, surprising to many at the time, is that a pure capability microkernel with transparent single-level store persistence can match or beat conventional Unix-kernel operation costs on commodity hardware. The authors show this through detailed microbenchmarks and careful architectural choices. Architecturally, EROS is a microkernel. All resources - processes, address spaces, nodes (32-capability arrays), pages, entry capabilities, resume capabilities - are named and manipulated by unforgeable capabilities enforced by a tagged in-kernel data structure. A *protection domain* is defined by the set of capabilities held. The performance story rests on three pillars: (1) aggressive caching of abstract objects (processes, nodes, pages) in representations chosen for the underlying hardware; (2) unified design of IPC and capability invocation so that cross-domain calls are cheap; and (3) orthogonal persistence via periodic consistent snapshots with copy-on-write - meaning EROS has no file system in the traditional sense: the single-level store *is* the persistence mechanism, transparent to applications. A machine crash resumes where it left off, modulo the checkpoint interval. The paper also addresses mandatory access control, the KeySAFE design (user-level reference monitors inserted between compartments for DAC/MAC composition), and the architectural features (nodes, entry capabilities, resume capabilities for one-shot continuations) that together let EROS support confinement and fine-grained POLA. EROS directly inspires seL4, CapROS, Coyotos, and is the principal existence proof cited whenever someone claims capability systems must be slow. It is a central reference in Miller's *Robust Composition* thesis and in the Capability Myths Demolished paper's defeat of the Confinement Myth."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Single-level store**: no file system; persistence is transparent, implemented by periodic consistent copy-on-write snapshots. - **Capability is an unforgeable (object-id, rights) pair**, kernel-enforced via tagged storage. - **Nodes**: 32-slot capability arrays, the building block for address spaces (tree of nodes) and process state. - **Entry / resume capabilities**: first-class continuation-like capabilities for efficient IPC and one-shot reply. - **Fast IPC**: EROS capability invocation matches L4-class IPC, demonstrated by microbenchmarks. - **KeySAFE compartments**: user-level reference monitors mediate flow between compartments for policy insertion. - **Confinement via factories / constructors**: inherited from KeyKOS, demonstrably solves the confinement problem. - **Performance is not a capability-system inherent cost**: with the right abstractions and caching, ocap kernels match conventional kernels."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - EROS is in the direct intellectual lineage Spritely draws on. - [[Capability Security]], [[Object Capability Security]] - EROS is the flagship existence proof for practical capability OSs. - [[E Language]] - Miller's thesis advisor is Shapiro; EROS and E are sister projects in Johns Hopkins' SRL. - [[CapTP]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - EROS has essentially none; every action requires an explicit capability invocation. - [[Confused Deputy]] - EROS's design makes confused-deputy scenarios expressible-as-bugs only by explicit negligence. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - fine-grained node capabilities enable POLA at page level. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Bounding]] - [[Capability Revocation]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":40,"t":"> A pure capability microkernel with transparent orthogonal persistence (single-level store, periodic consistent snapshots) is not inherently slow; with carefully chosen abstract-object caches and a unified IPC/capability-invocation path, EROS matches conventional Unix microbenchmarks on commodity hardware. This refutes decades of folk wisdom that capability systems trade performance for security, and demonstrates that the KeyKOS design - factories, confined subsystems, checkpointed persistence - is viable on modern machines."},{"h":"Tags","l":44,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #operating-systems #eros #keykos #microkernel #sosp-1999 #single-level-store #orthogonal-persistence #jonathan-shapiro #performance #foundational #confinement","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"170":1,"17th":1,"185":1,"1982":1,"1999":2,"2":1,"3":1,"32":2,"34":1,"5":1,"99":1,"a":11,"abstract":2,"abstractions":1,"access":1,"acm":2,"action":1,"address":2,"addresses":1,"advisor":1,"aggressive":1,"al":1,"all":1,"also":1,"ambient":1,"an":2,"and":16,"applications":1,"architectural":2,"architecturally":1,"architecture":1,"are":3,"arrays":2,"as":2,"at":4,"authority":2,"authors":1,"be":1,"beat":1,"between":2,"block":1,"bounding":1,"bugs":1,"building":1,"by":8,"c":1,"caches":1,"caching":2,"calculus":1,"calls":1,"can":1,"capabilities":9,"capability":23,"capros":1,"captp":1,"careful":1,"carefully":1,"central":2,"cheap":1,"checkpoint":1,"checkpointed":1,"choices":1,"chosen":2,"chris":1,"cited":1,"claim":1,"claims":1,"class":2,"clean":1,"commodity":2,"compartments":3,"composition":2,"conceptual":1,"confined":1,"confinement":5,"confused":2,"connections":1,"consistent":3,"constructors":1,"continuation":1,"continuations":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"conventional":3,"copy":2,"cost":1,"costs":1,"coyotos":1,"crash":1,"created":1,"cross":1,"cs":1,"cs290":1,"dac":1,"data":1,"david":2,"decades":1,"december":1,"defeat":1,"defined":1,"demolished":1,"demonstrably":1,"demonstrated":1,"demonstrates":1,"deputy":2,"design":4,"detailed":1,"direct":1,"directly":1,"distributed":2,"doc":1,"domain":2,"draws":1,"e":2,"edu":1,"efficient":1,"enable":1,"enforced":2,"entry":3,"eros":16,"essentially":1,"et":1,"every":1,"existence":2,"explicit":2,"expressible":1,"extremely":1,"factories":2,"farber":2,"fast":3,"features":1,"file":2,"fine":2,"first":1,"flagship":1,"flow":1,"folk":1,"for":9,"foundational":1,"from":1,"generation":1,"gnosis":1,"grained":2,"hardware":3,"hardy":1,"has":2,"heart":1,"held":1,"hopkins":1,"https":1,"id":1,"ideas":1,"implemented":1,"in":10,"inherent":1,"inherently":1,"inherited":1,"inserted":1,"insertion":1,"inspires":1,"intellectual":1,"interval":1,"invocation":4,"ipc":5,"is":15,"island":1,"it":2,"j":1,"johns":1,"jonathan":5,"kernel":4,"kernels":2,"key":1,"keykos":4,"keysafe":2,"kiawah":1,"l4":1,"lambda":1,"language":1,"least":1,"left":1,"let":1,"level":8,"like":1,"lineage":2,"m":1,"mac":1,"machine":1,"machines":1,"makes":1,"mandatory":1,"manipulated":1,"many":1,"match":2,"matches":2,"meaning":1,"mechanism":1,"mediate":1,"microbenchmarks":3,"microkernel":4,"miller":2,"modern":1,"modulo":1,"monitors":2,"must":1,"myth":1,"myths":1,"named":1,"negligence":1,"no":2,"node":1,"nodes":5,"none":1,"norm":1,"not":2,"object":3,"objects":2,"ocap":1,"of":10,"off":1,"on":8,"one":2,"only":1,"operating":4,"operation":1,"or":1,"orthogonal":3,"oss":1,"page":1,"pages":2,"pair":1,"paper":3,"path":1,"pdf":1,"penn":1,"performance":4,"periodic":3,"persistence":7,"pillars":1,"pola":2,"policy":1,"practical":1,"principal":1,"principle":1,"principles":1,"problem":1,"proceedings":1,"process":1,"processes":2,"projects":1,"proof":2,"protection":1,"published":1,"pure":2,"reference":4,"refutes":1,"reimplementation":1,"reliable":1,"reply":1,"representations":1,"requires":1,"resources":1,"rests":1,"resume":3,"resumes":1,"review":1,"revocation":1,"right":1,"rights":1,"robust":1,"roomed":1,"s":6,"sc":1,"scenarios":1,"security":7,"sel4":1,"sense":1,"set":1,"shapiro":4,"shot":2,"show":1,"sigops":1,"single":5,"sister":1,"sites":1,"slot":1,"slow":2,"smith":2,"snapshots":3,"so":1,"solves":1,"someone":1,"sosp":2,"sosp99":1,"spaces":2,"spritely":2,"srl":1,"state":1,"storage":1,"store":5,"story":1,"structure":1,"subsystems":1,"summary":1,"support":1,"surprising":1,"symposium":1,"system":6,"systems":5,"tagged":2,"tags":1,"teaching":1,"that":5,"the":27,"thesis":2,"third":1,"this":2,"three":1,"through":1,"time":1,"to":2,"together":1,"trade":1,"traditional":1,"transparent":4,"tree":1,"tymshare":1,"ucsb":1,"underlying":1,"unforgeable":2,"unified":2,"unix":2,"url":1,"user":2,"via":3,"viable":1,"whenever":1,"where":1,"wisdom":1,"with":5,"write":2,"x86":1}},{"dl":669,"n":"Distributed Electronic Rights in JavaScript","s":"papers/ocap/distributed-electronic-rights-in-javascript","secs":[{"h":"Distributed Electronic Rights in JavaScript","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Miller, Mark S.; Van Cutsem, Tom; Tulloh, Bill. \"Distributed Electronic Rights in JavaScript.\" In *Programming Languages and Systems - 22nd European Symposium on Programming (ESOP 2013)*. LNCS 7792, pp. 1-20, Springer, 2013. [URL](https://research.google/pubs/distributed-electronic-rights-in-javascript/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"This ESOP 2013 paper reports on the effort to turn JavaScript into the ubiquitous distributed object-capability fabric for smart contracts and *erights* (electronic rights). JavaScript already has ubiquity, a memory-safe object model, and first-class functions with lexical closure; what it lacks, the authors argue, is the three missing ingredients for robustly composing mutually suspicious code across machines: a secure subset, a promise-based distributed object model, and persistent resilience. These are provided respectively by **SES** (Secure EcmaScript, an ocap subset of ES5), the **Q** promise library (distributed-JS with eventual-send `!`), and **NodeKen** (distributed orthogonal persistence on Node.js, built atop the Ken system). Together they form *Dr. SES* - Distributed Resilient Secure EcmaScript. The paper walks through the whole stack. SES freezes primordials, whitelists globals, and makes `def(obj)` produce *defensively consistent* tamper-proof records. `confine(src, endowments)` safely evaluates untrusted JS with a supplied endowments record, giving first-class mobile-code capability security. The Q library adds `!` (eventual-send) so that `p!getX()` sends a message to whatever `p` will designate when resolved - this is promise pipelining, generalised to remote and failed promises. NodeKen provides \"every message ever sent will be delivered in order exactly once,\" allowing programmers to ignore partition and crash. The demonstration is a 42-line escrow exchange contract: two mutually suspicious parties wish to swap goods/money via an untrusted escrow agent, and the Dr. SES code expresses the contract clearly and executes safely across distributed JS event loops. This paper is the crucial bridge between Miller's E tradition and the modern web - its ideas flow directly into the TC39 proxies proposal, ECMAScript frozen realms, hardened-JS / LavaMoat, Agoric's Zoe, and the MetaMask / secure-ECMAScript supply-chain work."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Dr. SES** = SES + Q + NodeKen: secure ocap JS + distributed promises + orthogonal persistence. - **SES**: ocap subset of ES5 - frozen primordials, whitelisted globals, powerless-by-default imports, `def()` for defensive consistency, `confine()` for safe mobile code. - **Eventual-send `!`**: `target!method(args)` is a non-blocking message-send returning a promise; distribution-transparent. - **Promise pipelining** as the basic async composition: chained `.then` on a remote promise reduces round-trips. - **Defensively consistent objects**: maintain invariants despite malicious clients. - **WeakMap for rights amplification**: identity-keyed tables let a facet holder recover the full object. - **Escrow exchange in 42 lines**: demonstrates that non-trivial smart contracts become pedagogically small under the right fabric. - **NodeKen / Ken**: survives crashes and partitions by orthogonal checkpointing, so distributed programmers can reason as if messages were reliable."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - Spritely's ocapN and Goblins are the Guile-side reincarnation of Dr. SES principles. - [[E Language]] - Dr. SES is E's design translated into JavaScript. - [[CapTP]] - Q's eventual-send over the wire is a CapTP-spirit protocol. - [[Capability Security]], [[Object Capability Security]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - SES's frozen-globals / powerless-imports directly attacks ambient authority in JS. - [[Confused Deputy]] - `confine()` with explicit endowments is an anti-confused-deputy idiom. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - endowments are POLA made concrete. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Actor Model]] - [[Vat Model]] - each JS event loop is a vat. - [[Promise Pipelining]] - Q is the mass-market pipelining library."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":42,"t":"> JavaScript can be made into a distributed object-capability fabric for smart contracts by layering three disciplines on top of ES5: SES (an ocap subset that freezes ambient authority away), Q (eventual-send promises with pipelining), and NodeKen (orthogonal persistence for exactly-once messaging). In this fabric, a 42-line program can express a secure escrow exchange between mutually suspicious parties - and the language's existing ubiquity does the rest."},{"h":"Tags","l":46,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #ocap #javascript #ses #dr-ses #smart-contracts #promise-pipelining #q-library #nodeken #mark-miller #van-cutsem #ecmascript #esop-2013 #erights #distributed-objects","l":48,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"20":1,"2013":4,"22nd":1,"42":3,"7792":1,"a":16,"across":2,"actor":2,"adds":1,"agent":1,"agoric":1,"allowing":1,"already":1,"ambient":3,"amplification":1,"an":4,"and":17,"anti":1,"are":3,"argue":1,"artificial":1,"as":2,"async":1,"atop":1,"attacks":1,"authority":4,"authors":1,"away":1,"based":1,"basic":1,"be":2,"become":1,"between":2,"bill":1,"blocking":1,"bridge":1,"built":1,"by":4,"calculus":1,"can":3,"capability":7,"captp":2,"chain":1,"chained":1,"checkpointing":1,"class":2,"clearly":1,"clients":1,"closure":1,"code":4,"composing":1,"composition":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"confused":2,"connections":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":2,"contract":2,"contracts":4,"contribution":1,"crash":1,"crashes":1,"crucial":1,"cutsem":2,"default":1,"defensive":1,"defensively":2,"delivered":1,"demonstrates":1,"demonstration":1,"deputy":2,"design":1,"designate":1,"despite":1,"directly":2,"disciplines":1,"distributed":15,"distribution":1,"does":1,"dr":6,"e":3,"each":1,"ecmascript":5,"effort":1,"electronic":4,"endowments":3,"erights":2,"es5":3,"escrow":4,"esop":3,"european":1,"evaluates":1,"event":2,"eventual":5,"ever":1,"every":1,"exactly":2,"exchange":3,"executes":1,"existing":1,"explicit":1,"express":1,"expresses":1,"fabric":4,"facet":1,"failed":1,"first":2,"flow":1,"for":8,"form":1,"formalism":1,"freezes":2,"frozen":3,"full":1,"functions":1,"generalised":1,"giving":1,"globals":3,"goblins":1,"goods":1,"google":1,"guile":1,"hardened":1,"has":1,"heart":1,"holder":1,"https":1,"ideas":2,"identity":1,"idiom":1,"if":1,"ignore":1,"imports":2,"in":8,"ingredients":1,"intelligence":1,"into":4,"invariants":1,"is":10,"it":1,"its":1,"javascript":8,"js":8,"ken":2,"kernel":1,"key":1,"keyed":1,"lacks":1,"lambda":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"lavamoat":1,"layering":1,"least":1,"let":1,"lexical":1,"library":4,"line":2,"lines":1,"lncs":1,"loop":1,"loops":1,"machines":1,"made":2,"maintain":1,"makes":1,"malicious":1,"mark":2,"market":1,"mass":1,"memory":1,"message":3,"messages":1,"messaging":1,"metamask":1,"miller":3,"missing":1,"mobile":2,"model":4,"modern":1,"modular":1,"money":1,"mutually":3,"node":1,"nodeken":6,"non":2,"object":6,"objects":3,"ocap":5,"ocapn":1,"of":6,"on":5,"once":2,"order":1,"orthogonal":4,"over":1,"paper":3,"parties":2,"partition":1,"partitions":1,"pedagogically":1,"persistence":3,"persistent":1,"pipelining":6,"pola":1,"powerless":2,"pp":1,"primordials":2,"principle":1,"principles":1,"produce":1,"program":1,"programmers":2,"programming":2,"promise":8,"promises":3,"proof":1,"proposal":1,"protocol":1,"provided":1,"provides":1,"proxies":1,"pubs":1,"q":7,"realms":1,"reason":1,"record":1,"records":1,"recover":1,"reduces":1,"reference":1,"reincarnation":1,"reliable":1,"remote":2,"reports":1,"research":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"resolved":1,"respectively":1,"rest":1,"returning":1,"right":1,"rights":5,"robustly":1,"round":1,"s":8,"safe":2,"safely":2,"secure":6,"security":7,"send":6,"sends":1,"sent":1,"ses":13,"side":1,"small":1,"smart":4,"so":2,"spirit":1,"springer":1,"spritely":2,"stack":1,"subset":4,"summary":1,"supplied":1,"supply":1,"survives":1,"suspicious":3,"swap":1,"symposium":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tables":1,"tags":1,"tamper":1,"tc39":1,"that":3,"the":25,"these":1,"they":1,"this":4,"three":2,"through":1,"to":5,"together":1,"tom":1,"top":1,"tradition":1,"translated":1,"transparent":1,"trips":1,"trivial":1,"tulloh":1,"turn":1,"two":1,"ubiquitous":1,"ubiquity":2,"under":1,"universal":1,"untrusted":2,"url":1,"van":2,"vat":2,"via":1,"walks":1,"weakmap":1,"web":1,"were":1,"what":1,"whatever":1,"when":1,"whitelisted":1,"whitelists":1,"whole":1,"will":2,"wire":1,"wish":1,"with":5,"work":1,"zoe":1}},{"dl":667,"n":"Capability Myths Demolished","s":"papers/ocap/capability-myths-demolished","secs":[{"h":"Capability Myths Demolished","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Miller, Mark S.; Yee, Ka-Ping; Shapiro, Jonathan S. *Capability Myths Demolished.* Technical Report SRL-2003-02, Systems Research Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, 2003. [URL](https://srl.cs.jhu.edu/pubs/SRL2003-02.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"This short, polemical technical report dismantles three widely repeated myths about capability-based security that had accreted in the literature over the preceding two decades and were being cited as reasons to avoid capability models or to pile extra access checks on top of them. The three myths are: (1) the *Equivalence Myth* - that ACL systems and capability systems are formally equivalent views of Lampson's access matrix; (2) the *Confinement Myth* - that capability systems cannot enforce confinement; and (3) the *Irrevocability Myth* - that capability-based authority cannot be revoked. The authors' strategy is to disentangle three very different things all called \"capability\" in the literature: Model 2 (capabilities-as-rows of the access matrix), Model 3 (capabilities-as-keys / unforgeable bitstrings), and Model 4 (object-capabilities, where capabilities are object references in a memory-safe object language). They define seven security properties - including \"no designation without authority,\" dynamic subject creation, subject-aggregated authority management, and composable confinement - and show how the three models differ on each. Under this lens, the Equivalence Myth collapses: ACLs and object-capabilities have fundamentally different rules for how the access matrix is updated, even if both can be drawn as an access matrix at an instant. The Confinement Myth is refuted by pointing to KeyKOS factories (Hardy 1988) and the EROS constructor, which demonstrably achieve confinement in object-capability systems. The Irrevocability Myth is refuted via the Redell forwarder/facet pattern (1974), elegantly explained with a simple diagram: Alice hands Bob a forwarder to Carol and keeps the revoker; dropping the revoker drops Bob's access. The paper is the go-to reference whenever these myths resurface and is essential intellectual groundwork for the ocap tradition."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Three distinct capability models**: capabilities-as-rows, capabilities-as-keys, object-capabilities - not interchangeable. - **The access-matrix snapshot lies**: static snapshots ignore the *update rules* that actually distinguish ACL systems from capability systems. - **No Designation Without Authority (Property A)**: in an ocap system, to name a resource is already to have authority to use it; ACL systems decouple designation from authority, which is the root of confused-deputy problems. - **Subject-Aggregated Authority Management (Property C)**: in ocap, you edit your own C-list; in ACLs, changing one authority requires editing a resource's ACL. - **Confinement is achievable** via factories / constructors; KeyKOS and EROS are existence proofs. - **Revocation by forwarders (facets)**: give Bob not Carol but a forwarder F; keep R as revoker; R !stopForwarding revokes Bob cleanly. - **Object capabilities subsume Lampson** while avoiding the ambient-authority pitfalls that produce confused deputies."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Capability Security]] - this paper is the canonical clarification of what capability security actually claims. - [[Object Capability Security]] - Model 4 in this paper is the object-capability model. - [[E Language]] - examples and diagrams use E-flavoured ocap reasoning. - [[CapTP]] - distributed ocap relies on the same non-myths. - [[Ambient Authority]] - the Equivalence Myth's error is essentially failing to see ambient authority in ACL systems. - [[Confused Deputy]] - the paper leans on Hardy's example to justify Property A. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - POLA is called out as a motivation for preferring ocap. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Revocation]] - Redell forwarders / facets are explained here. - [[Capability Bounding]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":40,"t":"> Most criticisms of capability-based security dissolve once one distinguishes three very different things the word \"capability\" has named. Object-capabilities (references in a memory-safe object language governed by reference-passing rules) are neither equivalent to ACLs, nor unable to confine, nor unable to revoke; they are strictly more expressive of least-authority policy than ACL systems and avoid the confused-deputy class of bugs by construction."},{"h":"Tags","l":44,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #ocap #security-myths #confinement #revocation #facets #access-matrix #mark-miller #foundational #srl-2003-02","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"02":3,"1":1,"1974":1,"1988":1,"2":2,"2003":3,"3":2,"4":2,"a":10,"about":1,"access":8,"accreted":1,"achievable":1,"achieve":1,"acl":6,"acls":3,"actually":2,"aggregated":2,"alice":1,"all":1,"already":1,"ambient":3,"an":3,"and":14,"are":7,"as":8,"at":1,"authority":13,"authors":1,"avoid":2,"avoiding":1,"based":3,"be":2,"being":1,"bitstrings":1,"bob":4,"both":1,"bounding":1,"bugs":1,"but":1,"by":4,"c":2,"calculus":1,"called":2,"can":1,"cannot":2,"canonical":1,"capabilities":10,"capability":21,"captp":1,"carol":2,"changing":1,"checks":1,"cited":1,"claims":1,"clarification":1,"class":1,"cleanly":1,"collapses":1,"composable":1,"conceptual":1,"confine":1,"confinement":7,"confused":4,"connections":1,"construction":1,"constructor":1,"constructors":1,"contribution":1,"creation":1,"criticisms":1,"cs":1,"decades":1,"decouple":1,"define":1,"demolished":2,"demonstrably":1,"deputies":1,"deputy":3,"designation":3,"diagram":1,"diagrams":1,"differ":1,"different":3,"disentangle":1,"dismantles":1,"dissolve":1,"distinct":1,"distinguish":1,"distinguishes":1,"distributed":3,"drawn":1,"dropping":1,"drops":1,"dynamic":1,"e":2,"each":1,"edit":1,"editing":1,"edu":1,"elegantly":1,"enforce":1,"equivalence":3,"equivalent":2,"eros":2,"error":1,"essential":1,"essentially":1,"even":1,"example":1,"examples":1,"existence":1,"explained":2,"expressive":1,"extra":1,"f":1,"facet":1,"facets":3,"factories":2,"failing":1,"flavoured":1,"for":3,"formally":1,"forwarder":3,"forwarders":2,"foundational":1,"from":2,"fundamentally":1,"give":1,"go":1,"governed":1,"groundwork":1,"had":1,"hands":1,"hardy":2,"has":1,"have":2,"heart":1,"here":1,"hopkins":1,"how":2,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"ignore":1,"in":10,"including":1,"instant":1,"intellectual":1,"interchangeable":1,"irrevocability":2,"is":13,"it":1,"jhu":1,"johns":1,"jonathan":1,"justify":1,"ka":1,"keep":1,"keeps":1,"kernel":1,"key":1,"keykos":2,"keys":2,"laboratory":1,"lambda":1,"lampson":2,"language":3,"leans":1,"least":2,"lens":1,"lies":1,"list":1,"literature":2,"management":2,"mark":2,"matrix":6,"memory":2,"miller":2,"model":5,"models":3,"more":1,"most":1,"motivation":1,"myth":7,"myths":7,"name":1,"named":1,"neither":1,"no":2,"non":1,"nor":2,"not":2,"object":11,"objects":1,"ocap":7,"of":10,"on":4,"once":1,"one":2,"or":1,"out":1,"over":1,"own":1,"paper":4,"passing":1,"pattern":1,"pdf":1,"pile":1,"ping":1,"pitfalls":1,"pointing":1,"pola":1,"polemical":1,"policy":1,"preceding":1,"preferring":1,"principle":1,"problems":1,"produce":1,"proofs":1,"properties":1,"property":3,"pubs":1,"r":2,"reasoning":1,"reasons":1,"redell":2,"reference":3,"references":2,"refuted":2,"relies":1,"repeated":1,"report":2,"requires":1,"research":1,"resource":2,"resurface":1,"revocation":3,"revoke":1,"revoked":1,"revoker":3,"revokes":1,"root":1,"rows":2,"rules":3,"s":7,"safe":2,"same":1,"security":11,"see":1,"seven":1,"shapiro":1,"short":1,"show":1,"simple":1,"snapshot":1,"snapshots":1,"spritely":1,"srl":3,"srl2003":1,"static":1,"stopforwarding":1,"strategy":1,"strictly":1,"subject":3,"subsume":1,"summary":1,"system":1,"systems":10,"tags":1,"technical":2,"than":1,"that":6,"the":33,"them":1,"these":1,"they":2,"things":2,"this":4,"three":6,"to":14,"top":1,"tradition":1,"two":1,"unable":2,"under":1,"unforgeable":1,"university":1,"update":1,"updated":1,"url":1,"use":2,"very":2,"via":2,"views":1,"were":1,"what":1,"whenever":1,"where":1,"which":2,"while":1,"widely":1,"with":1,"without":2,"word":1,"yee":1,"you":1,"your":1}},{"dl":658,"n":"Programming Semantics for Multiprogrammed Computations","s":"papers/ocap/programming-semantics-for-multiprogrammed-computations","secs":[{"h":"Programming Semantics for Multiprogrammed Computations","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Dennis, Jack B.; Van Horn, Earl C. \"Programming Semantics for Multiprogrammed Computations.\" *Communications of the ACM*, 9(3):143-155, March 1966. [URL](https://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/Fall04Readings/ProgramSemantics_DennisvanHorn.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"The Dennis & Van Horn paper is the origin point of the capability concept in computer science. Written during the Project MAC era and responding to the needs of multiprogrammed, multi-user systems like MULTICS and the SABRE reservation system, it defines a set of *meta-instructions* that a supervisor provides to user programs to express the five core requirements of multiprogrammed computation: (1) parallel processing; (2) creating, suspending, and resuming computations; (3) protection of a computation from other computations; (4) debugging support; and (5) shared access to data and procedures. The paper's lasting contribution is the introduction of the *capability* (called a C-list entry) as the fundamental access-control primitive. A capability is an unforgeable pair of a unique-name (naming a segment or other object) and an access-indicator (X, R, RW, RWX) that determines what may be done with the object. A computation's *sphere of protection* is defined precisely by its C-list. Crucially, a process cannot name a resource it has no capability for - designation and authority are unified. The paper introduces *principals* (the human or organisational accountability unit), *processes* as loci of execution, and the meta-instructions for fork/join, lock/unlock, I/O function invocation, and capability transfer. This is the paper that every later capability system - Plessey 250, CAP, KeyKOS, EROS, seL4, E, Spritely - is ultimately paying tribute to. It is also striking how many apparently recent ideas (unforgeable references, segment-level fine-grained protection, per-process authority sets, mutually suspicious processes on one machine) are already present here in 1966."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Capability** as an unforgeable (unique-name, access-indicator) pair; the first definition in the literature. - **C-list** per process: the exhaustive list of a computation's authorities. - **Sphere of protection** = closure of what a process can name and do via its C-list. - **Principal** vs **process**: accountability vs. execution. - **Meta-instructions** as the supervisor's API for computations: fork, join, quit, lock, unlock, execute i/o function, create segment, enter block, etc. - **Multiprogramming as access-control problem**: protection, sharing, and scheduling are one design problem, not three. - **Designation and authority unified**: a name in a program is dereferenced through the C-list, so \"unknown\" resources are also \"unreachable\" - the ancestral seed of \"no designation without authority.\" - **Mutually suspicious computations** as a first-class goal."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Capability Security]] - this is the paper that invents the concept. - [[Object Capability Security]] - Miller-era ocap refines Dennis & Van Horn's C-list into object references. - [[E Language]] - E's reference-passing rules are a memory-safe OO realisation of Dennis-Van-Horn C-lists. - [[CapTP]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - designation-without-authority, which ambient-authority systems permit, is precisely what this paper eliminates by construction. - [[Confused Deputy]] - Hardy's 1988 paper points back to Dennis & Van Horn as the road not taken. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - C-lists make POLA expressible at segment granularity. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] - Hewitt's actors and Dennis-Van-Horn capabilities are parallel 1960s-70s answers to concurrent computation; Miller's E later unifies them. - [[Actor Model]] - [[Vat Model]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":42,"t":"> A multiprogrammed computer system is cleanly described by giving each computation a *sphere of protection* - a capability list enumerating the specific objects (segments, procedures, i/o devices) it may name and the operations it may perform on them - together with a small set of meta-instructions for creating, passing, and revoking these capabilities. This single idea reduces protection, sharing, naming, and scheduling to one coherent design."},{"h":"Tags","l":46,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #origins #1966 #cacm #multiprogramming #project-mac #dennis-van-horn #foundational #access-control #protection #c-list #spheres-of-protection","l":48,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"143":1,"155":1,"1960s":1,"1966":3,"1988":1,"2":1,"250":1,"3":2,"4":1,"5":1,"70s":1,"9":1,"a":21,"access":6,"accountability":2,"acm":1,"actor":2,"actors":1,"already":1,"also":2,"ambient":2,"an":3,"ancestral":1,"and":17,"answers":1,"api":1,"apparently":1,"are":6,"artificial":1,"as":7,"at":1,"authorities":1,"authority":8,"b":1,"back":1,"be":1,"block":1,"by":3,"c":10,"cacm":1,"calculus":1,"called":1,"can":1,"cannot":1,"cap":1,"capabilities":2,"capability":12,"captp":1,"class":1,"cleanly":1,"closure":1,"coherent":1,"communications":1,"computation":6,"computations":6,"computer":2,"concept":2,"conceptual":1,"concurrent":1,"confused":1,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":2,"control":3,"core":1,"create":1,"creating":2,"crucially":1,"data":1,"debugging":1,"defined":1,"defines":1,"definition":1,"dennis":7,"dennisvanhorn":1,"deputy":1,"dereferenced":1,"described":1,"design":2,"designation":4,"determines":1,"devices":1,"distributed":2,"do":1,"done":1,"during":1,"e":4,"each":1,"earl":1,"edu":1,"ele572papers":1,"eliminates":1,"enter":1,"entry":1,"enumerating":1,"era":2,"eros":1,"etc":1,"every":1,"execute":1,"execution":2,"exhaustive":1,"express":1,"expressible":1,"fall04readings":1,"fine":1,"first":2,"five":1,"for":7,"fork":2,"formalism":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"function":2,"fundamental":1,"giving":1,"goal":1,"grained":1,"granularity":1,"hardy":1,"has":1,"heart":1,"here":1,"hewitt":1,"horn":7,"how":1,"https":1,"human":1,"i":3,"idea":1,"ideas":2,"in":4,"indicator":2,"instructions":4,"intelligence":1,"into":1,"introduces":1,"introduction":1,"invents":1,"invocation":1,"is":11,"it":5,"its":2,"jack":1,"join":2,"kernel":1,"key":1,"keykos":1,"lambda":1,"language":1,"lasting":1,"later":2,"least":1,"level":1,"like":1,"list":9,"lists":2,"literature":1,"loci":1,"lock":2,"mac":2,"machine":1,"make":1,"many":1,"march":1,"may":3,"memory":1,"meta":4,"miller":2,"model":2,"modular":1,"multi":1,"multics":1,"multiprogrammed":5,"multiprogramming":2,"mutually":2,"name":6,"naming":2,"needs":1,"no":2,"not":2,"o":3,"object":4,"objects":2,"ocap":1,"of":20,"on":2,"one":3,"oo":1,"operations":1,"or":2,"organisational":1,"origin":1,"origins":1,"other":2,"pair":2,"paper":7,"parallel":2,"passing":2,"paying":1,"pdf":1,"per":2,"perform":1,"permit":1,"plessey":1,"point":1,"points":1,"pola":1,"precisely":2,"present":1,"primitive":1,"princeton":1,"principal":1,"principals":1,"principle":1,"problem":2,"procedures":2,"process":5,"processes":2,"processing":1,"program":1,"programming":2,"programs":1,"programsemantics":1,"project":2,"protection":9,"provides":1,"quit":1,"r":1,"rblee":1,"realisation":1,"recent":1,"reduces":1,"reference":2,"references":2,"refines":1,"requirements":1,"reservation":1,"resource":1,"resources":1,"responding":1,"resuming":1,"revoking":1,"road":1,"rules":1,"rw":1,"rwx":1,"s":9,"sabre":1,"safe":1,"scheduling":2,"science":1,"security":6,"seed":1,"segment":4,"segments":1,"sel4":1,"semantics":2,"set":2,"sets":1,"shared":1,"sharing":2,"single":1,"small":1,"so":1,"specific":1,"sphere":3,"spheres":1,"spritely":2,"striking":1,"summary":1,"supervisor":2,"support":1,"suspending":1,"suspicious":2,"system":3,"systems":2,"tags":1,"taken":1,"that":4,"the":29,"them":2,"these":1,"this":4,"three":1,"through":1,"to":8,"together":1,"transfer":1,"tribute":1,"ultimately":1,"unforgeable":3,"unified":2,"unifies":1,"unique":2,"unit":1,"universal":1,"unknown":1,"unlock":2,"unreachable":1,"url":1,"user":2,"van":7,"vat":1,"via":1,"vs":2,"what":3,"which":1,"with":2,"without":2,"written":1,"www":1,"x":1}},{"dl":629,"n":"Capability-based Financial Instruments","s":"papers/ocap/capability-based-financial-instruments","secs":[{"h":"Capability-based Financial Instruments","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Miller, Mark S.; Morningstar, Chip; Frantz, Bill. \"Capability-based Financial Instruments.\" In *Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Financial Cryptography (FC 2000)*, Anguilla, BWI, February 20-24, 2000. LNCS 1962, pp. 349-378, Springer, 2001. [URL](https://papers.agoric.com/assets/pdf/papers/capability-based-financial-instruments.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Also called the \"Ode\" paper (after its original filename `ode.pdf`), this paper bridges three previously disjoint communities: object-oriented programming, capability-based secure operating systems, and financial cryptography. The authors argue that each community has been strong where the others were weak - objects give composition and abstraction, capability OSs give mutually-protected shared platforms for untrusted code, and financial cryptography gives mutually-suspicious multiparty protocols - and that a unified abstraction, the **Granovetter diagram**, captures the core of all three. The Granovetter diagram (named after sociologist Mark Granovetter's work on how social topology evolves by introduction) shows three objects - Alice, Bob, Carol - where Alice holds references to both Bob and Carol and sends Bob a `foo` message containing her reference to Carol, thereby introducing Bob to Carol. This single operator is at once an object message send, a capability-security introduction (only connectivity begets connectivity), a cryptographic capability-transport step, an SPKI certificate-style authorisation delegation, a multi-player game-theoretic move, and the basic step for transferring a financial bearer right. The paper presents the E programming language, its cryptographic transport protocol Pluribus (the predecessor of CapTP), and a worked example: a *covered call option* implemented in ~20 lines of E as a smart contract between five mutually-suspicious parties, implemented automatically as a cryptographic protocol. This is arguably the first paper to describe smart contracts in recognisably modern form, and it predates the blockchain era entirely. It is foundational for Agoric and for all later Miller work on eights/erights."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Granovetter operator**: the unit of object-capability computation - Alice holds refs to Bob and Carol; Alice sends Carol-ref to Bob; Bob now has Carol. - **Only connectivity begets connectivity**: authority can change only by this three-party introduction step. - **Six perspectives** on the Granovetter operator: object computation, capability security, cryptographic protocol, public-key infrastructure, multi-player game rule, financial bearer instrument. - **Smart contracts as object code**: a covered-call option is just an object with references to the underlying asset, the strike-price payment, and its counterparties. - **Rights = sendable messages**: a right is exercised by sending a message to an object that embodies it; secure transfer of a right = secure transfer of a reference. - **Pluribus**: E's cryptographic capability transport, turning local object semantics into distributed multiparty protocols. - **Bearer instruments** classified along axes: exclusive/non-exclusive, fungible/specific, exercisable, assayable."},{"h":"Connections","l":25,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - Spritely's goblin/ocapN inherits the same Granovetter-diagram semantics. - [[E Language]] - this paper is the first major presentation of E to the financial-crypto world. - [[CapTP]] - Pluribus here is the direct predecessor of CapTP. - [[Capability Security]] and [[Object Capability Security]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - this paper is emphatic that ambient-authority systems cannot express financial rights safely. - [[Confused Deputy]] - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Actor Model]] - [[Vat Model]] - [[Promise Pipelining]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":41,"t":"> The Granovetter operator - \"Alice has refs to Bob and Carol; Alice passes Carol to Bob\" - is simultaneously the unit of object computation, the unit of capability-security authority change, the unit of cryptographic capability transport, and the unit of secure electronic-rights transfer. Recognising these as one operator lets us implement smart financial contracts as ordinary object code, with cryptographic enforcement generated automatically by a distributed capability language."},{"h":"Tags","l":45,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #smart-contracts #financial-cryptography #granovetter #e-language #pluribus #ocap #erights #mark-miller #foundational #distributed-objects #bearer-instruments","l":47,"t":""}],"tf":{"1962":1,"20":2,"2000":2,"2001":1,"24":1,"349":1,"378":1,"4th":1,"a":17,"abstraction":2,"actor":2,"after":2,"agoric":2,"alice":6,"all":2,"along":1,"also":1,"ambient":2,"an":4,"and":16,"anguilla":1,"arguably":1,"argue":1,"artificial":1,"as":5,"assayable":1,"asset":1,"assets":1,"at":1,"authorisation":1,"authority":5,"authors":1,"automatically":2,"axes":1,"based":4,"basic":1,"bearer":4,"been":1,"begets":2,"between":1,"bill":1,"blockchain":1,"bob":9,"both":1,"bridges":1,"bwi":1,"by":4,"calculus":1,"call":2,"called":1,"can":1,"cannot":1,"capability":17,"captp":3,"captures":1,"carol":9,"certificate":1,"change":2,"chip":1,"classified":1,"code":3,"com":1,"communities":1,"community":1,"composition":1,"computation":3,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"confused":1,"connections":1,"connectivity":4,"containing":1,"contract":1,"contracts":4,"contribution":1,"core":1,"counterparties":1,"covered":2,"crypto":1,"cryptographic":7,"cryptography":4,"delegation":1,"deputy":1,"describe":1,"diagram":3,"direct":1,"disjoint":1,"distributed":5,"e":6,"each":1,"eights":1,"electronic":1,"embodies":1,"emphatic":1,"enforcement":1,"entirely":1,"era":1,"erights":2,"evolves":1,"example":1,"exclusive":2,"exercisable":1,"exercised":1,"express":1,"fc":1,"february":1,"filename":1,"financial":12,"first":2,"five":1,"for":5,"form":1,"formalism":1,"foundational":2,"frantz":1,"fungible":1,"game":2,"generated":1,"give":2,"gives":1,"goblin":1,"granovetter":8,"has":3,"heart":1,"her":1,"here":1,"holds":2,"how":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"implement":1,"implemented":2,"in":3,"infrastructure":1,"inherits":1,"instrument":1,"instruments":5,"intelligence":1,"international":1,"into":1,"introducing":1,"introduction":3,"is":9,"it":3,"its":3,"just":1,"kernel":1,"key":2,"lambda":1,"language":4,"later":1,"least":1,"lets":1,"lines":1,"lncs":1,"local":1,"major":1,"mark":3,"message":3,"messages":1,"miller":3,"model":2,"modern":1,"modular":1,"morningstar":1,"move":1,"multi":2,"multiparty":2,"mutually":3,"named":1,"non":1,"now":1,"object":11,"objects":4,"ocap":1,"ocapn":1,"ode":1,"of":15,"on":4,"once":1,"one":1,"only":3,"operating":1,"operator":5,"option":2,"ordinary":1,"oriented":1,"original":1,"oss":1,"others":1,"paper":6,"papers":2,"parties":1,"party":1,"passes":1,"payment":1,"pdf":2,"perspectives":1,"pipelining":1,"platforms":1,"player":2,"pluribus":4,"pp":1,"predates":1,"predecessor":2,"presentation":1,"presents":1,"previously":1,"price":1,"principle":1,"proceedings":1,"programming":2,"promise":1,"protected":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":2,"public":1,"recognisably":1,"recognising":1,"ref":1,"reference":3,"references":2,"refs":2,"right":3,"rights":3,"rule":1,"s":4,"safely":1,"same":1,"secure":4,"security":9,"semantics":2,"send":1,"sendable":1,"sending":1,"sends":2,"shared":1,"shows":1,"simultaneously":1,"single":1,"six":1,"smart":5,"social":1,"sociologist":1,"specific":1,"spki":1,"springer":1,"spritely":2,"step":3,"strike":1,"strong":1,"style":1,"summary":1,"suspicious":2,"systems":2,"tags":1,"that":4,"the":27,"theoretic":1,"thereby":1,"these":1,"this":6,"three":4,"to":11,"topology":1,"transfer":3,"transferring":1,"transport":4,"turning":1,"underlying":1,"unified":1,"unit":5,"universal":1,"untrusted":1,"url":1,"us":1,"vat":1,"weak":1,"were":1,"where":2,"with":2,"work":2,"worked":1,"world":1}},{"dl":697,"n":"The Confused Deputy - Hardy","s":"papers/ocap/the-confused-deputy---hardy","secs":[{"h":"The Confused Deputy (or why capabilities might have been invented)","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Hardy, Norm. \"The Confused Deputy (or why capabilities might have been invented).\" *ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review*, 22(4):36-38, October 1988. [URL](https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~cs557/f14/papers/confused_deputy-hardy.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Norm Hardy's three-page note is the single most quoted security story in the capability tradition. It is a \"nearly true\" anecdote from roughly 1974 at Tymshare. A FORTRAN compiler, stored in directory `SYSX`, writes statistics to `(SYSX)STAT` and is therefore granted *home files license* - the ambient authority to write any file in `SYSX`. Users invoke the compiler as `RUN (SYSX)FORT` and may supply the name of a file in their own directory for optional debugging output. One day, a user passes `(SYSX)BILL` - the system billing file - as the output filename. The compiler, running with its `SYSX` authority, dutifully opens `(SYSX)BILL` for write and clobbers it. The billing data is lost. Hardy walks through the standard reactions (blame the compiler, add a check for sensitive filenames, recategorise files, enumerate forbidden names) and shows that each misses the point. The compiler has been delegated authority it did not ask for and cannot distinguish: it cannot tell whether a request to write `(SYSX)BILL` comes from its own invariant need to write `STAT` (authority inherent to the compiler) or from the invoker's request channel (authority inherent to the invoker). The compiler is acting as *deputy* for two different principals - itself and its invoker - with two different authorities, but the operating system gives it only one aggregated authority set with no way to trace which request justified which use. The capability fix, Hardy explains, is to *pass* each authority as a capability at the point of need rather than to aggregate them ambiently on the compiler process. The invoker passes a capability to the output file; the compiler holds a separate capability to the statistics file; no ASCII pathname walk ever happens against an ambient authority. The Tymshare/KeyKOS team built KeyKOS on precisely this discipline. Hardy's essay is the canonical demonstration of why ACL-plus-pathname operating systems have a structural bug (the confused deputy) that capability operating systems avoid by construction."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Confused deputy**: an authorised program manipulated by a less-authorised invoker into wielding its own greater authority on the invoker's behalf. - **Ambient authority** is the underlying cause: the compiler's `SYSX` home-files-license is in effect whenever the compiler runs, independent of which request is in flight. - **Two principals, one process**: the compiler serves its own goals *and* the invoker's, with distinct authorities that the OS conflates. - **Designation vs. authority**: a filename in ACL systems is a pure designator; authority comes from who-is-running. In capability systems the capability *is* the designator-with-authority - no conflation possible. - **Capabilities as the fix**: present-tense authority via capability arguments eliminates the confusion. - **KeyKOS** is offered as the system built on precisely this discipline, with factories defeating Trojan horses and confined subsystems."},{"h":"Connections","l":24,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Confused Deputy]] - this note is Hardy's original paper; [[Confused Deputy]] is the concept page. - [[Capability Security]] - Hardy's \"why capabilities might have been invented\" is the operational motivation of the whole tradition. - [[Object Capability Security]] - object-capabilities inherit the fix directly. - [[E Language]] - E's reference-passing discipline is an anti-confused-deputy design. - [[CapTP]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - Hardy is the source of the critique; ambient authority IS the bug. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - the confused deputy appears when a process has more authority than the request demands. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Bounding]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":38,"t":"> When an authorised program must act on behalf of a less-authorised invoker, any operating system that binds authority to the *running process* (rather than to the *request*) creates a structural confusion: the program cannot distinguish authority it holds for its own purposes from authority it is borrowing on behalf of its caller. Capability systems remove the confusion by making authority travel with the request as an argument, not with the process as an ambient attribute."},{"h":"Tags","l":42,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #confused-deputy #ambient-authority #origins #keykos #tymshare #1988 #sigops #norm-hardy #foundational #access-control #acl-critique","l":44,"t":""}],"tf":{"1974":1,"1988":2,"22":1,"36":1,"38":1,"4":1,"a":16,"access":1,"acl":3,"acm":1,"act":1,"acting":1,"add":1,"against":1,"aggregate":1,"aggregated":1,"ambient":7,"ambiently":1,"an":6,"and":9,"anecdote":1,"anti":1,"any":2,"appears":1,"argument":1,"arguments":1,"as":8,"ascii":1,"ask":1,"at":2,"attribute":1,"authorised":4,"authorities":2,"authority":23,"avoid":1,"been":4,"behalf":3,"billing":2,"binds":1,"blame":1,"borrowing":1,"bounding":1,"bug":2,"built":2,"but":1,"by":3,"calculus":1,"caller":1,"cannot":3,"canonical":1,"capabilities":5,"capability":15,"captp":1,"cause":1,"channel":1,"check":1,"clobbers":1,"comes":2,"compiler":12,"concept":1,"conceptual":1,"confined":1,"conflates":1,"conflation":1,"confused":10,"confusion":3,"connections":1,"construction":1,"contribution":1,"control":1,"creates":1,"critique":2,"cs":1,"cs557":1,"data":1,"day":1,"debugging":1,"defeating":1,"delegated":1,"demands":1,"demonstration":1,"deputy":11,"design":1,"designation":1,"designator":2,"did":1,"different":2,"directly":1,"directory":2,"discipline":3,"distinct":1,"distinguish":2,"distributed":2,"dutifully":1,"e":2,"each":2,"edu":1,"effect":1,"eliminates":1,"enumerate":1,"essay":1,"ever":1,"explains":1,"f14":1,"factories":1,"file":5,"filename":2,"filenames":1,"files":3,"fix":3,"flight":1,"for":6,"forbidden":1,"fortran":1,"foundational":1,"from":5,"gives":1,"goals":1,"granted":1,"greater":1,"happens":1,"hardy":10,"has":2,"have":4,"heart":1,"holds":2,"home":2,"horses":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"in":8,"independent":1,"inherent":2,"inherit":1,"into":1,"invariant":1,"invented":3,"invoke":1,"invoker":8,"is":21,"it":7,"its":7,"itself":1,"justified":1,"kernel":1,"key":1,"keykos":4,"lambda":1,"language":1,"least":1,"less":2,"license":2,"lost":1,"making":1,"manipulated":1,"may":1,"might":3,"misses":1,"more":1,"most":1,"motivation":1,"must":1,"name":1,"names":1,"nearly":1,"need":2,"no":3,"norm":3,"not":2,"note":2,"object":2,"objects":1,"october":1,"of":10,"offered":1,"on":6,"one":3,"only":1,"opens":1,"operating":5,"operational":1,"optional":1,"or":3,"original":1,"origins":1,"os":1,"output":3,"own":5,"page":2,"paper":1,"papers":1,"pass":1,"passes":2,"passing":1,"pathname":2,"pdf":1,"plus":1,"point":2,"possible":1,"precisely":2,"present":1,"principals":2,"principle":1,"process":5,"program":3,"pure":1,"purposes":1,"quoted":1,"rather":2,"reactions":1,"recategorise":1,"reference":2,"remove":1,"request":7,"review":1,"roughly":1,"running":3,"runs":1,"s":9,"security":7,"sensitive":1,"separate":1,"serves":1,"set":1,"shows":1,"sigops":2,"single":1,"source":1,"spritely":1,"standard":1,"statistics":2,"stored":1,"story":1,"structural":2,"subsystems":1,"summary":1,"supply":1,"system":4,"systems":6,"tags":1,"team":1,"tell":1,"tense":1,"than":3,"that":4,"the":58,"their":1,"them":1,"therefore":1,"this":3,"three":1,"through":1,"to":13,"trace":1,"tradition":2,"travel":1,"trojan":1,"true":1,"two":3,"tymshare":3,"underlying":1,"url":1,"use":1,"user":1,"users":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"walk":1,"walks":1,"way":1,"web":1,"when":2,"whenever":1,"whether":1,"which":3,"who":1,"whole":1,"why":4,"wielding":1,"with":8,"wpi":1,"write":4,"writes":1}},{"dl":744,"n":"Trustworthy Proxies - Virtualizing Objects with Invariants","s":"papers/ocap/trustworthy-proxies---virtualizing-objects-with-invariants","secs":[{"h":"Trustworthy Proxies: Virtualizing Objects with Invariants","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Van Cutsem, Tom; Miller, Mark S. \"Trustworthy Proxies: Virtualizing Objects with Invariants.\" In *Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2013)*, Montpellier, France, July 2013. LNCS 7920, pp. 154-178, Springer. [URL](http://soft.vub.ac.be/Publications/2013/vub-soft-tr-13-03.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"This ECOOP paper is the design rationale for the Proxy API that became standard in ECMAScript 6. Proxies are wrapper objects that virtualise an interface by intercepting all operations via trap functions - a technique essential for membranes, revocable references, access-control wrappers, profilers, taint tracking, higher-order contracts, and lazy/remote object references. The problem the paper addresses: in a language that also has *language invariants* (e.g., ES5's non-extensibility and non-configurability - \"frozen\" objects), can a proxy faithfully virtualise an object that has such invariants without giving up on the language's guarantee that those invariants hold? The authors formalise the tension. A \"universal, monotonic\" language invariant (such as `Object.isFrozen(x) ⇒ x.p consistently designates the same value forever`) is what lets developers, compilers, and security reviewers *locally* reason about objects in a dynamic language. A naive proxy API breaks this: a proxy could return different values each time for a property of a target that is frozen, defeating the invariant. The paper's key contribution is the design of a Proxy API in which **proxies refer directly to a target object**, and the proxy machinery **verifies invariants after each trap call**, raising a `TypeError` if a trap would violate a target's invariant. This is called *invariant enforcement*. With it, the language-level frozen-object guarantee holds for proxies too, so clients can still blindly trust `Object.isFrozen`. The paper introduces a formal calculus, λ_TP (lambda-TP), an extension of the lambda calculus with proxies and invariant enforcement, and uses it to prove that invariants are preserved. It then demonstrates several important ocap-flavoured access-control abstractions built on trustworthy proxies: revocable membrane references, read-only views, and contract wrappers. This design is foundational to the secure-EcmaScript / hardened-JS / Agoric-SES story, and is the plumbing beneath `Object.freeze`-based ocap disciplines in modern JS - including MetaMask's LavaMoat, Endo, and the Spritely-adjacent JavaScript tooling. It is the companion paper to *Distributed Electronic Rights in JavaScript* (ESOP 2013)."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Proxies** = trap-based virtualisation; handlers intercept `get`, `set`, `has`, `delete`, etc. - **Language invariants**: universal, monotonic properties of objects (non-extensibility, non-configurability, frozen) that clients and compilers rely on. - **The trust problem**: naive proxies can claim to wrap a frozen target yet return inconsistent values; `isFrozen` would have to return `false` for all proxies, losing transparency. - **Invariant enforcement**: proxy holds a direct reference to its target; after each trap, the runtime checks that the returned value is consistent with the target's invariants; inconsistency throws. - **λ_TP calculus**: formal model of proxies + invariant enforcement in the lambda calculus. - **Membranes**: with trustworthy proxies, one can build revocable membranes that transitively wrap all outgoing references and revoke the whole object subgraph atomically. - **Foundational for SES/hardened-JS**: without trustworthy proxies, freezing is not sufficient to ground ocap claims across wrapper boundaries. - **This design became ES6 Proxies** and the modern JS reflection API."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[E Language]] - membrane / facet patterns come straight from the E tradition. - [[CapTP]] - remote object references across vats are naturally implemented as trustworthy proxies. - [[Capability Security]], [[Object Capability Security]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - membranes built on proxies are the main device for stripping ambient authority from mobile code. - [[Confused Deputy]] - read-only views and attenuated proxies prevent confused-deputy scenarios. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - attenuated proxies *are* POLA at the reference level. - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - λ_TP is a close cousin, also a lambda calculus for ocap reasoning. - [[Capability Revocation]] - revocable membranes are the definitive technique, enabled by this API. - [[Promise Pipelining]] - remote promises in JS are implemented on top of proxy-like handlers."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":40,"t":"> A proxy API can be made *trustworthy* - able to virtualise objects that carry language-enforced invariants without letting the invariants be broken - if proxies hold direct references to their targets and the runtime verifies, after every trap, that the trap's behaviour is consistent with the target's invariants. This single design decision turns proxies from a mere interposition hack into a sound foundation for membranes, revocable references, contracts, and attenuated capabilities in JavaScript."},{"h":"Tags","l":44,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #proxies #javascript #ecmascript-6 #membranes #invariants #ecoop-2013 #van-cutsem #mark-miller #ocap #lambda-calculus #revocation #hardened-js","l":46,"t":""}],"tf":{"03":1,"13":1,"154":1,"178":1,"2013":5,"27th":1,"6":2,"7920":1,"a":22,"able":1,"about":1,"abstractions":1,"ac":1,"access":2,"across":2,"addresses":1,"adjacent":1,"after":3,"agoric":1,"all":3,"also":2,"ambient":2,"an":3,"and":16,"api":6,"are":7,"as":2,"at":1,"atomically":1,"attenuated":3,"authority":3,"authors":1,"based":2,"be":3,"became":2,"behaviour":1,"beneath":1,"blindly":1,"boundaries":1,"breaks":1,"broken":1,"build":1,"built":2,"by":2,"calculus":7,"call":1,"called":1,"can":5,"capabilities":1,"capability":5,"captp":1,"carry":1,"checks":1,"claim":1,"claims":1,"clients":2,"close":1,"code":1,"come":1,"companion":1,"compilers":2,"conceptual":1,"conference":1,"configurability":2,"confused":2,"connections":1,"consistent":2,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"contribution":2,"control":2,"could":1,"cousin":1,"cutsem":2,"decision":1,"defeating":1,"definitive":1,"demonstrates":1,"deputy":2,"design":5,"developers":1,"device":1,"different":1,"direct":2,"directly":1,"disciplines":1,"distributed":3,"dynamic":1,"e":3,"each":3,"ecmascript":3,"ecoop":3,"electronic":1,"enabled":1,"endo":1,"enforced":1,"enforcement":4,"es5":1,"es6":1,"esop":1,"essential":1,"etc":1,"european":1,"every":1,"extensibility":2,"extension":1,"facet":1,"faithfully":1,"flavoured":1,"for":9,"formal":2,"formalise":1,"foundation":1,"foundational":2,"france":1,"freezing":1,"from":3,"frozen":5,"functions":1,"g":1,"giving":1,"ground":1,"guarantee":2,"hack":1,"handlers":2,"hardened":3,"has":2,"have":1,"heart":1,"higher":1,"hold":2,"holds":2,"http":1,"ideas":1,"if":2,"implemented":2,"important":1,"in":10,"including":1,"inconsistency":1,"inconsistent":1,"intercept":1,"intercepting":1,"interface":1,"interposition":1,"into":1,"introduces":1,"invariant":7,"invariants":13,"is":12,"it":4,"its":1,"javascript":4,"js":6,"july":1,"kernel":1,"key":2,"lambda":6,"language":9,"lavamoat":1,"lazy":1,"least":1,"lets":1,"letting":1,"level":2,"like":1,"lncs":1,"locally":1,"losing":1,"machinery":1,"made":1,"main":1,"mark":2,"membrane":2,"membranes":7,"mere":1,"metamask":1,"miller":2,"mobile":1,"model":1,"modern":2,"monotonic":2,"montpellier":1,"naive":2,"naturally":1,"non":4,"not":1,"object":8,"objects":8,"ocap":5,"of":9,"on":6,"one":1,"only":2,"operations":1,"order":1,"oriented":1,"outgoing":1,"paper":5,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"pipelining":1,"plumbing":1,"pola":1,"pp":1,"preserved":1,"prevent":1,"principle":1,"problem":2,"proceedings":1,"profilers":1,"programming":1,"promise":1,"promises":1,"properties":1,"property":1,"prove":1,"proxies":21,"proxy":9,"publications":1,"raising":1,"rationale":1,"read":2,"reason":1,"reasoning":1,"refer":1,"reference":3,"references":7,"reflection":1,"rely":1,"remote":3,"return":3,"returned":1,"reviewers":1,"revocable":5,"revocation":2,"revoke":1,"rights":1,"runtime":2,"s":9,"scenarios":1,"secure":1,"security":7,"ses":2,"several":1,"single":1,"so":1,"soft":2,"sound":1,"springer":1,"spritely":2,"standard":1,"still":1,"story":1,"straight":1,"stripping":1,"subgraph":1,"such":2,"sufficient":1,"summary":1,"tags":1,"taint":1,"target":7,"targets":1,"technique":2,"tension":1,"that":12,"the":35,"their":1,"then":1,"this":7,"those":1,"throws":1,"time":1,"to":10,"tom":1,"too":1,"tooling":1,"top":1,"tp":4,"tr":1,"tracking":1,"tradition":1,"transitively":1,"transparency":1,"trap":7,"trust":2,"trustworthy":7,"turns":1,"universal":2,"up":1,"url":1,"uses":1,"value":1,"values":2,"van":2,"vats":1,"verifies":2,"via":1,"views":2,"violate":1,"virtualisation":1,"virtualise":3,"virtualizing":2,"vub":2,"what":1,"which":1,"whole":1,"with":7,"without":3,"would":2,"wrap":2,"wrapper":2,"wrappers":2,"yet":1,"λ":3}},{"dl":739,"n":"Robust Composition - Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control","s":"papers/ocap/robust-composition---towards-a-unified-approach-to-access-control-and-concurrency-control","secs":[{"h":"Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control","l":1,"t":""},{"h":"Reference","l":3,"t":"Miller, Mark Samuel. *Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control.* PhD Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, May 2006. Advisor: Jonathan S. Shapiro. Readers: Scott Smith, Yair Amir. [URL](https://papers.agoric.com/assets/pdf/papers/robust-composition.pdf)"},{"h":"Summary","l":7,"t":"Mark Miller's dissertation is the foundational synthesis of the object-capability tradition. It argues that the act of *composing separately written programs* so that they cooperate rather than destructively interfere is the fundamental problem that has limited the scale and functionality of software systems. The thesis proposes a unified framework that binds together access control and concurrency control as two faces of the same compositional discipline: each message send is at once an authority-propagation event and a concurrency-interleaving event, and both must be disciplined together if we are to compose code written by mutually suspicious authors on mutually suspicious machines. Miller extends decades of object-oriented progress from its comfortable setting (sequential, single-machine, benign components) to the hostile general case: concurrent, distributed, and potentially malicious components. The vehicles for this are the E programming language - a distributed, persistent, object-capability language built around vats, near/far references, eventual-send, promise pipelining, and CapTP - and CapDesk, a virus-safe desktop built in E. Together E and CapDesk form working embodiments of the thesis: authority is only granted by reference-passing along the message graph, and concurrency hazards (deadlock, non-determinism, plan interference) are tamed by the communicating-event-loop / vat model rather than by shared-memory locks. The dissertation pulls together and formalises the lineage from Dennis & Van Horn, Hardy's confused deputy, KeyKOS/EROS, Actor-model eventual send, and the SPKI/Granovetter diagram tradition, and it is by far the most-cited reference for object-capability security. Its substantive chapters cover attenuating authority, distributed concurrency control, promise pipelining, the \"excess authority as gateway to abuse\" argument, and the POLA design discipline."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":15,"t":"- **Unification of access and concurrency control**: both are consequences of disciplining what one object can do to another across a message send. - **Object-capability model**: authority == what references you hold; \"only connectivity begets connectivity.\" - **Vats and communicating event loops**: each vat is a single-threaded turn-taking event loop; cross-vat calls are eventual sends returning promises. - **Promise pipelining**: chained messages to not-yet-resolved promises reduce round-trips and compose naturally as plans. - **CapTP**: the cryptographic capability transport protocol that preserves object-capability semantics across mutually-suspicious machines. - **Defensive consistency**: an object defends its own invariants against arbitrary clients. - **POLA as design discipline**: hand out only the authority actually needed for each delegation. - **CapDesk**: demonstrates that a virus-safe desktop is achievable by threading object-capabilities through the UI/shell layer (powerboxes, caplets)."},{"h":"Connections","l":26,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - Spritely is the direct modern successor carrying Miller's E design forward into Goblins/Guile. - [[E Language]] - E is the concrete language Miller designs and evaluates here. - [[CapTP]] - Miller's distributed capability transport, specified in detail. - [[Capability Security]] and [[Object Capability Security]] - this thesis is the canonical statement of the ocap model. - [[Ambient Authority]] - Miller's thesis is the source of the modern critique of ambient authority. - [[Confused Deputy]] - Miller reframes Hardy's confused-deputy problem as a composition failure. - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - POLA is given its definitive formulation here. - [[Distributed Security]] - the thesis generalises ocap security to distributed settings. - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - close kin in the formal-ocap tradition. - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] - the Actor model is one of E's direct intellectual ancestors. - [[Actor Model]] - vats and eventual sends are the ocap-refined descendants of Hewitt's actors. - [[Vat Model]] - the vat abstraction is introduced and justified here. - [[Promise Pipelining]] - Miller gives the definitive account of pipelining in this thesis."},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":42,"t":"> Robust composition - the ability to combine separately authored components into a system whose aggregate behaviour is only what each party is actually willing to be party to - requires disciplining *both* authority propagation *and* concurrency interleaving in the same act of message send. Object-capability languages with vat-based event loops, promise pipelining, and CapTP provide the first unified framework for such robust composition across mutually suspicious, distributed, concurrent components."},{"h":"Tags","l":46,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #ocap #e-language #distributed-systems #concurrency #phd-thesis #spritely-ancestors #access-control #promise-pipelining #vats #captp #composition #mark-miller #foundational","l":48,"t":""}],"tf":{"2006":1,"a":12,"ability":1,"abstraction":1,"abuse":1,"access":5,"account":1,"achievable":1,"across":3,"act":2,"actor":4,"actors":1,"actually":2,"advisor":1,"against":1,"aggregate":1,"agoric":1,"along":1,"ambient":2,"amir":1,"an":2,"ancestors":2,"and":25,"another":1,"approach":2,"arbitrary":1,"are":6,"argues":1,"argument":1,"around":1,"artificial":1,"as":5,"assets":1,"at":1,"attenuating":1,"authored":1,"authority":10,"authors":1,"based":1,"be":2,"begets":1,"behaviour":1,"benign":1,"binds":1,"both":3,"built":2,"by":6,"calculus":1,"calls":1,"can":1,"canonical":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":12,"capdesk":3,"caplets":1,"captp":5,"carrying":1,"case":1,"chained":1,"chapters":1,"cited":1,"clients":1,"close":1,"code":1,"com":1,"combine":1,"comfortable":1,"communicating":2,"components":4,"compose":2,"composing":1,"composition":7,"compositional":1,"conceptual":1,"concrete":1,"concurrency":9,"concurrent":2,"confused":3,"connections":1,"connectivity":2,"consequences":1,"consistency":1,"contribution":1,"control":9,"cooperate":1,"cover":1,"critique":1,"cross":1,"cryptographic":1,"deadlock":1,"decades":1,"defends":1,"defensive":1,"definitive":2,"delegation":1,"demonstrates":1,"dennis":1,"deputy":3,"descendants":1,"design":3,"designs":1,"desktop":2,"destructively":1,"detail":1,"determinism":1,"diagram":1,"direct":2,"discipline":3,"disciplined":1,"disciplining":2,"dissertation":3,"distributed":9,"do":1,"e":8,"each":4,"embodiments":1,"eros":1,"evaluates":1,"event":6,"eventual":4,"excess":1,"extends":1,"faces":1,"failure":1,"far":2,"first":1,"for":5,"form":1,"formal":1,"formalises":1,"formalism":1,"formulation":1,"forward":1,"foundational":2,"framework":2,"from":2,"functionality":1,"fundamental":1,"gateway":1,"general":1,"generalises":1,"given":1,"gives":1,"goblins":1,"granovetter":1,"granted":1,"graph":1,"guile":1,"hand":1,"hardy":2,"has":1,"hazards":1,"heart":1,"here":3,"hewitt":1,"hold":1,"hopkins":1,"horn":1,"hostile":1,"https":1,"ideas":1,"if":1,"in":5,"intellectual":1,"intelligence":1,"interfere":1,"interference":1,"interleaving":2,"into":2,"introduced":1,"invariants":1,"is":16,"it":2,"its":4,"johns":1,"jonathan":1,"justified":1,"kernel":1,"key":1,"keykos":1,"kin":1,"lambda":1,"language":5,"languages":1,"layer":1,"least":1,"limited":1,"lineage":1,"locks":1,"loop":2,"loops":2,"machine":1,"machines":2,"malicious":1,"mark":3,"may":1,"memory":1,"message":4,"messages":1,"miller":10,"model":7,"modern":2,"modular":1,"most":1,"must":1,"mutually":4,"naturally":1,"near":1,"needed":1,"non":1,"not":1,"object":11,"objects":1,"ocap":5,"of":17,"on":1,"once":1,"one":2,"only":4,"oriented":1,"out":1,"own":1,"papers":2,"party":2,"passing":1,"pdf":2,"persistent":1,"phd":2,"pipelining":7,"plan":1,"plans":1,"pola":3,"potentially":1,"powerboxes":1,"preserves":1,"principle":1,"problem":2,"programming":1,"programs":1,"progress":1,"promise":6,"promises":2,"propagation":2,"proposes":1,"protocol":1,"provide":1,"pulls":1,"rather":2,"readers":1,"reduce":1,"reference":3,"references":2,"refined":1,"reframes":1,"requires":1,"resolved":1,"returning":1,"robust":5,"round":1,"s":9,"safe":2,"same":2,"samuel":1,"scale":1,"scott":1,"security":8,"semantics":1,"send":5,"sends":2,"separately":2,"sequential":1,"setting":1,"settings":1,"shapiro":1,"shared":1,"shell":1,"single":2,"smith":1,"so":1,"software":1,"source":1,"specified":1,"spki":1,"spritely":3,"statement":1,"substantive":1,"successor":1,"such":1,"summary":1,"suspicious":4,"synthesis":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"tags":1,"taking":1,"tamed":1,"than":2,"that":6,"the":38,"thesis":7,"they":1,"this":3,"threaded":1,"threading":1,"through":1,"to":11,"together":4,"towards":2,"tradition":3,"transport":2,"trips":1,"turn":1,"two":1,"ui":1,"unification":1,"unified":4,"universal":1,"university":1,"url":1,"van":1,"vat":6,"vats":4,"vehicles":1,"virus":2,"we":1,"what":3,"whose":1,"willing":1,"with":1,"working":1,"written":2,"yair":1,"yet":1,"you":1}},{"dl":922,"n":"The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security","s":"papers/ocap/the-heart-of-spritely---distributed-objects-and-capability-security","secs":[{"h":"The Heart of Spritely: Distributed Objects and Capability Security","l":1,"t":"**Reference:** Christine Lemmer-Webber, Randy Farmer, Juliana Sims (2025). *Spritely Institute whitepaper, May 21 2025*. Source file: `spritely-core.pdf`. [URL](https://files.spritely.institute/papers/spritely-core.pdf) · [Project](https://spritely.institute/goblins/)"},{"h":"Summary","l":5,"t":"The second paper in Spritely's three-part design series, this whitepaper lays out the technical core of **Goblins** — a distributed, transactional, object-programming environment built around **object capability security** (OCap). The thesis: secure peer-to-peer applications should feel *like ordinary programming*, not like a separate security discipline, and capability security makes that achievable. The operative slogan is *\"If you don't have it, you can't use it\"* — authority is conveyed only by holding a reference, never ambient. The paper works through (1) capability security as ordinary reference-passing, motivated against Access Control Lists and the confused-deputy problem; (2) Goblins itself — a distributed object programming model with promise pipelining, vats as containers of synchronous turns, turns as cheap local transactions, and time-travel debugging; (3) **OCapN** — a new cross-implementation protocol for secure distributed object communication; (4) portable encrypted storage for capabilities; (5) library/application safety implications. Implementations exist for Guile and Racket Schemes, with a roadmap toward language-heterogeneous object invocation. Goblins is the modern distillation of a three-decade lineage running through Mark Miller's **E language**, the CapTP protocol, Jonathan Rees's capability-kernel argument, and Carl Hewitt's actor formalism. It reframes agent communication as *object-reference passing over the network*, offering an alternative substrate to the ACL/RPC-stack approach that dominates modern LLM-agent protocols."},{"h":"Key Ideas","l":12,"t":"- **Principle of Least Authority (POLA)**: grant each piece of code only the authority it needs, no more - **Object capability security**: authority = unforgeable object reference. Lexical scoping + no ambient authority + no global mutable state - **Confused-deputy problem**: why ACLs fail when a privileged program is tricked into acting for an attacker - **Vat**: an isolated synchronous execution context; objects live inside vats; vats communicate asynchronously - **Turn**: an atomic event loop iteration inside a vat; turns are transactional — errors roll back the turn's local state - **Promise pipelining** (from CapTP): chain calls on a reference before the prior call resolves, reducing round trips - **Time-travel distributed debugging**: replay turns deterministically across the network - **OCapN (Object Capability Network)**: protocol for secure, cross-language distributed object invocation - **Revocation and accountability** as programmable patterns over references - *\"If you don't have it, you can't use it\"* — the design-level simplification capability security provides"},{"h":"Connections","l":24,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] — Rees's lexical-scope-as-capability-kernel argument, directly cited - [[Capability Security]] - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — vats descend from Hewitt actors - [[Actor Model]] - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] — sibling message-passing tradition - [[Communicating Sequential Processes]] — contrast in concurrency model - [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] — earlier capability-aware mobile agents - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Sandboxing]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[LangSec]] - [[End-to-End Arguments in System Design]] — design-principle neighbour - [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] — architectural contrast (REST/ACL vs OCap) - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] — OCapN is a capability-secure alternative - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]] - [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] — Constraint trust realised at the language level - [[Constraint Trust]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] — OCap would structurally preclude many of these attacks - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] — the *flat context trust model* ClawWorm exploits is precisely what OCap eliminates - [[Flat Context Trust Model]] - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - [[Confused Deputy]] - [[Vat Model]] - [[Turn (Goblins)]] - [[Promise Pipelining]] - [[OCapN]] - [[CapTP]] - [[E Language]] - [[Time-Travel Debugging]]"},{"h":"Conceptual Contribution","l":58,"t":"- **Claim:** Secure peer-to-peer applications become routine when authority is conveyed *only* by holding an unforgeable object reference — no ambient authority, no global mutable state, lexical scope as the capability kernel — and when the network distribution of such references is itself designed as an ordinary message-passing object system. - **Mechanism:** Goblins realises the E-language tradition in Scheme (Guile, Racket): objects live in vats; each vat runs atomic turns that serve as cheap local transactions; asynchronous inter-vat invocation uses promise pipelining to collapse round-trips; persistence, upgrade, and cross-language interop are handled by OCapN — a capability-preserving transport protocol. Time-travel debugging exploits the turn-level determinism. - **Concepts introduced/used:** [[Object Capability Security]], [[Principle of Least Authority]], [[Ambient Authority]], [[Confused Deputy]], [[Vat Model]], [[Turn (Goblins)]], [[Promise Pipelining]], [[OCapN]], [[CapTP]], [[E Language]], [[Time-Travel Debugging]], [[Capability Revocation]] - **Stance:** engineering / foundational design doc - **Relates to:** A modern engineering culmination of the capability-security thread rooted in [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] (Rees 1995, explicitly cited) — lexical scope as a capability kernel, extended into a full distributed system. The vat model is a direct descendant of [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] (Hewitt 1973) and sibling to [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] but with security-by-reference as a first-class concern. Frames a structural alternative to the modern LLM-agent protocol stack: where [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] / [[Model Context Protocol]] / [[Agent Network Protocol]] layer trust on top of ACL/RPC primitives, OCapN encodes trust in the reference graph itself. The **flat context trust model** that [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] exploits and that [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]], [[AI Agents Under Threat]] catalogue is precisely the ambient-authority failure capability security is designed to prevent — making Goblins / OCapN a serious candidate substrate for [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]]'s *Constraint* trust dimension."},{"h":"Tags","l":65,"t":""},{"h":"capability-security #distributed-objects #ocap #spritely #goblins #pola #e-language #peer-to-peer #security-engineering","l":66,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"1973":1,"1995":1,"2":1,"2025":2,"21":1,"3":1,"4":1,"5":1,"a":23,"access":1,"accountability":1,"achievable":1,"acl":3,"acls":1,"across":3,"acting":1,"actor":4,"actors":1,"against":1,"agent":14,"agents":4,"ai":2,"alternative":3,"ambient":6,"an":6,"and":11,"application":1,"applications":2,"approach":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"are":2,"argument":2,"arguments":1,"around":1,"artificial":2,"as":11,"asynchronous":1,"asynchronously":1,"at":1,"atomic":2,"attacker":1,"attacks":5,"authority":12,"aware":1,"back":1,"become":1,"before":1,"book":1,"built":1,"but":1,"by":4,"calculus":2,"call":1,"calls":1,"can":2,"candidate":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":20,"captp":4,"carl":1,"catalogue":1,"chain":1,"chapter":1,"cheap":2,"christine":1,"cited":2,"claim":1,"class":1,"clawworm":3,"code":1,"collapse":1,"communicate":1,"communicating":1,"communication":2,"comparative":2,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"concern":1,"concurrency":1,"confused":4,"connections":1,"constraint":3,"containers":1,"context":6,"contrast":2,"contribution":1,"control":1,"conveyed":2,"core":2,"cross":3,"culmination":1,"dagents":1,"debugging":5,"decade":1,"deputy":4,"descend":1,"descendant":1,"design":6,"designed":2,"determinism":1,"deterministically":1,"dimension":1,"direct":1,"directly":1,"discipline":1,"distillation":1,"distributed":9,"distribution":1,"doc":1,"dominates":1,"don":2,"e":5,"each":2,"earlier":1,"ecosystems":2,"edition":2,"eliminates":1,"encodes":1,"encrypted":1,"end":2,"engineering":3,"environment":1,"erlang":2,"errors":1,"event":1,"execution":1,"exist":1,"explicitly":1,"exploits":3,"extended":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"farmer":1,"feel":1,"file":1,"files":1,"first":1,"flat":3,"flexible":1,"for":8,"formalism":3,"foundational":1,"frames":1,"from":2,"full":1,"global":2,"goblins":9,"grant":1,"graph":1,"guile":2,"handled":1,"have":2,"heart":1,"heterogeneous":1,"hewitt":3,"holding":2,"https":2,"ideas":1,"if":2,"implementation":1,"implementations":1,"implications":1,"in":7,"inside":2,"institute":3,"intelligence":2,"inter":3,"interop":1,"into":2,"introduced":1,"invocation":3,"is":11,"isolated":1,"it":6,"iteration":1,"itself":3,"jonathan":1,"juliana":1,"kernel":6,"key":1,"lambda":2,"langsec":1,"language":9,"layer":1,"lays":1,"least":3,"lemmer":1,"level":3,"lexical":4,"library":1,"like":2,"lineage":1,"lists":1,"live":2,"llm":4,"local":3,"loop":1,"makes":1,"making":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":2,"many":1,"mark":1,"may":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"miller":1,"mobile":2,"model":11,"models":2,"modern":5,"modular":2,"more":1,"motivated":1,"mutable":2,"needs":1,"neighbour":1,"network":6,"never":1,"new":1,"no":5,"not":1,"object":13,"objects":4,"ocap":5,"ocapn":8,"of":14,"offering":1,"on":2,"only":3,"operative":1,"ordinary":3,"out":1,"over":2,"paper":2,"papers":1,"part":1,"passing":4,"patterns":1,"pdf":1,"peer":6,"persistence":1,"piece":1,"pipelining":5,"pola":2,"portable":1,"precisely":2,"preclude":1,"preserving":1,"prevent":1,"primitives":1,"principle":4,"principled":1,"prior":1,"privileged":1,"problem":2,"processes":1,"program":1,"programmable":1,"programming":5,"project":1,"promise":5,"propagating":2,"protocol":11,"protocols":1,"provides":1,"racket":2,"randy":1,"realised":1,"realises":1,"reducing":1,"rees":3,"reference":9,"references":2,"reframes":1,"relates":1,"replay":1,"resolves":1,"rest":1,"revocation":2,"roadmap":1,"roll":1,"rooted":1,"round":2,"routine":1,"rpc":2,"running":1,"runs":1,"s":7,"safety":1,"sandboxing":1,"scheme":1,"schemes":1,"scope":3,"scoping":1,"second":3,"secure":6,"security":18,"self":2,"separate":1,"sequential":1,"series":1,"serious":1,"serve":1,"should":1,"sibling":2,"simplification":1,"sims":1,"slogan":1,"source":1,"spritely":7,"stack":2,"stance":1,"state":3,"storage":1,"structural":1,"structurally":1,"study":2,"substrate":2,"such":1,"summary":1,"synchronous":2,"system":3,"t":4,"tags":1,"tcl":1,"technical":1,"that":5,"the":29,"these":1,"thesis":1,"this":1,"thread":1,"threat":2,"three":2,"through":2,"time":5,"to":12,"tool":2,"top":1,"toward":1,"tradition":2,"transactional":2,"transactions":2,"transport":1,"travel":5,"tricked":1,"trips":2,"trust":10,"turn":5,"turns":5,"under":2,"unforgeable":2,"universal":2,"upgrade":1,"url":1,"use":2,"used":1,"uses":1,"vat":7,"vats":5,"vs":1,"web":1,"webber":1,"what":1,"when":3,"where":1,"whitepaper":2,"why":1,"with":3,"works":1,"would":1,"you":4}},{"dl":2203,"n":"concept-map","s":"concept-map","secs":[{"h":"Conceptual Map","l":1,"t":"A guided conceptual tour through this vault. Where [[index]] lists the papers, this page lists the **ideas** and shows how they interlock. Every paper note now also carries a `## Conceptual Contribution` section (claim / mechanism / concepts / stance / relates-to). ---"},{"h":"1. The Central Tension: What Does a Message *Mean*?","l":7,"t":"Agent communication's perennial question — whose mental states does a message commit? — runs the length of this vault. - **[[Speech Act Theory]]** (Austin → Searle → [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]) fixes a vocabulary: *illocutionary force*, *direction of fit*, *sincerity* and *preparatory* conditions. Every ACL after this inherits it. - **[[Mentalistic Semantics]]** — grounding message meaning in the beliefs/intentions of sender and receiver. [[KQML]] ([[KQML Overview]], [[KQML Language And Protocol]], [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]]) and [[FIPA-ACL]] adopt it. - **[[Commitment-based Semantics]]** / **[[Public Semantics]]** — the counter-move. Singh's critique ([[ACL Rethinking Principles]], [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]) argues mentalistic semantics is **unverifiable**: we cannot inspect another agent's mind, only its public commitments. [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] pushes further: every message is a *declaration* that alters social commitments; Searle's \"counts-as\" is the operative logic. - **[[Verifiable Semantics]]** — [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] formalises the critique by requiring grounding in program state so conformance is model-checkable. [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] offers a reconciliation: role-instanced public attitudes unify the two families. - **[[Conversation Policy]]** / **[[Interaction Protocols]]** — even with messages nailed down, coordination needs conversations. [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] (Colored Petri Nets), [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] (Dooley graphs), and [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] (commitment-based protocols) make the *conversation* first-class. Surveys mapping this debate: [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]], [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]]."},{"h":"2. The Language Stack","l":19,"t":"Messages compose into languages compose into protocols. | Layer | Concept | Representative papers | |---|---|---| | Content | **[[KIF]]**, ontology term sets | [[KQML Overview]], [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]], [[Handbook On Ontologies]] | | Message | **[[Performatives]]** / illocutions | [[KQML]], [[FIPA-ACL]], [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] | | Conversation | **[[Interaction Protocols]]** | [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]], [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] | | Transport | **[[Facilitators]]**, routing | [[KQML Language And Protocol]], [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] | This same stack — content / message / conversation / transport — reappears in the modern LLM-agent protocol wave: see [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] and [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]], which place [[Model Context Protocol]] (tools), ACP, [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], and [[Agent Network Protocol]] at progressively higher layers."},{"h":"3. How Does Shared Language *Arise*?","l":32,"t":"A separate tradition asks where meaning comes from rather than what it contains. - **Linguistic foundations.** [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] establishes what structure a shared code must have (Chomsky hierarchy, transformational grammar). [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] provides the information-theoretic counterpart: meaning is compressed description. - **[[Language Games]].** [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] (Steels) shows grounded lexicons *self-assemble* through situated interaction — no designer required. The same bootstrap appears decision-theoretically in [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] and [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]: rational agents negotiate vocabulary when current language fails. - **[[Emergent Communication]].** The deep-learning revival: [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]], [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] — neural agents in referential/signalling games evolve compositional codes. [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] is the sharpest critique: most metrics fail to distinguish real communication from confounds; measure **positive signalling** and **positive listening** with causal interventions. - **[[Common Business Communication Language]]** is an analogue in the pre-ML era — an open-ended language negotiable between organisations with graceful partial-understanding fallback. - **The LLM inflection point.** [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] argues natural language is *exactly the wrong* inter-agent medium: lossy, non-differentiable, ambiguous. The thread rejoins the ACL debate a quarter-century later."},{"h":"4. Extensibility: Grow the Language Toward the Problem","l":42,"t":"A recurring architectural instinct runs from 1960s language design through to modern agent protocols. - **Programming-language origin.** [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] supplies the taxonomy (**[[Paraphrase]]** / **[[Orthophrase]]** / **[[Metaphrase]]**). [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] is the Lisp-flavoured manifesto: [[Bottom-up Programming]], [[Macros as Language Extension]], [[Code as Data]]. [[Creating Languages in Racket]] is its modern realisation; [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] makes IDEs-from-grammars a production idea; [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] supplies the formal backing (modular proofs across user-added fragments). - **Distributed-system extensibility.** [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] applies the same move to ZooKeeper-style coordination: sandboxed server-side extensions trump a fixed API. - **Agent-communication extensibility.** Agora ([[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]) is the *linguistic* realisation of this instinct for LLM agents: no fixed format can satisfy versatility × efficiency × portability (the \"agent communication trilemma\"); agents instead **negotiate [[Protocol Documents]]** identified by content hash and have LLMs write the routines. That is \"grow the language toward the problem\" at the network layer."},{"h":"5. Agent Theory: What Kind of Thing Is an Agent?","l":50,"t":"- **[[Weak Agency]] vs [[Strong Agency]].** [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] (Wooldridge & Jennings) supplies the canonical split and the **theory / architecture / language** triad. - **Theory.** [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] (Shoham) proposes agents as modules with formally-specified [[Mental State]] (beliefs, commitments, capabilities, choices); the AGENT-0 language encodes **honesty** and commitment constraints. [[BDI]] (Belief-Desire-Intention) is the dominant architecture across [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]], [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]], [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]. - **Ethics and runtime self-oversight.** [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] requires an **[[Ethical Governor]]** with [[A-ILTL]] meta-rules as a [[Metacognitive Loop]]. - **Environment as first-class.** [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] elevates **[[Agents and Artifacts]]** (JaCaMo / Jason / CArtAgO / MOISE) — communication isn't only agent-to-agent but agent-to-artefact-to-agent."},{"h":"6. Multi-Agent Coordination","l":57,"t":"- **The coherence problem.** [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] names it: how do autonomous agents produce coherent global behaviour? Classic answers: [[Contract Net Protocol]], [[Joint Intentions]], [[Negotiation]]. - **Fragility of coordination.** [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] is a striking negative result: even a single missed message about a weakly-coupled agent can send game-theoretic MAS to arbitrarily bad equilibria. [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] is its LLM-era empirical counterpart: the **[[MAST Taxonomy]]** shows failures are overwhelmingly *system-design* (specification / coordination / verification), not model-capability. - **Population-scale design.** [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] reframes the scaling question: leverage comes from protocol design, not bigger models — shift from **LLM** to **[[Large Population Models]]**. [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] is a concrete instance: share *counterfactual sensitivities* across agents, not just decisions. - **Organisational substrate.** [[How Do Committees Invent]] (Conway's Law) is the ur-text: any designed system mirrors the communication structure of its designing organisation. This is the sociological shadow over every coordination result in the vault."},{"h":"7. Self-* Systems and Biological Metaphors","l":64,"t":"A lineage that uses adaptation, awareness, and biology as organising ideas. - **Self-reproduction.** [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] (von Neumann) gives the complication-threshold result: beyond a critical complexity automata can self-reproduce and evolve *iff* they tolerate local error. - **Self-adaptive ensembles.** [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] (the ASCENS project) factors self-* into three complementary capabilities along individual/collective × behaviour/structure axes. [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] is an instance (DSmT trust fusion + multi-agent Q-learning on weighted relations). - **Biological substrate.** [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] (fungal mycelium / stigmergy) produces resilient superpeer topologies. [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] (Levin) generalises selfhood to a **cognitive light cone** — any system with a goal-directed computational surface is a self at some scale."},{"h":"8. Gossip and Probabilistic Coordination","l":72,"t":"- **Foundations.** [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] factors gossip into a three-parameter design space (peer selection / data exchanged / data processing) that unifies divergent (dissemination) and convergent (aggregation) protocols. - **Aggregation.** [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] (Push-Sum) and [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] (push-pull on a [[Peer Sampling Service]]) establish **mass conservation** + **exponential convergence** for aggregates over volatile networks. - **Application.** [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] uses newscast gossip; [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] uses gossip training across the cloud-edge-device hierarchy."},{"h":"9. Trust, Reputation, and Open-System Robustness","l":78,"t":"- **Taxonomy.** [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] decomposes trust into *direct experience*, *witness reputation*, *sociological reputation*, *prejudice*; and models into *cognitive* vs *game-theoretic*. - **Context.** Mobile-agent-era concerns in [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]], [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]], [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]]. - **LLM-era.** [[AI Agents Under Threat]] surveys the four knowledge gaps (perception / brain / action across agent-to-{agent, env, memory}); [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] shows real harm lives in **tool implementations**, not tool descriptions."},{"h":"10. Language-Theoretic Security","l":84,"t":"A tight sub-thread arguing that most security failures are really *recognition* failures. - **[[LangSec]] core.** [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] is foundational: over-powerful input languages make safety undecidable — the cure is to restrict inputs to what can be recognised by a minimal-power parser. [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] catalogues the seven canonical anti-patterns (shotgun parsing etc.) and names **grammar-first validating recognisers** as the remedy. - **Exploits as language ambiguity.** [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]]: when CA and browser parse the same bytes differently, trust collapses — a **[[Parser Differential]]** attack. - **Language-based defences.** [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] (static detection of call-flow cycles in actor systems), [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] (cryptographic wrappers with full-abstraction guarantees), [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] (lexical scope as a capability kernel — [[Capability Security]]), [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] (SOL + SINS middleware, compositional formal dependability)."},{"h":"11. Ontologies and Shared Meaning","l":92,"t":"Necessary scaffolding for any ACL — and a field in its own right. - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] defines the Gruber formulation (**[[Ontology]]** = explicit specification of a **[[Conceptualization]]**) and portability via KIF translation. - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] is the comprehensive reference (description logics, OWL, RDF, frame logic, semantic web). - [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] tames the fragmented sub-literature (evolution / mapping / merging / alignment) into a coherent taxonomy — crucial for long-lived agent systems. - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] uses ontology technology to *reconcile* ACL semantic families."},{"h":"12. Foundations Beneath It All","l":101,"t":"A few papers anchor the abstract ground everything else stands on. - **Program semantics.** [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] (Floyd) — assertions on flowchart edges; birth of axiomatic semantics. [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] — the declarative/procedural unity under SLD-resolution. - **Information.** [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] — Kolmogorov complexity and MDL: the meaning of an object is the length of its shortest program. - **Concurrency substrate.** [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] — the actor-model textbook, **let-it-crash** + supervision trees. This is the operational grain of most distributed agent systems discussed above. - **Architectural style.** [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] (Fielding / REST) — the explicit constraints (uniform interface, statelessness, hypermedia) that make internet-scale coordination possible. The modern LLM-agent protocols recapitulate these constraints deliberately. - **Blockchain / smart contracts.** [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] (semantic gap between intent and EVM), [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] (Event-B refinement proofs) — formal-methods vocabulary applied to a new coordination substrate. - **Distributed-consistency theory.** [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] gives the positive dual to [[CAP Theorem]]: a program has a consistent, coordination-free implementation iff it is monotonic ([[CALM Theorem]], [[Confluence]], [[Monotonic Logic]]). This is the theoretical companion to the gossip-aggregation results in §8 — aggregation with mass conservation is exactly monotonic — and the reason [[CRDTs]], [[Immutable Data Structures]], and [[Tombstones]] recur as patterns throughout the vault."},{"h":"13. The Modern LLM-Agent Era: How the Threads Converge","l":112,"t":"The contemporary LLM-agent wave recapitulates the full vault simultaneously. - **From chatbots to agents.** [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] supplies the direct design ancestry of user-facing conversational AI. - **Framework.** [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] — declarative **[[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]]** as symbolic plans driving LLM agents. - **Collaboration.** [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] — role-specialised teams, human-in-the-loop. [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] (MAST). - **Protocol stack.** [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]], [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]], [[Model Context Protocol]], [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]], [[Agent Network Protocol]]. - **Native protocol design.** [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] (Agora / trilemma), [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] (sensitivity sharing), [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] (population-scale). - **Critique.** [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] — the semantic-misalignment / differentiability critique of NL-as-protocol. - **Security.** [[AI Agents Under Threat]], [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]. Each modern thread has a pre-LLM ancestor in this vault — which is the real point of the map. ---"},{"h":"Four Cross-Cutting Debates","l":128,"t":"1. **Private vs public semantics** — mentalistic ([[KQML]], [[FIPA-ACL]]) vs commitment-based ([[ACL Rethinking Principles]], [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]) vs grounded ([[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]]). Reopened by [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]]. 2. **Designed vs evolved languages** — standardised ([[FIPA-ACL]]) vs negotiated ([[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]], [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]) vs emergent ([[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]], [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]]). 3. **Centralised vs decentralised coordination** — facilitators ([[KQML Overview]]) vs gossip ([[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]]) vs stigmergy ([[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]) vs agent-environment ([[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]). 4. **Trust through mental-state inspection vs through commitments vs through language-theoretic restriction** — [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] vs [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] vs [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]]. See [[index]] for the full paper listing, [[README]] for vault conventions."}],"tf":{"0":1,"1":2,"10":1,"11":1,"12":1,"13":1,"1960s":1,"2":2,"3":2,"4":2,"5":1,"6":1,"7":1,"8":2,"9":1,"a":48,"about":1,"above":1,"abstract":1,"abstraction":1,"acl":13,"acls":8,"acp":1,"acre":2,"across":5,"act":1,"action":1,"actor":2,"adaptation":2,"adaptive":1,"added":1,"adopt":1,"after":1,"agency":2,"agent":58,"agents":23,"aggregate":2,"aggregates":1,"aggregation":5,"agora":2,"ai":9,"al":1,"algorithmic":2,"alignment":1,"all":1,"along":1,"also":1,"alters":1,"ambiguity":1,"ambiguous":1,"an":11,"analogue":1,"ancestor":1,"ancestry":1,"anchor":1,"and":42,"another":1,"answers":1,"anti":1,"any":3,"api":1,"appears":1,"application":1,"applied":1,"applies":1,"approach":2,"arbitrarily":1,"architectural":3,"architecture":3,"are":3,"argues":2,"arguing":1,"arise":1,"art":1,"artefact":1,"artifacts":1,"as":14,"ascens":2,"asks":1,"assemble":1,"assertions":1,"assigning":1,"at":3,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"attitudes":1,"austin":1,"automata":2,"automated":2,"automating":1,"autonomous":3,"awareness":2,"axes":1,"axiomatic":1,"b":1,"babel":1,"backing":1,"bad":1,"based":8,"bdi":1,"be":1,"behaviour":4,"belief":1,"beliefs":2,"beneath":1,"between":2,"beyond":1,"bigger":1,"biological":2,"biology":1,"birth":1,"blockchain":2,"book":1,"bootstrap":1,"bottom":1,"boundary":1,"brain":1,"browser":1,"business":1,"but":1,"by":4,"bytes":1,"ca":1,"cake":1,"calculus":1,"call":1,"calm":2,"can":4,"cannot":1,"canonical":2,"cap":1,"capabilities":2,"capability":3,"carries":1,"cartago":1,"catalogues":1,"causal":1,"central":1,"centralised":1,"century":1,"change":1,"chapter":1,"chatbots":2,"checkable":1,"choices":1,"chomsky":1,"claim":1,"class":2,"classic":1,"classification":1,"cloud":1,"code":2,"codes":1,"cognitive":2,"coherence":1,"coherent":2,"collaboration":2,"collapses":1,"collective":1,"colored":1,"comes":2,"commit":1,"commitment":4,"commitments":4,"committees":1,"common":4,"communicate":3,"communication":19,"communications":1,"companion":1,"competence":1,"complementary":1,"complexity":2,"complication":1,"compose":2,"composite":1,"compositional":3,"comprehensive":1,"compressed":1,"computation":2,"computational":3,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"conceptual":2,"conceptualization":1,"concerns":1,"concrete":1,"concurrency":1,"conditions":1,"cone":1,"confluence":1,"conformance":1,"confounds":1,"conservation":2,"consistency":2,"consistent":1,"constraints":3,"contains":1,"contemporary":1,"content":3,"context":4,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"conventions":1,"converge":1,"convergence":1,"convergent":1,"conversation":6,"conversational":1,"conversations":3,"conway":1,"cooperation":2,"coordinating":2,"coordination":12,"core":1,"counter":1,"counterfactual":1,"counterpart":2,"counts":1,"coupled":1,"crash":1,"crdts":1,"creating":1,"critical":1,"critique":5,"cross":1,"crucial":1,"cryptographic":1,"cure":1,"current":1,"cutting":1,"cycles":1,"dagents":1,"data":5,"ddos":1,"debate":2,"debates":1,"decentralised":1,"decision":1,"decisions":1,"declaration":1,"declarative":2,"decomposes":1,"deep":1,"defences":1,"defines":1,"deliberately":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"description":3,"descriptions":1,"design":9,"designed":2,"designer":1,"designing":1,"desire":1,"detection":1,"device":1,"differentiability":1,"differentiable":1,"differential":1,"differently":1,"direct":2,"directed":1,"direction":1,"discussed":1,"dissemination":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":7,"divergent":1,"do":4,"documents":1,"does":3,"dominant":1,"dooley":1,"down":1,"driven":1,"driving":1,"dsmt":1,"dual":1,"dynamic":1,"each":1,"easy":1,"edge":2,"edges":1,"edition":1,"effect":2,"efficiency":1,"elevates":1,"eliza":1,"else":1,"emergence":3,"emergent":3,"empirical":1,"encodes":1,"ended":1,"engine":2,"ensembles":1,"ensuring":2,"env":1,"environment":2,"environments":3,"equilibria":1,"era":5,"erlang":1,"error":1,"establish":1,"establishes":1,"et":1,"etc":1,"ethical":3,"ethics":1,"even":2,"event":1,"every":4,"everything":1,"evm":1,"evolution":4,"evolve":2,"evolved":1,"exactly":2,"exchanged":1,"experience":1,"explicit":2,"exploits":1,"exponential":1,"expression":1,"extensibility":4,"extensible":3,"extension":1,"extensions":1,"facilitators":2,"facing":1,"factors":2,"fail":3,"fails":1,"failures":4,"fallback":1,"families":2,"few":1,"field":1,"fielding":1,"fipa":4,"first":3,"fit":1,"fixed":2,"fixes":1,"flavoured":1,"flexible":1,"flow":1,"flowchart":1,"floyd":1,"for":21,"force":1,"formal":3,"formalise":1,"formalises":1,"formally":1,"format":1,"formulation":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":6,"four":2,"fragility":1,"fragmented":1,"fragments":1,"frame":1,"framework":5,"free":1,"from":8,"full":3,"fungal":1,"fungi":3,"further":1,"fusion":1,"game":2,"games":4,"gap":1,"gaps":1,"generalises":1,"gives":2,"global":1,"goal":1,"gossip":9,"gossiping":1,"governor":1,"graceful":1,"graham":1,"grain":1,"grammar":2,"grammars":1,"graphs":1,"ground":1,"grounded":3,"grounding":2,"grow":2,"gruber":1,"grunwald":2,"guarantees":1,"guided":1,"halting":2,"handbook":2,"harm":1,"has":2,"hash":1,"have":2,"hierarchy":2,"higher":1,"honesty":1,"how":5,"human":4,"hypermedia":1,"idea":1,"ideas":2,"identified":1,"ides":1,"iff":2,"illocutionary":3,"illocutions":1,"iltl":1,"immutable":1,"implementation":1,"implementations":1,"in":29,"index":2,"individual":1,"inflection":1,"information":6,"inherits":1,"input":1,"inputs":1,"insecurity":2,"inspect":1,"inspection":1,"inspired":3,"instance":2,"instanced":1,"instead":1,"instinct":2,"institutional":2,"intelligence":1,"intelligent":3,"intent":1,"intention":1,"intentions":2,"inter":1,"interaction":7,"interface":1,"interlock":1,"internet":1,"interoperability":3,"interventions":1,"into":7,"invent":1,"is":31,"isn":1,"it":7,"its":6,"jacamo":1,"jason":1,"jennings":1,"joint":1,"just":1,"kaminsky":1,"keeping":1,"kernel":2,"kif":2,"kind":1,"knowledge":1,"kolmogorov":1,"kqml":9,"lambda":1,"langsec":1,"language":35,"languages":9,"large":2,"later":1,"law":1,"layer":3,"layers":1,"learning":2,"length":2,"let":1,"levels":2,"leverage":1,"levin":1,"lexical":1,"lexicons":1,"light":1,"lineage":1,"linguistic":3,"lisp":1,"listening":1,"listing":1,"lists":2,"literature":1,"lived":1,"lives":1,"llm":13,"llms":4,"lloyd":1,"local":1,"logic":6,"logical":2,"logics":1,"long":1,"loop":2,"lossy":1,"macros":1,"make":3,"makes":1,"making":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":2,"manifesto":1,"map":2,"mapping":2,"mas":1,"mass":2,"mast":2,"mdl":1,"mean":1,"meaning":5,"meanings":1,"measure":1,"measuring":1,"mechanism":2,"medium":1,"memory":1,"mental":3,"mentalistic":3,"merging":1,"message":7,"messages":2,"meta":1,"metacognitive":1,"metaphors":1,"metaphrase":1,"metatheoretic":1,"methods":1,"metrics":1,"middleware":1,"mind":1,"minimal":1,"mirrors":1,"misalignment":1,"missed":1,"ml":1,"mobile":2,"model":6,"models":5,"modern":7,"modular":2,"modules":1,"moise":1,"monotonic":3,"most":3,"move":2,"multi":8,"multiagent":3,"must":1,"mycelium":1,"myconet":3,"nailed":1,"names":2,"native":1,"natural":3,"necessary":1,"needs":1,"negative":1,"negotiable":1,"negotiate":2,"negotiated":1,"negotiation":1,"net":1,"nets":1,"network":6,"networks":5,"neumann":1,"neural":1,"new":1,"newscast":1,"nl":1,"no":2,"non":1,"not":4,"note":1,"now":1,"object":1,"of":48,"offers":1,"on":8,"only":2,"ontolingua":2,"ontologies":3,"ontology":9,"open":5,"operating":1,"operational":1,"operative":1,"orchestration":2,"organisation":2,"organisational":1,"organisations":1,"organising":1,"oriented":4,"origin":1,"orthophrase":1,"over":3,"overlay":3,"oversight":1,"overview":3,"overwhelmingly":1,"owl":1,"own":1,"page":1,"paper":2,"papers":3,"parameter":1,"paraphrase":1,"parse":1,"parser":2,"parsing":1,"partial":1,"patterns":4,"patterson":1,"peer":2,"perception":1,"perennial":1,"performatives":1,"petri":1,"pitfalls":1,"pki":1,"place":1,"plans":1,"point":2,"policy":1,"population":3,"populations":1,"portability":2,"portable":2,"positive":3,"possible":1,"power":1,"powerful":1,"practice":1,"pre":2,"prejudice":1,"preparatory":1,"prevent":1,"principled":1,"principles":4,"private":1,"probabilistic":1,"problem":3,"problems":2,"procedural":1,"procedures":1,"processing":2,"produce":1,"produces":1,"production":1,"program":4,"programming":6,"programs":1,"progressively":1,"project":1,"proofs":2,"proposes":1,"protocol":22,"protocols":11,"provides":1,"public":4,"pull":1,"push":2,"pushes":1,"q":1,"quarter":1,"question":2,"racket":1,"rather":1,"rational":1,"rdf":1,"readme":1,"real":3,"realisation":2,"reality":2,"really":1,"reappears":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":3,"recapitulate":1,"recapitulates":1,"receiver":1,"recognised":1,"recognisers":1,"recognition":1,"reconcile":1,"reconciliation":1,"recur":1,"recurring":1,"reference":1,"referential":1,"refinement":1,"reframes":1,"rejoins":1,"relates":1,"relations":1,"remedy":1,"reopened":1,"representative":1,"reproduce":1,"reproducing":1,"reproduction":1,"reputation":4,"required":1,"requires":1,"requiring":1,"resilient":2,"resolution":1,"rest":1,"restrict":1,"restriction":1,"result":3,"results":1,"rethinking":4,"review":1,"revival":1,"right":1,"ripple":2,"robots":2,"robustness":1,"role":2,"routines":1,"routing":1,"rules":1,"runs":2,"runtime":1,"s":5,"safety":1,"same":4,"sampling":1,"sandboxed":1,"sassaman":1,"satisfy":1,"scaffolding":1,"scalable":3,"scale":4,"scaling":1,"scope":1,"searle":2,"second":1,"section":1,"secure":3,"security":6,"see":2,"selection":1,"self":14,"selfhood":1,"semantic":4,"semantics":11,"send":1,"sender":1,"sensitivities":1,"sensitivity":1,"separate":1,"server":1,"service":1,"sets":1,"seven":2,"shadow":1,"share":1,"shared":3,"sharing":1,"sharpest":1,"shift":1,"shoham":1,"shortest":1,"shotgun":1,"shows":4,"side":1,"signalling":2,"simultaneously":1,"sincerity":1,"singh":1,"single":1,"sins":1,"situated":1,"sld":1,"smart":2,"smarter":1,"so":1,"social":4,"sociological":2,"software":1,"sol":2,"some":1,"sops":1,"space":1,"specialised":1,"specification":2,"specifications":2,"specified":1,"speech":1,"split":1,"spoofax":1,"stack":5,"stance":1,"standard":1,"standardised":1,"standish":1,"stands":1,"state":4,"statelessness":1,"states":1,"static":1,"steels":1,"stigmergy":2,"striking":1,"strong":1,"structure":3,"structures":1,"style":2,"sub":2,"substrate":4,"sum":1,"superpeer":4,"supervision":1,"supplies":4,"surface":1,"survey":6,"surveys":2,"sycara":2,"symbolic":1,"system":5,"systems":11,"t":1,"tames":1,"taxonomy":4,"tcl":1,"teams":1,"technology":1,"tension":1,"term":1,"text":1,"textbook":1,"than":1,"that":6,"the":91,"theorem":2,"theoretic":5,"theoretical":1,"theoretically":1,"theory":9,"these":1,"they":2,"thing":1,"this":11,"thread":3,"threads":1,"threat":2,"three":3,"threshold":1,"through":6,"throughout":1,"tight":1,"to":26,"tolerate":1,"tombstones":1,"tool":4,"tools":1,"topologies":1,"tour":1,"toward":4,"towards":1,"tradition":1,"training":1,"transformational":1,"translation":1,"transport":2,"trees":1,"trends":1,"triad":1,"trilemma":2,"trump":1,"trust":6,"trustworthy":2,"tunkel":1,"turrets":1,"two":1,"undecidable":1,"under":3,"understanding":1,"unifies":1,"uniform":1,"unify":1,"unity":1,"unverifiable":1,"up":1,"ur":1,"user":2,"uses":4,"using":2,"validating":1,"vault":7,"verifiable":4,"verification":1,"versatility":1,"via":1,"vitanyi":2,"vocabulary":3,"volatile":1,"von":1,"vs":16,"wasif":1,"wave":2,"we":1,"weak":1,"weakly":1,"web":2,"weighted":1,"what":5,"when":3,"where":2,"which":2,"whose":1,"why":5,"with":8,"witness":1,"wooldridge":1,"workbench":1,"wrappers":1,"write":1,"wrong":1,"xiaoice":1,"zhou":1,"zookeeper":1}},{"dl":1497,"n":"index","s":"index","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communications Vault","l":1,"t":"A curated, wikilink-connected reading vault on **agent communication languages, multi-agent systems, capability security, distributed systems, and LLM agents** — from McCarthy and Minsky through KQML/FIPA to modern LLM agent protocols. Each note summarises a paper in its own words (summary, key ideas, conceptual contribution, connections) and is cross-linked to related concepts and papers, forming a navigable graph of the field. Start with **[[concept-map]]** for a guided tour, or browse the map of content below."},{"h":"How to contribute","l":9,"t":"The vault is a plain-text [zetl](https://github.com/anuna-research/zetl) wikilink graph — every note is a markdown file with `[[wikilinks]]`. Contributions welcome: 1. Clone: `git clone https://github.com/anuna-cooperative/agent-comms-wiki.git` 2. Add or edit notes as plain markdown. New paper notes should follow the structure of existing ones (Reference, Summary, Key Ideas, Connections, Conceptual Contribution, Tags). 3. Run `zetl check` to validate links, and `zetl build` to preview the site locally. 4. Open a pull request at <https://github.com/anuna-cooperative/agent-comms-wiki>. See [[README]] for detailed conventions. ---"},{"h":"Map of Content","l":22,"t":""},{"h":"Concept Hubs","l":24,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Distributed Security]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"},{"h":"Foundational","l":42,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] — Hellerstein & Alvaro 2019 ([[CALM Theorem]]) - [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] — Chomsky 1956 - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] — McCarthy 1979 - [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] — McCarthy 1989 (PL ancestor of ACLs) - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] — McCarthy 1963 - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] — McCarthy & Painter 1967 - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] — McCarthy 1979b - [[Programs with Common Sense]] — McCarthy 1959 (Advice Taker) - [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] — McCarthy 1960 (Lisp) - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] — McCarthy & Hayes 1969 (situation calculus, frame problem) - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] — McCarthy 1977 - [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — McCarthy 1980 (AIJ 13) - [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] — McCarthy 1986 (AIJ 28) - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] — McCarthy 1987 (Turing Award lecture) - [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] — Rao & Georgeff 1991 - [[Two Faces of Intention]] — Bratman 1984 - [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] — Dennett 1981 - [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]] — Searle 1975 - [[Logic and Conversation]] — Grice 1975 - [[Attention Is All You Need]] — Vaswani et al. 2017 - [[The Bitter Lesson]] — Sutton 2019 - [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] — Gruber 1995 - [[Time Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System]] — Lamport 1978 - [[Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process]] — Fischer, Lynch & Paterson 1985 (FLP) - [[Brewers Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent Available Partition-Tolerant Web Services]] — Gilbert & Lynch 2002 (CAP proof) - [[Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment]] — Halpern & Moses 1990 - [[End-to-End Arguments in System Design]] — Saltzer, Reed & Clark 1984 - [[A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence]] — Hewitt, Bishop & Steiger 1973 - [[Communicating Sequential Processes]] — Hoare 1978 - [[Algorithm = Logic + Control]] — Kowalski 1979 - [[Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style]] — Backus 1978 (Turing Award lecture) - [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] — Lemmer-Webber, Farmer & Sims 2025 (Goblins / OCapN) - [[Programming Semantics for Multiprogrammed Computations]] — Dennis & Van Horn 1966 (original capabilities) - [[The Confused Deputy - Hardy]] — Hardy 1988 - [[EROS - A Fast Capability System]] — Shapiro, Smith & Farber 1999 - [[Capability-based Financial Instruments]] — Miller, Morningstar & Frantz 2000 - [[Capability Myths Demolished]] — Miller, Yee & Shapiro 2003 - [[Robust Composition - Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control]] — Miller 2006 (PhD thesis, THE E reference) - [[Distributed Electronic Rights in JavaScript]] — Miller, Van Cutsem & Tulloh 2013 - [[Trustworthy Proxies - Virtualizing Objects with Invariants]] — Van Cutsem & Miller 2013 - [[A Framework for Representing Knowledge]] — Minsky 1974 (Frames) - [[The Protection of Information in Computer Systems]] — Saltzer & Schroeder 1975 - [[Distributed Snapshots Determining Global States of Distributed Systems]] — Chandy & Lamport 1985 - [[Intelligence Without Representation]] — Brooks 1991 - [[The Extended Mind]] — Clark & Chalmers 1998 - [[The Part-Time Parliament]] — Lamport 1998 (Paxos) - [[On Agent-Based Software Engineering]] — Jennings 2000 - [[The Semantic Web]] — Berners-Lee, Hendler & Lassila 2001 - [[ReAct Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models]] — Yao et al. 2023 - [[Reflexion Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning]] — Shinn et al. 2023 - [[The Knowledge Level]] — Newell 1982 - [[The Society of Mind]] — Minsky 1986 (MAS wellspring) - [[How to Do Things with Words]] — Austin 1962 - [[Speech Acts - An Essay in the Philosophy of Language]] — Searle 1969 - [[Minds Brains and Science]] — Searle 1984 - [[Studies in the Way of Words]] — Grice 1989 - [[Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence]] — Quattrociocchi, Capraro & Perc 2025 (seven fault lines; Epistemia) - [[What is it to Understand a Directive Speech Act]] — Dorschel 1989 (citation-only, paywalled) - [[A Proof Method for Cyclic Programs]] — Francez & Pnueli 1978 (citation-only, paywalled) - [[An Application of a Method for Analysis of Cyclic Programs]] — Francez 1978 (citation-only, paywalled) - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] — Cohen & Levesque 1990 (BDI logic) - [[Deals Among Rational Agents]] — Rosenschein & Genesereth 1985 - [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] — Rosenschein & Kaelbling 1986 - [[IPFS Content-Addressed Versioned P2P File System]] — Benet 2014 - [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] — von Neumann - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] — Searle & Vanderveken - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] — Floyd - [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[How Do Committees Invent]] — Conway - [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]]"},{"h":"Cited Foundations (mined from top papers)","l":116,"t":"- [[Semantics and Conversations for an ACL]] — Labrou & Finin 1998 - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms - Survey of LLMs]] - [[Beyond Self-Talk - Communication-Centric Survey Of LLM Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Augmented Language Models - A Survey]] — Mialon et al. - [[AutoGen - Multi-Agent Conversation Framework]] - [[CAMEL Communicative Agents for Mind Exploration of LLM Society]] - [[MetaGPT Meta Programming for Multi-Agent Collaboration]] - [[MCP Landscape Security Threats And Future Research Directions]] - [[Toolformer]] - [[Chain-of-Thought Prompting]] - [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]] - [[Generative Agents]] - [[The Rise and Potential of LLM-Based Agents]] - [[Cicero Human-Level Play in Diplomacy]]"},{"h":"Agent Communication Languages (ACLs)","l":133,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] — Singh - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] — Singh (companion) - [[KQML - A Language And Protocol For Knowledge And Information Exchange]] — Finin et al. AAAI WS-94 - [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]]"},{"h":"Multi-Agent Systems and Agent Theory","l":153,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] — Wooldridge - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] — Shoham - [[The BOID Architecture]] — Broersen et al. (deontic BDI) - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]"},{"h":"LLM Agents & Modern AI Agents","l":165,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"},{"h":"Emergent Communication & Language Games","l":183,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] — Steels - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]]"},{"h":"Ontologies & Knowledge Representation","l":190,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]]"},{"h":"Programming Languages & Extensibility","l":196,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"},{"h":"Security & Robust Distributed Systems","l":205,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] — Sassaman et al. LangSec foundational - [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] — Bratus et al."},{"h":"Gossip & Peer-to-Peer","l":221,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]"},{"h":"Self-* Systems, Adaptation, Trust","l":228,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]]"},{"h":"Edge, Web, Blockchain","l":235,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] — Patterson 2017 (ETC Summit talk; Rice's theorem vs. the gas model)"}],"tf":{"1":1,"13":1,"1956":1,"1959":1,"1960":1,"1962":1,"1963":1,"1966":1,"1967":1,"1969":2,"1973":1,"1974":1,"1975":3,"1977":1,"1978":5,"1979":2,"1979b":1,"1980":1,"1981":1,"1982":1,"1984":3,"1985":3,"1986":3,"1987":1,"1988":1,"1989":3,"1990":2,"1991":2,"1995":1,"1998":3,"1999":1,"2":1,"2000":3,"2001":1,"2002":1,"2003":1,"2006":1,"2013":2,"2014":1,"2017":2,"2019":2,"2023":2,"2025":2,"28":1,"3":1,"4":1,"94":1,"a":32,"aaai":1,"access":1,"acl":4,"acls":5,"acre":1,"across":1,"act":2,"acting":1,"actor":1,"acts":3,"adaptation":2,"adaptive":1,"add":1,"addressed":1,"advice":1,"agent":35,"agentic":1,"agents":19,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":1,"ai":6,"aij":2,"al":9,"algorithm":1,"algorithmic":1,"all":1,"alvaro":1,"among":1,"an":6,"analysis":1,"ancestor":1,"and":31,"anuna":2,"application":1,"applications":2,"approach":3,"architectural":1,"architecture":3,"are":2,"arguments":1,"arithmetic":1,"art":1,"artificial":5,"as":2,"ascens":1,"ascribing":1,"assigning":1,"at":1,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"attention":1,"augmented":1,"austin":1,"autogen":1,"automata":1,"automated":1,"automating":1,"autonomous":1,"available":1,"award":2,"awareness":1,"babel":1,"backus":1,"based":7,"bdi":3,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"believers":1,"below":1,"benet":1,"berners":1,"between":1,"beyond":1,"bishop":1,"bitter":1,"blockchain":2,"boid":1,"book":1,"boundary":1,"brains":1,"bratman":1,"bratus":1,"brewers":1,"broersen":1,"brooks":1,"browse":1,"buffer":1,"business":1,"by":1,"cake":1,"calculus":2,"calm":2,"camel":1,"can":1,"cap":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":5,"capraro":1,"centric":1,"chain":1,"challenge":1,"chalmers":1,"chandy":1,"change":1,"chaos":1,"chapter":1,"chatbots":1,"choice":1,"chomsky":1,"cicero":1,"circumscription":2,"citation":3,"cited":1,"clark":2,"classic":1,"classification":1,"clawworm":1,"clocks":1,"clone":1,"coding":1,"cohen":1,"collaboration":3,"com":2,"commitment":1,"committees":1,"common":5,"comms":1,"communicate":1,"communicating":1,"communication":15,"communications":2,"communicative":1,"companion":1,"comparative":1,"competence":1,"compiler":1,"composite":1,"composition":1,"compositional":1,"computation":3,"computational":2,"computations":1,"computer":1,"concept":2,"concepts":2,"conceptual":2,"concurrency":1,"confused":1,"conjecture":1,"connected":1,"connections":2,"consensus":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":1,"content":3,"contracts":1,"contribute":1,"contribution":2,"contributions":1,"control":3,"conventions":1,"conversation":3,"conversations":2,"conway":1,"cooperation":1,"cooperative":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":1,"correctness":1,"creating":1,"cross":1,"curated":1,"cutsem":2,"cyclic":2,"dagents":1,"data":1,"ddos":1,"deals":1,"demolished":1,"dennett":1,"dennis":1,"deontic":1,"dependable":1,"deputy":1,"description":2,"design":5,"detailed":1,"determining":1,"digital":1,"diplomacy":1,"directions":1,"directive":1,"distributed":14,"do":3,"dorschel":1,"driven":1,"dynamic":1,"e":1,"each":1,"easy":1,"ecosystems":1,"edge":3,"edit":1,"edition":1,"effect":1,"electronic":1,"elephant":1,"eliza":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":3,"end":2,"engine":1,"engineering":1,"ensuring":1,"environment":1,"environments":1,"epistemia":1,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":2,"erlang":1,"eros":1,"essay":1,"et":9,"etc":1,"ethereum":1,"ethical":1,"events":1,"every":1,"evolution":2,"exchange":1,"existing":1,"exploit":1,"exploration":1,"expression":1,"expressions":2,"extended":1,"extensibility":2,"extensible":3,"faces":1,"fail":1,"failures":1,"farber":1,"farmer":1,"fast":1,"fault":2,"faulty":1,"feasibility":1,"few":1,"field":1,"file":2,"financial":1,"finin":2,"fipa":2,"first":1,"fischer":1,"flexible":1,"floyd":1,"flp":1,"follow":1,"for":24,"form":1,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"formalism":1,"formalization":1,"formalizing":1,"forming":1,"foundational":2,"foundations":3,"frame":1,"frames":1,"framework":4,"francez":2,"frantz":1,"from":6,"functions":1,"fungi":1,"future":1,"games":2,"gas":1,"generality":1,"generative":1,"genesereth":1,"georgeff":1,"gilbert":1,"github":2,"global":1,"goblins":1,"gossip":4,"gossiping":1,"graham":1,"grand":1,"graph":2,"grice":2,"grounded":1,"gruber":1,"grunwald":1,"guided":1,"halpern":1,"halting":1,"handbook":1,"hardy":2,"hayes":1,"heart":1,"hellerstein":1,"hendler":1,"hewitt":1,"hoare":1,"horn":1,"house":1,"how":3,"https":2,"hubs":1,"human":3,"ideas":2,"illocutionary":2,"impossibility":1,"in":24,"individual":1,"information":4,"insecurity":1,"inspired":1,"institutional":1,"instruments":1,"intelligence":8,"intelligent":2,"intent":1,"intention":2,"intentional":1,"inter":1,"interaction":2,"interoperability":2,"invariants":1,"invent":1,"ipfs":1,"is":7,"it":2,"its":1,"javascript":1,"jennings":1,"kaelbling":1,"kaminsky":1,"keeping":1,"kernel":1,"key":2,"knowledge":8,"kowalski":1,"kqml":6,"labrou":1,"lambda":1,"lamport":3,"landscape":1,"langsec":2,"language":23,"languages":10,"large":1,"lassila":1,"layer":1,"learners":1,"learning":1,"lecture":2,"lee":1,"lemmer":1,"lesson":1,"level":2,"levels":1,"levesque":1,"liberated":1,"lines":2,"linguistic":1,"linked":1,"links":1,"lisp":1,"llm":9,"llms":2,"lloyd":1,"locally":1,"logic":5,"logical":1,"lynch":2,"machine":1,"machines":3,"making":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"map":3,"markdown":2,"mas":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":13,"mcp":1,"meanings":1,"measuring":1,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"mental":1,"meta":1,"metagpt":1,"metatheoretic":1,"method":2,"mialon":1,"miller":5,"mind":3,"minds":1,"mined":1,"minsky":3,"mobile":1,"model":1,"modeling":1,"models":6,"modern":3,"modular":2,"morningstar":1,"moses":1,"multi":11,"multiagent":2,"multiprogrammed":1,"myconet":1,"myths":1,"natural":1,"navigable":1,"need":1,"network":2,"networks":2,"neumann":2,"new":1,"newell":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"note":2,"notes":2,"objects":2,"ocapn":1,"of":55,"on":7,"one":1,"ones":1,"only":3,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":4,"ontology":3,"open":2,"or":2,"orchestration":1,"order":1,"ordering":1,"organisation":1,"oriented":3,"original":1,"overflows":1,"overlay":1,"overview":1,"own":1,"p2p":1,"painter":1,"paper":2,"papers":2,"parliament":1,"part":1,"partition":1,"paterson":1,"patterns":3,"patterson":2,"paxos":1,"paywalled":3,"peer":2,"perc":1,"phd":1,"philosophical":1,"philosophy":1,"pitfalls":1,"pki":1,"pl":1,"plain":2,"play":1,"pnueli":1,"populations":1,"portable":1,"potential":1,"practice":1,"prevent":1,"preview":1,"principled":1,"principles":3,"problem":1,"problems":3,"process":1,"processes":1,"processing":1,"programming":11,"programs":4,"prompting":1,"proof":2,"propagating":1,"properties":1,"propositions":1,"protection":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":4,"provable":1,"proxies":1,"pull":1,"qualities":1,"quattrociocchi":1,"racket":1,"rao":1,"rational":2,"react":1,"reading":1,"readme":1,"reality":1,"reasoning":4,"recursive":1,"reed":1,"reference":2,"reflexion":1,"reinforcement":1,"related":1,"reliable":1,"representation":2,"representing":1,"reproducing":1,"reputation":2,"request":1,"research":2,"resilient":1,"rethinking":2,"review":1,"rice":1,"rights":1,"ripple":1,"rise":1,"robots":1,"robust":2,"rock":1,"rosenschein":2,"run":1,"s":1,"saltzer":2,"sassaman":2,"scalable":1,"schroeder":1,"science":2,"searle":4,"second":1,"secure":3,"security":8,"see":1,"self":10,"semantic":2,"semantics":3,"sense":2,"sequential":1,"services":1,"seven":2,"shapiro":2,"sharing":1,"shinn":1,"shoham":1,"shot":1,"should":1,"sims":1,"singh":2,"site":1,"situation":1,"smart":1,"smarter":1,"smith":1,"snapshots":1,"social":2,"society":2,"software":2,"sok":1,"sol":1,"some":1,"specifications":1,"speech":4,"spoofax":1,"spritely":1,"stack":1,"standish":1,"standpoint":1,"start":1,"state":1,"states":1,"steels":1,"steiger":1,"strategy":1,"structure":1,"studies":1,"study":1,"style":1,"summarises":1,"summary":2,"summit":1,"superpeer":1,"surface":1,"survey":7,"sutton":1,"sycara":1,"symbolic":1,"synergizing":1,"synthesis":1,"system":4,"systems":15,"tags":1,"taker":1,"talk":2,"taxonomy":1,"tcl":1,"text":1,"the":39,"their":1,"theorem":2,"theories":1,"theory":6,"thesis":1,"things":1,"thought":1,"threat":1,"threats":1,"three":1,"through":1,"time":2,"to":18,"tolerant":1,"tool":1,"toolformer":1,"top":1,"tour":1,"toward":2,"towards":3,"trends":1,"true":1,"trust":4,"trustworthy":2,"tulloh":1,"tunkel":1,"turing":2,"turrets":1,"two":1,"under":1,"understand":1,"unified":1,"universal":1,"used":1,"using":1,"validate":1,"van":3,"vanderveken":1,"vaswani":1,"vault":3,"verbal":1,"verifiable":1,"versioned":1,"virtualizing":1,"vitanyi":1,"von":2,"vs":1,"wasif":1,"way":1,"web":4,"webber":1,"weird":1,"welcome":1,"wellspring":1,"what":1,"when":1,"why":3,"wiki":1,"wikilink":2,"with":9,"within":1,"without":1,"wooldridge":1,"words":3,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1,"works":1,"ws":1,"xiaoice":1,"yao":1,"yee":1,"you":1,"zetl":2,"zhou":1}},{"dl":147,"n":"README","s":"readme","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communications — Paper Vault","l":1,"t":"A zetl vault of summaries of every paper in this repository."},{"h":"Conventions","l":5,"t":"- One markdown file per paper. Filenames are slugified titles (e.g. `KQML-Overview.md`). - Each note contains: - `# Title` heading - **Reference** (authors, year, venue/source file) - **Summary** — 1–3 paragraphs of core ideas - **Key ideas** — bullet list - **Connections** — `[[wikilinks]]` to related notes or concept pages - Concept notes (e.g. `[[KQML]]`, `[[FIPA-ACL]]`, `[[Gossip Protocols]]`) act as hubs. - [[index]] is the Map of Content (MOC) grouping every note by theme."},{"h":"Layout","l":17,"t":"- [[index]] — Map of Content, every paper grouped by theme - [[concept-map]] — **the conceptual tour**: the ideas and how they interlock - Per-paper notes contain summary + key ideas + connections + `## Conceptual Contribution` (claim / mechanism / concepts / stance / relates-to) - Concept hubs (e.g. [[KQML]], [[LangSec]], [[Commitment-based Semantics]], [[BDI]]) act as junctions - Fine-grained technical terms are wikilinked without dedicated pages (\"wanted pages\") so that future notes can backfill definitions — expected zetl pattern, not a defect"},{"h":"Commands","l":25,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"3":1,"a":2,"act":2,"agent":1,"and":1,"are":2,"as":2,"authors":1,"backfill":1,"based":1,"bdi":1,"bullet":1,"by":2,"can":1,"claim":1,"commands":1,"commitment":1,"communications":1,"concept":4,"concepts":1,"conceptual":1,"connections":2,"contain":1,"contains":1,"content":2,"conventions":1,"core":1,"dedicated":1,"defect":1,"definitions":1,"e":3,"each":1,"every":3,"expected":1,"file":2,"filenames":1,"fine":1,"future":1,"g":3,"grained":1,"grouped":1,"grouping":1,"heading":1,"how":1,"hubs":2,"ideas":4,"in":1,"index":2,"interlock":1,"is":1,"junctions":1,"key":2,"kqml":1,"langsec":1,"layout":1,"list":1,"map":3,"markdown":1,"mechanism":1,"moc":1,"not":1,"note":2,"notes":4,"of":5,"one":1,"or":1,"pages":3,"paper":5,"paragraphs":1,"pattern":1,"per":2,"reference":1,"related":1,"relates":1,"repository":1,"semantics":1,"slugified":1,"so":1,"source":1,"stance":1,"summaries":1,"summary":2,"technical":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theme":2,"they":1,"this":1,"titles":1,"to":2,"tour":1,"vault":2,"venue":1,"wanted":1,"wikilinked":1,"without":1,"year":1,"zetl":2}},{"dl":34,"n":"MITRE ATLAS","s":"concepts/mitre-atlas","secs":[{"h":"MITRE ATLAS","l":1,"t":"Adversarial Threat Landscape for AI Systems — MITRE's framework catalogueing tactics and techniques of ML-system attacks, complementing ATT&CK."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"adversarial":1,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"ai":2,"and":1,"atlas":1,"att":1,"attack":1,"attacks":1,"catalogueing":1,"ck":1,"complementing":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"in":1,"landscape":1,"mitre":2,"ml":1,"of":2,"s":1,"security":1,"sok":1,"surface":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tactics":1,"techniques":1,"the":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Zero-Knowledge Proofs","s":"concepts/zero-knowledge-proofs","secs":[{"h":"Zero-Knowledge Proofs","l":1,"t":"Cryptographic protocols proving a statement's truth without revealing its witness; underpin Proof-trust attestations of computation in agentic protocols like ERC-8004."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Proof Trust]]"}],"tf":{"8004":1,"a":2,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"attestations":1,"comparative":1,"computation":1,"cryptographic":1,"erc":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"its":1,"knowledge":1,"like":1,"models":1,"of":1,"proof":2,"proofs":1,"protocols":2,"proving":1,"revealing":1,"s":1,"statement":1,"study":1,"this":1,"trust":3,"truth":1,"underpin":1,"vault":1,"without":1,"witness":1,"zero":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Illocutionary Force","s":"concepts/illocutionary-force","secs":[{"h":"Illocutionary Force","l":1,"t":"The kind of act a speaker performs *in* uttering something — asserting, promising, ordering, questioning — as distinguished from the propositional content. Searle and Vanderveken decompose force into components such as point, direction of fit and sincerity conditions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Direction of Fit]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"act":2,"and":2,"as":2,"asserting":1,"components":1,"conditions":1,"content":1,"decompose":1,"direction":2,"distinguished":1,"fit":2,"force":2,"foundations":1,"from":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":2,"into":1,"kind":1,"logic":1,"of":4,"ordering":1,"performs":1,"point":1,"promising":1,"propositional":1,"questioning":1,"searle":1,"sincerity":1,"something":1,"speaker":1,"speech":1,"such":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"uttering":1,"vanderveken":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Uniform Interface","s":"concepts/uniform-interface","secs":[{"h":"Uniform Interface","l":1,"t":"Fielding's central REST constraint: all components interact through the same small set of operations on identified resources with self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state. The uniformity is what gives REST its decoupling and evolvability."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]]"}],"tf":{"all":1,"and":2,"application":1,"architecture":1,"as":1,"central":1,"components":1,"constraint":1,"decoupling":1,"descriptive":1,"design":1,"engine":1,"evolvability":1,"fielding":1,"gives":1,"hypermedia":1,"identified":1,"in":1,"interact":1,"interface":1,"is":1,"its":1,"messages":1,"modern":1,"of":3,"on":1,"operations":1,"principled":1,"resources":1,"rest":2,"s":1,"same":1,"self":1,"set":1,"small":1,"state":1,"the":4,"this":1,"through":1,"uniform":1,"uniformity":1,"vault":1,"web":1,"what":1,"with":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Causal Influence of Communication","s":"concepts/causal-influence-of-communication","secs":[{"h":"Causal Influence of Communication","l":1,"t":"Causal-intervention metric quantifying how much a message changed the recipient's action distribution — a robust alternative to correlational measures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"action":1,"alternative":1,"causal":2,"changed":1,"communication":2,"correlational":1,"distribution":1,"emergent":1,"how":1,"in":1,"influence":1,"intervention":1,"measures":1,"measuring":1,"message":1,"metric":1,"much":1,"of":2,"on":1,"pitfalls":1,"quantifying":1,"recipient":1,"robust":1,"s":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Sense and Denotation","s":"concepts/sense-and-denotation","secs":[{"h":"Sense and Denotation","l":1,"t":"Frege: every meaningful expression has both a *sense* (mode of presentation) and a *denotation* (referent). McCarthy formalises the sense/denotation distinction inside first-order logic rather than leaving it modal."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Individual Concepts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":3,"both":1,"concepts":2,"denotation":3,"distinction":1,"every":1,"expression":1,"first":2,"formalises":1,"frege":1,"has":1,"in":1,"individual":2,"inside":1,"it":1,"leaving":1,"logic":1,"mccarthy":1,"meaningful":1,"modal":1,"mode":1,"of":2,"order":2,"presentation":1,"propositions":1,"rather":1,"referent":1,"sense":3,"than":1,"the":1,"theories":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Trustless by Default","s":"concepts/trustless-by-default","secs":[{"h":"Trustless by Default","l":1,"t":"Design principle: agent protocols should require cryptographic or economic verification rather than assuming benign behaviour; trust is opt-in via demonstrable guarantees."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[ERC-8004]]"}],"tf":{"8004":1,"a":1,"agent":2,"assuming":1,"behaviour":1,"benign":1,"by":1,"comparative":1,"cryptographic":1,"default":1,"demonstrable":1,"design":1,"economic":1,"erc":1,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"is":1,"models":1,"opt":1,"or":1,"principle":1,"protocols":1,"rather":1,"require":1,"should":1,"study":1,"than":1,"this":1,"trust":2,"trustless":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"via":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Social Coherence Failures","s":"concepts/social-coherence-failures","secs":[{"h":"Social Coherence Failures","l":1,"t":"Class of LLM-agent failures where an agent misrepresents its actions, authority, ownership, or intent to other parties — distinct from capability failures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]]"}],"tf":{"actions":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":1,"authority":1,"capability":1,"chaos":1,"class":1,"coherence":1,"distinct":1,"failures":3,"from":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"its":1,"llm":1,"misrepresents":1,"of":2,"or":1,"other":1,"ownership":1,"parties":1,"social":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Symbol-Category Purity","s":"concepts/symbol-category-purity","secs":[{"h":"Symbol-Category Purity","l":1,"t":"A measure of how consistently emergent communicative symbols map to distinct conceptual categories rather than being mixed or overloaded. Used to evaluate the compositionality and groundedness of emergent languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Compositionality]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"and":2,"being":1,"categories":1,"category":1,"communicative":1,"compositionality":2,"conceptual":1,"consistently":1,"cooperation":1,"distinct":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"evaluate":1,"groundedness":1,"how":1,"in":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"map":1,"measure":1,"mixed":1,"multi":1,"natural":1,"of":3,"or":1,"overloaded":1,"purity":1,"rather":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Empathetic Response Generation","s":"concepts/empathetic-response-generation","secs":[{"h":"Empathetic Response Generation","l":1,"t":"The design goal, central to social chatbots like XiaoIce, of producing replies that recognise and appropriately address the user's emotional state rather than merely completing a task. Combines affect detection, persona-consistent generation, and long-horizon engagement modelling (CPS as success metric)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[Social Chatbots]] - [[XiaoIce]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"address":1,"affect":1,"and":2,"appropriately":1,"as":1,"central":1,"chatbots":3,"combines":1,"completing":1,"consistent":1,"cps":1,"design":1,"detection":1,"eliza":1,"emotional":1,"empathetic":1,"engagement":1,"from":1,"generation":2,"goal":1,"horizon":1,"in":1,"like":1,"long":1,"merely":1,"metric":1,"modelling":1,"of":1,"persona":1,"producing":1,"rather":1,"recognise":1,"replies":1,"response":1,"s":1,"social":3,"state":1,"success":1,"task":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"user":1,"vault":1,"xiaoice":3}},{"dl":37,"n":"Declarative Knowledge","s":"concepts/declarative-knowledge","secs":[{"h":"Declarative Knowledge","l":1,"t":"Knowledge expressed as statements of fact, as opposed to procedural how-to knowledge. Basis of logic programming and knowledge-based systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"as":2,"based":1,"basis":1,"common":1,"declarative":1,"expressed":1,"fact":1,"foundations":1,"how":1,"in":1,"knowledge":5,"lloyd":1,"logic":2,"of":3,"opposed":1,"procedural":1,"programming":2,"programs":1,"representation":1,"sense":1,"statements":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Core Chat Architecture","s":"concepts/core-chat-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Core Chat Architecture","l":1,"t":"The central dialogue-management component in social chatbots that handles general-domain conversation, integrating retrieval-based and generative responders with emotional and contextual modelling. Described for XiaoIce as the hub around which skill modules connect."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"architecture":1,"around":1,"as":1,"based":1,"central":1,"chat":1,"chatbots":2,"component":1,"connect":1,"contextual":1,"conversation":1,"core":1,"described":1,"dialogue":1,"domain":1,"eliza":1,"emotional":1,"for":1,"from":1,"general":1,"generative":1,"handles":1,"hub":1,"in":2,"integrating":1,"management":1,"modelling":1,"modules":1,"responders":1,"retrieval":1,"skill":1,"social":2,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1,"xiaoice":2}},{"dl":44,"n":"Coordination Variables","s":"concepts/coordination-variables","secs":[{"h":"Coordination Variables","l":1,"t":"Shared scalar or vector quantities (e.g., inventory levels, schedules) that agents exchange to align local decisions in the Ripple Effect Protocol, serving as the concrete payload around which sensitivity-sharing and consensus rounds are organised."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ripple Effect Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"align":1,"and":1,"are":1,"around":1,"as":1,"concrete":1,"consensus":1,"coordination":1,"decisions":1,"e":1,"effect":2,"exchange":1,"g":1,"in":2,"inventory":1,"levels":1,"local":1,"or":1,"organised":1,"payload":1,"protocol":2,"quantities":1,"ripple":2,"rounds":1,"scalar":1,"schedules":1,"sensitivity":1,"serving":1,"shared":1,"sharing":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"variables":1,"vault":1,"vector":1,"which":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Program as Logical Sentence","s":"concepts/program-as-logical-sentence","secs":[{"h":"Program as Logical Sentence","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's claim: an Elephant program is (or sugars) a sentence of first-order logic. Correctness properties are then logical consequences without an intermediate Hoare-style programming logic."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"acts":1,"an":2,"are":1,"as":1,"based":1,"claim":1,"consequences":1,"correctness":1,"elephant":2,"first":1,"formal":1,"foundations":1,"hoare":2,"in":1,"intermediate":1,"is":1,"language":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":4,"logical":2,"mccarthy":1,"of":2,"on":1,"or":1,"order":1,"program":2,"programming":3,"properties":1,"s":1,"sentence":2,"speech":1,"style":1,"sugars":1,"then":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"without":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"Preparatory Conditions","s":"concepts/preparatory-conditions","secs":[{"h":"Preparatory Conditions","l":1,"t":"In Searle and Vanderveken's illocutionary logic, the background presuppositions that must hold for a speech act to be felicitously performed (e.g. to promise X, the speaker must believe X is in the hearer's interest). They form one of the felicity components of illocutionary force."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Illocutionary Force]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"act":2,"and":1,"background":1,"be":1,"believe":1,"components":1,"conditions":1,"e":1,"felicitously":1,"felicity":1,"for":1,"force":2,"form":1,"foundations":1,"g":1,"hearer":1,"hold":1,"illocutionary":4,"in":3,"interest":1,"is":1,"logic":2,"must":2,"of":3,"one":1,"performed":1,"preparatory":1,"presuppositions":1,"promise":1,"s":2,"searle":1,"speaker":1,"speech":2,"that":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vanderveken":1,"vault":1,"x":2}},{"dl":44,"n":"Knowledge-Level Specification","s":"concepts/knowledge-level-specification","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge-Level Specification","l":1,"t":"A description of an ontology or system in terms of the knowledge it represents, independent of its symbolic or implementational encoding. Ontolingua supports sharing ontologies at this abstract level across heterogeneous representation systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"across":1,"an":1,"at":1,"description":1,"encoding":1,"heterogeneous":1,"implementational":1,"in":2,"independent":1,"it":1,"its":1,"knowledge":2,"level":2,"of":3,"ontolingua":2,"ontologies":2,"ontology":2,"or":2,"portable":1,"representation":1,"represents":1,"sharing":1,"specification":1,"specifications":1,"supports":1,"symbolic":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"terms":1,"the":1,"this":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Verus","s":"concepts/verus","secs":[{"h":"Verus","l":1,"t":"Rust-based verification-aware language (Microsoft/CMU) supporting static verification of systems code; a target for AI-generated logical contracts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"ai":1,"aware":1,"based":1,"challenge":1,"cmu":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"contracts":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"formalization":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"language":1,"logical":1,"microsoft":1,"of":1,"reliable":1,"rust":1,"static":1,"supporting":1,"systems":1,"target":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":3,"verus":1}},{"dl":66,"n":"Pidgin and Creole","s":"concepts/pidgin-and-creole","secs":[{"h":"Pidgin and Creole","l":1,"t":"Linguistic stages invoked as metaphors in ACL-evolution work: a *pidgin* is a simplified, unstable contact language emerging between speakers of different native tongues; a *creole* is its stabilised, grammatically-complete descendant. Agents adopting new lexicon under Rubinstein bargaining are modelled as traversing a pidgin-to-creole trajectory."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"acl":1,"acls":1,"adopting":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"are":1,"as":2,"automated":1,"automating":1,"bargaining":1,"between":1,"competence":1,"complete":1,"contact":1,"creole":3,"descendant":1,"different":1,"emerging":1,"evolution":3,"grammatically":1,"in":2,"invoked":1,"is":2,"its":1,"language":1,"lexicon":1,"linguistic":2,"metaphors":1,"modelled":1,"native":1,"new":1,"of":3,"pidgin":3,"rubinstein":1,"simplified":1,"speakers":1,"stabilised":1,"stages":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tongues":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"trajectory":1,"traversing":1,"under":1,"unstable":1,"vault":1,"work":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Lexicon Convergence","s":"concepts/lexicon-convergence","secs":[{"h":"Lexicon Convergence","l":1,"t":"The phenomenon, observed in language-game simulations, by which a population of agents with initially private form-meaning mappings settles into a shared vocabulary through repeated local interactions and lateral inhibition."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Language Game]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"autonomous":1,"by":1,"convergence":1,"for":1,"form":1,"game":2,"games":1,"grounding":1,"in":2,"inhibition":1,"initially":1,"interactions":1,"into":1,"language":3,"lateral":1,"lexicon":1,"local":1,"mappings":1,"meaning":1,"observed":1,"of":1,"phenomenon":1,"population":1,"private":1,"problem":1,"repeated":1,"robots":1,"settles":1,"shared":1,"simulations":1,"symbol":1,"the":1,"this":1,"through":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Physical Stance","s":"concepts/physical-stance","secs":[{"h":"Physical Stance","l":1,"t":"Dennett: predicting a system's behaviour from its physical composition and the laws of physics. The first of his three stances (physical, design, intentional)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] - [[Design Stance]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"behaviour":1,"believers":1,"composition":1,"dennett":1,"design":2,"first":1,"from":1,"his":1,"in":1,"intentional":2,"it":1,"its":1,"laws":1,"of":2,"physical":3,"physics":1,"predicting":1,"s":1,"stance":2,"stances":1,"strategy":1,"system":1,"the":3,"this":1,"three":1,"true":1,"vault":1,"why":1,"works":1}},{"dl":157,"n":"Delegatecall","s":"concepts/delegatecall","secs":[{"h":"Delegatecall","l":1,"t":"An EVM opcode that invokes code at another address **in the caller's storage context**. The called bytecode can read and write the caller's storage, spend the caller's Ether, and see the caller's `msg.sender`. In effect, `delegatecall` is a naked `eval`: whoever controls the target address controls the caller's state. The opcode exists to enable library patterns and upgradable proxy contracts, but its semantic reach makes it the sharpest available knife in Solidity. The July 2017 Parity multisig wallet freeze ([[Parity Multisig]]) was triggered by an untrusted actor invoking a library's initializer via `delegatecall`, taking ownership of the library, and then self-destructing it — rendering every wallet that delegated to it unusable and freezing ~$280M of Ether. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] lists `delegatecall` with the [[Fallback Method]] as examples of implicit behaviour incompatible with [[LangSec]]: the call site doesn't locally express what the code can do."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"solidity #evm #smart-contracts #langsec","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"2017":1,"280m":1,"a":2,"actor":1,"address":2,"an":2,"and":5,"another":1,"as":1,"at":1,"available":1,"behaviour":1,"but":1,"by":1,"bytecode":1,"call":1,"called":1,"caller":5,"can":2,"classic":1,"code":2,"context":1,"contracts":2,"controls":2,"delegatecall":1,"delegated":1,"destructing":1,"do":1,"doesn":1,"effect":1,"enable":1,"ether":2,"ethereum":1,"every":1,"evm":2,"examples":1,"exists":1,"express":1,"fallback":1,"freeze":1,"freezing":1,"house":1,"implicit":1,"in":4,"incompatible":1,"initializer":1,"invokes":1,"invoking":1,"is":1,"it":3,"its":1,"july":1,"knife":1,"langsec":3,"library":3,"lists":1,"locally":1,"makes":1,"method":1,"multisig":2,"naked":1,"of":3,"on":1,"opcode":2,"ownership":1,"parity":2,"patterns":1,"proxy":1,"reach":1,"read":1,"rendering":1,"rock":1,"s":6,"see":1,"self":1,"semantic":1,"sharpest":1,"site":1,"smart":1,"solidity":2,"spend":1,"state":1,"storage":2,"t":1,"tags":1,"taking":1,"target":1,"that":2,"the":14,"then":1,"to":2,"triggered":1,"untrusted":1,"unusable":1,"upgradable":1,"via":1,"wallet":2,"was":1,"what":1,"whoever":1,"with":2,"write":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"CArtAgO","s":"concepts/cartago","secs":[{"h":"CArtAgO","l":1,"t":"Common Artifacts for Agents Open framework — a Java infrastructure implementing the Agents & Artifacts meta-model in which agents perceive and act on first-class environmental artifacts governed by observable properties and operations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Agents and Artifacts]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"act":1,"agent":1,"agents":4,"an":1,"and":3,"artifacts":4,"by":1,"cartago":1,"class":1,"common":1,"environmental":1,"environments":1,"first":1,"for":2,"framework":2,"governed":1,"implementing":1,"in":2,"infrastructure":1,"interaction":1,"java":1,"meta":1,"model":1,"observable":1,"on":1,"open":2,"operations":1,"oriented":1,"perceive":1,"properties":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":66,"n":"Turing Test","s":"concepts/turing-test","secs":[{"h":"Turing Test","l":1,"t":"Turing's imitation game, in which a human judge conducts a text-only conversation with a machine and another human and must decide which is which; sustained indistinguishability is taken as evidence of machine intelligence. Social-chatbot work criticises it as a narrow, adversarial goal and proposes engagement-based alternatives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[Conversation-turns Per Session (CPS)]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"adversarial":1,"alternatives":1,"and":3,"another":1,"as":2,"based":1,"chatbot":1,"chatbots":1,"conducts":1,"conversation":2,"cps":1,"criticises":1,"decide":1,"eliza":1,"engagement":1,"evidence":1,"from":1,"game":1,"goal":1,"human":2,"imitation":1,"in":2,"indistinguishability":1,"intelligence":1,"is":2,"it":1,"judge":1,"machine":2,"must":1,"narrow":1,"of":1,"only":1,"per":1,"proposes":1,"s":1,"session":1,"social":2,"sustained":1,"taken":1,"test":1,"text":1,"this":1,"to":1,"turing":2,"turns":1,"vault":1,"which":3,"with":1,"work":1,"xiaoice":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Mentalistic Semantics","s":"concepts/mentalistic-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Mentalistic Semantics","l":1,"t":"ACL semantics in which each message commits the sender's (and sometimes receiver's) beliefs and intentions — powerful but unverifiable from outside."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"acl":3,"acls":1,"and":2,"based":1,"beliefs":1,"but":1,"commitment":1,"commits":1,"each":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":2,"intentions":1,"kqml":1,"mentalistic":1,"message":1,"outside":1,"powerful":1,"principles":1,"receiver":1,"rethinking":1,"s":2,"semantics":4,"sender":1,"sometimes":1,"the":1,"this":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"which":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Peer Selection","s":"concepts/peer-selection","secs":[{"h":"Peer Selection","l":1,"t":"In the three-parameter gossip framework, the component that determines which peer(s) a node exchanges data with in each round — random (uniform peer sampling), topology-aware, preference-based, or ranked. Typically realised on top of a dedicated Peer Sampling Service."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aware":1,"based":1,"component":1,"data":1,"dedicated":1,"determines":1,"distributed":1,"each":1,"exchanges":1,"framework":1,"gossip":2,"gossiping":1,"in":4,"node":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"parameter":1,"peer":5,"preference":1,"protocols":1,"random":1,"ranked":1,"realised":1,"round":1,"s":1,"sampling":3,"selection":1,"service":2,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"three":1,"top":1,"topology":1,"typically":1,"uniform":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Backdoor Attacks","s":"concepts/backdoor-attacks","secs":[{"h":"Backdoor Attacks","l":1,"t":"Adversarial attacks in which an agent or model is trained or modified to behave normally except when a specific trigger is present, at which point it executes attacker-chosen behaviour. A significant threat vector for LLM-based agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adversarial":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"ai":1,"an":1,"at":1,"attacker":1,"attacks":2,"backdoor":1,"based":1,"behave":1,"behaviour":1,"chosen":1,"except":1,"executes":1,"for":1,"in":2,"is":2,"it":1,"llm":1,"model":1,"modified":1,"normally":1,"or":2,"point":1,"present":1,"security":1,"significant":1,"specific":1,"this":1,"threat":2,"to":1,"trained":1,"trigger":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"vector":1,"when":1,"which":2}},{"dl":46,"n":"Catastrophic Failure Recovery","s":"concepts/catastrophic-failure-recovery","secs":[{"h":"Catastrophic Failure Recovery","l":1,"t":"The capacity of a distributed system to restore operational state following large-scale loss of nodes, partitions, or coordination structure. Myconet's fungal-inspired overlay regenerates superpeer topology after massive node removal."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adaptive":1,"after":1,"capacity":1,"catastrophic":1,"coordination":1,"distributed":1,"failure":1,"following":1,"fungal":1,"fungi":1,"in":1,"inspired":2,"large":1,"loss":1,"massive":1,"myconet":2,"node":1,"nodes":1,"of":2,"operational":1,"or":1,"overlay":2,"partitions":1,"recovery":1,"regenerates":1,"removal":1,"restore":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"self":1,"state":1,"structure":1,"superpeer":2,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"topology":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Content Language","s":"concepts/content-language","secs":[{"h":"Content Language","l":1,"t":"The language in which the propositional content of an ACL message is expressed (e.g., KIF, SL, Prolog). Separated from the outer performative layer so that the same speech act can carry content in different representations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KIF]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"act":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"art":1,"can":1,"carry":1,"communication":1,"content":3,"different":1,"e":1,"expressed":1,"from":1,"g":1,"in":4,"is":1,"kif":2,"kqml":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"layer":1,"message":1,"of":2,"outer":1,"overview":1,"performative":1,"prolog":1,"propositional":1,"representations":1,"same":1,"separated":1,"sl":1,"so":1,"speech":1,"state":1,"that":1,"the":6,"this":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Motivational Potential","s":"concepts/motivational-potential","secs":[{"h":"Motivational Potential","l":1,"t":"Bratman: a mental state's capacity to initiate and sustain action. Intentions have it in a distinctive plan-embedded way that mere desires lack."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"action":1,"and":1,"bratman":1,"capacity":1,"desires":1,"distinctive":1,"embedded":1,"faces":1,"have":1,"in":2,"initiate":1,"intention":1,"intentions":1,"it":1,"lack":1,"mental":1,"mere":1,"motivational":1,"of":1,"plan":1,"potential":1,"s":1,"state":1,"sustain":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"way":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"F*","s":"concepts/f*","secs":[{"h":"F*","l":1,"t":"Microsoft/MSR verification-aware functional language with effects and refinement types; another target for AI-generated logical contracts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"another":1,"aware":1,"challenge":1,"coding":1,"contracts":1,"effects":1,"f":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"formalization":1,"functional":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"language":1,"logical":1,"microsoft":1,"msr":1,"refinement":1,"reliable":1,"target":1,"this":1,"types":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"with":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Superpeer Overlay","s":"concepts/superpeer-overlay","secs":[{"h":"Superpeer Overlay","l":1,"t":"A two-tier peer-to-peer topology in which a small subset of high-capacity nodes (superpeers) carry routing and indexing load for a larger set of ordinary peers attached to them. Myconet constructs such an overlay via self-organising, fungi-inspired growth rules."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Self-Organising Topology]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"an":1,"and":1,"attached":1,"capacity":1,"carry":1,"constructs":1,"for":1,"fungi":2,"growth":1,"high":1,"in":2,"indexing":1,"inspired":2,"larger":1,"load":1,"myconet":2,"nodes":1,"of":2,"ordinary":1,"organising":2,"overlay":3,"peer":2,"peers":1,"routing":1,"rules":1,"self":2,"set":1,"small":1,"subset":1,"such":1,"superpeer":2,"superpeers":1,"them":1,"this":1,"tier":1,"to":2,"topology":2,"two":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"which":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Facilitator Agents","s":"concepts/facilitator-agents","secs":[{"h":"Facilitator Agents","l":1,"t":"KQML's infrastructure agents that offer naming, brokerage, matchmaking and content-based routing services, letting application agents find one another and exchange messages without knowing physical addresses. They are the architectural ancestors of today's directory and orchestration services."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[Facilitators]] - [[KQML]]"}],"tf":{"addresses":1,"agent":1,"agents":3,"an":1,"ancestors":1,"and":3,"another":1,"application":1,"architectural":1,"are":1,"as":1,"based":1,"brokerage":1,"communication":1,"content":1,"directory":1,"exchange":1,"facilitator":1,"facilitators":1,"find":1,"in":1,"infrastructure":1,"knowing":1,"kqml":3,"language":1,"letting":1,"matchmaking":1,"messages":1,"naming":1,"of":1,"offer":1,"one":1,"orchestration":1,"physical":1,"routing":1,"s":2,"services":2,"that":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"today":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Time-Travel Debugging","s":"concepts/time-travel-debugging","secs":[{"h":"Time-Travel Debugging","l":1,"t":"Record deterministic execution traces so a debugger can step *backwards* in time. Goblins' turn-level determinism makes this practical across a distributed system."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Turn (Goblins)]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"and":1,"backwards":1,"can":1,"capability":1,"debugger":1,"debugging":1,"determinism":1,"deterministic":1,"distributed":2,"execution":1,"goblins":2,"heart":1,"in":2,"level":1,"makes":1,"objects":1,"of":1,"practical":1,"record":1,"security":1,"so":1,"spritely":1,"step":1,"system":1,"the":1,"this":2,"time":2,"traces":1,"travel":1,"turn":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Encrypted Computation","s":"concepts/encrypted-computation","secs":[{"h":"Encrypted Computation","l":1,"t":"Techniques (homomorphic encryption, sealed computation, trusted-hardware enclaves) that allow a host to execute an agent's code on sensitive data without seeing the plaintext, aimed at protecting mobile agents from malicious hosts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"aimed":1,"allow":1,"an":1,"at":1,"book":1,"chapter":1,"code":1,"computation":2,"dagents":1,"data":1,"enclaves":1,"encrypted":1,"encryption":1,"execute":1,"from":1,"hardware":1,"homomorphic":1,"host":1,"hosts":1,"in":1,"malicious":1,"mobile":1,"on":1,"plaintext":1,"protecting":1,"s":1,"sealed":1,"security":2,"seeing":1,"sensitive":1,"techniques":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trusted":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Parser Equivalence","s":"concepts/parser-equivalence","secs":[{"h":"Parser Equivalence","l":1,"t":"The property that two parsers accept exactly the same language; its undecidability for general grammars is a core LangSec argument against permissive input-handling and ad-hoc protocol proliferation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Parser Differential]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accept":1,"ad":1,"against":1,"and":1,"argument":1,"core":1,"differential":1,"equivalence":1,"exactly":1,"for":1,"general":1,"grammars":1,"halting":1,"handling":1,"hoc":1,"in":1,"input":1,"insecurity":1,"is":1,"its":1,"langsec":2,"language":1,"network":1,"of":1,"parser":2,"parsers":1,"permissive":1,"problems":1,"proliferation":1,"property":1,"protocol":1,"same":1,"stack":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"two":1,"undecidability":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"General-Purpose Methods","s":"concepts/general-purpose-methods","secs":[{"h":"General-Purpose Methods","l":1,"t":"Methods applicable across tasks and domains, scaling with available computation — the methodological ideal of the Bitter Lesson and of McCarthy's Generality agenda."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Bitter Lesson]] - [[Generality]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agenda":1,"and":2,"applicable":1,"artificial":1,"available":1,"bitter":2,"computation":1,"domains":1,"general":1,"generality":3,"ideal":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"lesson":2,"mccarthy":1,"methodological":1,"methods":2,"of":2,"purpose":1,"s":1,"scaling":1,"tasks":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Mild Realism","s":"concepts/mild-realism","secs":[{"h":"Mild Realism","l":1,"t":"Dennett's position on beliefs: real enough that the intentional stance works predictively, but not objects located in the head alongside neurons. Intentional-stance properties are patterns."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]]"}],"tf":{"alongside":1,"and":1,"are":1,"beliefs":1,"believers":1,"but":1,"dennett":1,"enough":1,"head":1,"in":2,"intentional":3,"it":1,"located":1,"mild":1,"neurons":1,"not":1,"objects":1,"on":1,"patterns":1,"position":1,"predictively":1,"properties":1,"real":1,"realism":1,"s":1,"stance":2,"strategy":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"true":1,"vault":1,"why":1,"works":2}},{"dl":51,"n":"EVM","s":"concepts/evm","secs":[{"h":"EVM","l":1,"t":"The Ethereum Virtual Machine: a stack-based, quasi-Turing-complete bytecode runtime executed by every full node. Gas-metered deterministic execution makes it the canonical substrate for smart contracts, but its low-level semantics are a frequent source of subtle vulnerabilities."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"are":1,"based":1,"but":1,"by":1,"bytecode":1,"canonical":1,"complete":1,"contracts":3,"deterministic":1,"ethereum":1,"every":1,"evm":1,"executed":1,"execution":1,"for":1,"frequent":1,"full":1,"gas":1,"in":1,"it":1,"its":1,"level":1,"low":1,"machine":1,"makes":1,"making":1,"metered":1,"node":1,"of":1,"quasi":1,"runtime":1,"semantics":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"source":1,"stack":1,"substrate":1,"subtle":1,"the":2,"this":1,"turing":1,"vault":1,"virtual":1,"vulnerabilities":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"ACL Verifiability","s":"concepts/acl-verifiability","secs":[{"h":"ACL Verifiability","l":1,"t":"The property that an agent's compliance with an agent communication language's semantics can be checked by external observers. Mentalistic semantics based on private beliefs and intentions are notoriously unverifiable, motivating social or commitment-based alternatives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"agent":3,"alternatives":1,"an":2,"and":1,"are":1,"based":2,"be":1,"beliefs":1,"by":1,"can":1,"checked":1,"commitment":1,"communication":2,"compliance":1,"external":1,"in":1,"intentions":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"mentalistic":2,"motivating":1,"notoriously":1,"observers":1,"on":1,"or":1,"principles":1,"private":1,"property":1,"rethinking":1,"s":2,"semantics":4,"social":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":1,"with":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Ontology Alignment","s":"concepts/ontology-alignment","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Alignment","l":1,"t":"The subfield of ontology change concerned with computing correspondences (equivalence, subsumption, disjointness) between entities of two ontologies while leaving both intact. Distinguished from mapping (typically directional) and merging (produces a unified ontology)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontology Merging]] - [[Heterogeneity Resolution]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"alignment":1,"and":2,"between":1,"both":1,"change":2,"classification":1,"computing":1,"concerned":1,"correspondences":1,"directional":1,"disjointness":1,"distinguished":1,"entities":1,"equivalence":1,"from":1,"heterogeneity":1,"in":1,"intact":1,"leaving":1,"mapping":1,"merging":2,"of":2,"ontologies":1,"ontology":5,"produces":1,"resolution":1,"subfield":1,"subsumption":1,"survey":1,"the":1,"this":1,"two":1,"typically":1,"unified":1,"vault":1,"while":1,"with":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Model Context Protocol","s":"concepts/model-context-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Model Context Protocol","l":1,"t":"**MCP** — an open protocol (Anthropic, 2024) standardising how LLM applications connect to external tools and data sources. Discussed in: - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]"},{"h":"Related","l":11,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"2024":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":1,"anthropic":1,"applications":1,"architecture":1,"attacks":1,"connect":1,"context":1,"data":1,"design":1,"discussed":1,"external":1,"how":1,"in":1,"interoperability":1,"llm":2,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"mcp":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"network":1,"of":3,"open":1,"principled":1,"protocol":4,"protocols":2,"related":1,"sources":1,"standardising":1,"survey":2,"the":1,"to":2,"tool":1,"tools":1,"web":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Byzantine Fault Tolerance","s":"concepts/byzantine-fault-tolerance","secs":[{"h":"Byzantine Fault Tolerance","l":1,"t":"The property of a distributed protocol to reach correct consensus despite arbitrary, including malicious, failures of up to f of 3f+1 participants. BFT underlies replicated coordination kernels (e.g., DepSpace/EDS) and motivates constraints on server-side extensions to preserve determinism."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"1":1,"3f":1,"a":1,"and":1,"arbitrary":1,"bft":1,"byzantine":1,"consensus":1,"constraints":1,"coordination":2,"correct":1,"depspace":1,"despite":1,"determinism":1,"distributed":3,"e":1,"eds":1,"extensible":1,"extensions":1,"f":1,"failures":1,"fault":1,"g":1,"in":1,"including":1,"kernels":1,"malicious":1,"motivates":1,"of":3,"on":1,"participants":1,"preserve":1,"property":1,"protocol":1,"reach":1,"replicated":1,"security":1,"server":1,"side":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":3,"tolerance":1,"underlies":1,"up":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Shotgun Parsing","s":"concepts/shotgun-parsing","secs":[{"h":"Shotgun Parsing","l":1,"t":"LangSec anti-pattern: parsing interleaved with use/enforcement, scattered across the program — yields parser differentials and exploitable state."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Parser Differential]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"and":1,"anti":1,"babel":1,"differential":1,"differentials":1,"enforcement":1,"exploitable":1,"in":1,"interleaved":1,"langsec":2,"of":1,"parser":2,"parsing":2,"pattern":1,"program":1,"scattered":1,"seven":1,"shotgun":1,"state":1,"the":1,"this":1,"turrets":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Principle of Rationality","s":"concepts/principle-of-rationality","secs":[{"h":"Principle of Rationality","l":1,"t":"Newell's bridge law for the knowledge level: an agent will take an action whose preconditions it knows to hold and whose effects it wants. Gives knowledge-level descriptions predictive force."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[Knowledge Level]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"agent":1,"an":2,"and":1,"bridge":1,"descriptions":1,"effects":1,"for":1,"force":1,"gives":1,"hold":1,"in":1,"it":2,"knowledge":4,"knows":1,"law":1,"level":4,"newell":1,"of":1,"preconditions":1,"predictive":1,"principle":1,"rationality":1,"s":1,"take":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"wants":1,"whose":2,"will":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Specification Soundness","s":"concepts/specification-soundness","secs":[{"h":"Specification Soundness","l":1,"t":"Property of a specification w.r.t. correct behaviour: the spec is consistent — it does not reject valid implementations; measured via test-consistency when no oracle is available."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"available":1,"behaviour":1,"challenge":1,"coding":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":1,"correct":1,"does":1,"for":1,"formalization":1,"grand":1,"implementations":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"is":2,"it":1,"measured":1,"no":1,"not":1,"of":1,"oracle":1,"property":1,"r":1,"reject":1,"reliable":1,"soundness":1,"spec":1,"specification":2,"t":1,"test":1,"the":1,"this":1,"valid":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"w":1,"when":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Group Rationality","s":"concepts/group-rationality","secs":[{"h":"Group Rationality","l":1,"t":"Pareto-efficiency of an agreement: no party can be made better off without making another worse off."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Deals Among Rational Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"agreement":1,"among":1,"an":1,"another":1,"be":1,"better":1,"can":1,"deals":1,"efficiency":1,"group":1,"in":1,"made":1,"making":1,"no":1,"of":1,"off":2,"pareto":1,"party":1,"rational":1,"rationality":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"without":1,"worse":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Institutional Reality","s":"concepts/institutional-reality","secs":[{"h":"Institutional Reality","l":1,"t":"Searle: social facts (promises, marriages, money) constituted by collective acceptance of counts-as rules — the ontological basis for commitment-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acceptance":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"as":1,"based":2,"basis":1,"by":1,"collective":1,"commitment":2,"common":1,"communication":1,"constituted":1,"counts":1,"facts":1,"for":1,"in":1,"institutional":2,"marriages":1,"money":1,"of":2,"ontological":1,"ontology":1,"promises":1,"reality":2,"rules":1,"searle":1,"semantics":2,"social":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Extensible Languages Movement","s":"concepts/extensible-languages-movement","secs":[{"h":"Extensible Languages Movement","l":1,"t":"A 1960s-70s research programme arguing that programming languages should provide mechanisms for users to define new syntax and semantics. Standish surveys its ambitions, achievements, and reasons for its partial eclipse."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]"}],"tf":{"1960s":1,"70s":1,"a":1,"achievements":1,"ambitions":1,"and":2,"arguing":1,"define":1,"design":1,"eclipse":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":2,"for":2,"graham":1,"in":2,"its":2,"language":2,"languages":2,"mechanisms":1,"movement":1,"new":1,"partial":1,"programme":1,"programming":2,"provide":1,"reasons":1,"research":1,"semantics":1,"should":1,"standish":2,"surveys":1,"syntax":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"users":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Memory Poisoning","s":"concepts/memory-poisoning","secs":[{"h":"Memory Poisoning","l":1,"t":"An attack in which an adversary injects crafted content into an LLM agent's persistent memory or retrieval store, causing later queries to surface corrupted or malicious information. A key threat in long-lived agent deployments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adversary":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":1,"an":3,"attack":1,"causing":1,"content":1,"corrupted":1,"crafted":1,"deployments":1,"in":3,"information":1,"injects":1,"into":1,"key":1,"later":1,"lived":1,"llm":1,"long":1,"malicious":1,"memory":2,"or":2,"persistent":1,"poisoning":1,"queries":1,"retrieval":1,"s":1,"security":1,"store":1,"surface":1,"this":1,"threat":2,"to":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Mycelium Model","s":"concepts/mycelium-model","secs":[{"h":"Mycelium Model","l":1,"t":"A bio-inspired overlay-network model in which nodes grow, reinforce, and prune links analogously to fungal hyphae, producing self-organising superpeer topologies with strong failure-recovery properties."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"analogously":1,"and":1,"bio":1,"failure":1,"fungal":1,"fungi":1,"grow":1,"hyphae":1,"in":2,"inspired":2,"links":1,"model":2,"mycelium":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"nodes":1,"organising":1,"overlay":2,"producing":1,"properties":1,"prune":1,"recovery":1,"reinforce":1,"self":1,"strong":1,"superpeer":2,"this":1,"to":1,"topologies":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"Model Checking","s":"concepts/model-checking","secs":[{"h":"Model Checking","l":1,"t":"An automated verification technique that exhaustively explores the state space of a finite model of a system to decide whether it satisfies a temporal-logic specification. It is applied to ACL protocols and blockchain interoperability patterns to expose deadlocks, liveness failures and protocol violations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"acl":1,"acls":1,"an":1,"and":2,"applied":1,"automated":1,"blockchain":2,"checking":1,"deadlocks":1,"decide":1,"exhaustively":1,"explores":1,"expose":1,"failures":1,"finite":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"in":1,"interoperability":2,"is":1,"it":2,"liveness":1,"logic":1,"model":2,"of":2,"patterns":2,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"satisfies":1,"semantics":1,"space":1,"specification":1,"state":1,"system":1,"technique":1,"temporal":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":2,"violations":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Gricean Maxims","s":"concepts/gricean-maxims","secs":[{"h":"Gricean Maxims","l":1,"t":"Grice's four maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner) that jointly realise the Cooperative Principle; their apparent violation licenses implicature."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]] - [[Cooperative Principle]] - [[Conversational Implicature]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"apparent":1,"conversation":1,"conversational":1,"cooperative":2,"four":1,"grice":1,"gricean":1,"implicature":2,"in":1,"jointly":1,"licenses":1,"logic":1,"manner":1,"maxims":2,"principle":2,"quality":1,"quantity":1,"realise":1,"relation":1,"s":1,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"violation":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Self-Awareness","s":"concepts/self-awareness","secs":[{"h":"Self-Awareness","l":1,"t":"In self-adaptive systems, a runtime capacity to represent and reason about the system's own state, structure, and goals to guide adaptation. One of the three \"self-*\" properties foregrounded by the ASCENS framework."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"adaptation":2,"adaptive":2,"and":2,"ascens":2,"awareness":2,"by":1,"capacity":1,"expression":1,"foregrounded":1,"framework":1,"goals":1,"guide":1,"in":2,"of":1,"one":1,"own":1,"properties":1,"reason":1,"represent":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"self":7,"state":1,"structure":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"the":3,"this":1,"three":1,"to":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Long-short Term Memory","s":"concepts/long-short-term-memory","secs":[{"h":"Long-short Term Memory","l":1,"t":"In the AGENTS framework (Zhou et al.), the combination of a vector-database long-term memory with a short-term scratchpad, giving LLM agents persistent recall alongside working memory for the current task. Distinct from the LSTM neural architecture."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agents":4,"al":2,"alongside":1,"architecture":1,"combination":1,"current":1,"database":1,"distinct":1,"et":2,"for":1,"framework":2,"from":1,"giving":1,"in":2,"llm":2,"long":2,"lstm":1,"memory":3,"neural":1,"of":1,"persistent":1,"recall":1,"scratchpad":1,"short":2,"task":1,"term":3,"the":4,"this":1,"vault":1,"vector":1,"with":1,"working":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":54,"n":"Marshalling","s":"concepts/marshalling","secs":[{"h":"Marshalling","l":1,"t":"The serialisation of in-memory language values into a form suitable for transmission or storage, together with the inverse unmarshalling at the receiver. Secure distributed languages wrap marshalling with authentication and confidentiality so that the abstract semantics of message passing is preserved."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[Cryptographic Wrapper]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"and":1,"at":1,"authentication":1,"communications":1,"confidentiality":1,"cryptographic":1,"distributed":2,"for":2,"form":1,"in":2,"into":1,"inverse":1,"is":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"marshalling":2,"memory":1,"message":1,"of":2,"or":1,"passing":1,"preserved":1,"processing":1,"receiver":1,"secure":2,"semantics":1,"serialisation":1,"so":1,"storage":1,"suitable":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"together":1,"transmission":1,"unmarshalling":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"with":2,"wrap":1,"wrapper":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Positive Listening","s":"concepts/positive-listening","secs":[{"h":"Positive Listening","l":1,"t":"Paired diagnostic with Positive Signalling: the listener's policy actually depends on the message."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Positive Signalling]]"}],"tf":{"actually":1,"communication":1,"depends":1,"diagnostic":1,"emergent":1,"in":1,"listener":1,"listening":1,"measuring":1,"message":1,"of":1,"on":2,"paired":1,"pitfalls":1,"policy":1,"positive":3,"s":1,"signalling":2,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Mercurio Framework","s":"concepts/mercurio-framework","secs":[{"h":"Mercurio Framework","l":1,"t":"An agent-programming framework for open MAS that unifies direct (speech-act) and indirect (environmental) communication under a commitment-based social semantics, layered over JaCaMo (Jason + CArtAgO + MOISE)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Agents and Artifacts]] - [[CArtAgO]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"act":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":2,"and":2,"artifacts":1,"based":1,"cartago":2,"commitment":1,"communication":1,"direct":1,"environmental":1,"environments":1,"for":2,"framework":3,"in":1,"indirect":1,"interaction":1,"jacamo":1,"jason":1,"layered":1,"mas":1,"mercurio":1,"moise":1,"open":2,"oriented":1,"over":1,"programming":1,"semantics":1,"social":1,"speech":1,"that":1,"this":1,"under":1,"unifies":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Constitutive Rules","s":"concepts/constitutive-rules","secs":[{"h":"Constitutive Rules","l":1,"t":"Searle's rules of the form \"X counts as Y in context C\" that create new institutional facts rather than merely regulating pre-existing behaviour. In agent frameworks they link brute message events to social meanings such as commitments or role assignments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Institutional Reality]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"act":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"as":2,"assignments":1,"behaviour":1,"brute":1,"c":1,"commitments":1,"constitutive":1,"context":1,"counts":1,"create":1,"environments":1,"events":1,"existing":1,"facts":1,"for":1,"form":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"in":3,"institutional":2,"interaction":1,"link":1,"meanings":1,"merely":1,"message":1,"new":1,"of":1,"open":1,"or":1,"oriented":1,"pre":1,"rather":1,"reality":1,"regulating":1,"role":1,"rules":2,"s":1,"searle":1,"social":1,"speech":1,"such":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"x":1,"y":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Gossip Protocols","s":"concepts/gossip-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Gossip Protocols","l":1,"t":"Epidemic information dissemination and aggregation in distributed systems."},{"h":"Sources","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]"},{"h":"Related","l":11,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":2,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":2,"an":1,"and":1,"based":2,"composite":1,"computation":1,"dissemination":1,"distributed":2,"dynamic":1,"epidemic":1,"fungi":1,"gossip":3,"gossiping":1,"in":4,"information":2,"inspired":1,"large":1,"mechanism":1,"multi":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":1,"organisation":1,"overlay":1,"protocols":1,"related":1,"self":2,"sources":1,"superpeer":1,"systems":4}},{"dl":17,"n":"Multiagent Systems","s":"concepts/multiagent-systems","secs":[{"h":"Multiagent Systems","l":1,"t":"Alternative spelling of [[Multi-Agent Systems]] — the canonical hub."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"alternative":1,"canonical":1,"hub":1,"in":1,"multi":2,"multiagent":1,"of":1,"spelling":1,"systems":3,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Markov Processes","s":"concepts/markov-processes","secs":[{"h":"Markov Processes","l":1,"t":"Stochastic processes with the memoryless property: future states depend only on the current state; Chomsky's finite-state grammars are Markov sources, which he argued were inadequate for natural language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]]"}],"tf":{"are":1,"argued":1,"chomsky":1,"current":1,"depend":1,"description":1,"finite":1,"for":2,"future":1,"grammars":1,"he":1,"in":1,"inadequate":1,"language":2,"markov":2,"memoryless":1,"models":1,"natural":1,"of":1,"on":1,"only":1,"processes":2,"property":1,"s":1,"sources":1,"state":2,"states":1,"stochastic":1,"the":3,"this":1,"three":1,"vault":1,"were":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Prolog","s":"concepts/prolog","secs":[{"h":"Prolog","l":1,"t":"A logic programming language whose computational model is SLD resolution over Horn clauses. In Lloyd's formulation its declarative semantics coincides with the least Herbrand model of the program, with unification as the only pattern-matching primitive."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Unification]] - [[OAA ICL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"as":1,"clauses":1,"coincides":1,"computational":1,"declarative":1,"formulation":1,"foundations":1,"herbrand":1,"horn":1,"icl":1,"in":2,"is":1,"its":1,"language":1,"least":1,"lloyd":2,"logic":2,"matching":1,"model":2,"oaa":1,"of":2,"only":1,"over":1,"pattern":1,"primitive":1,"program":1,"programming":2,"prolog":1,"resolution":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"sld":1,"the":3,"this":1,"unification":2,"vault":1,"whose":1,"with":2}},{"dl":30,"n":"Positive Signalling","s":"concepts/positive-signalling","secs":[{"h":"Positive Signalling","l":1,"t":"Diagnostic (Lowe et al.) for emergent communication: the speaker's messages carry information about their inputs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Positive Listening]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"al":1,"carry":1,"communication":2,"diagnostic":1,"emergent":2,"et":1,"for":1,"in":1,"information":1,"inputs":1,"listening":1,"lowe":1,"measuring":1,"messages":1,"of":1,"on":1,"pitfalls":1,"positive":2,"s":1,"signalling":1,"speaker":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Sybil Resistance","s":"concepts/sybil-resistance","secs":[{"h":"Sybil Resistance","l":1,"t":"Property of an identity system that makes creating many fake identities prohibitively costly — critical under Reputation trust, where Sybils skew ratings."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":1,"comparative":1,"costly":1,"creating":1,"critical":1,"fake":1,"identities":1,"identity":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"makes":1,"many":1,"models":1,"of":1,"prohibitively":1,"property":1,"ratings":1,"reputation":2,"resistance":1,"skew":1,"study":1,"sybil":1,"sybils":1,"system":1,"that":1,"this":1,"trust":3,"under":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":66,"n":"Conversations","s":"concepts/conversations","secs":[{"h":"Conversations","l":1,"t":"Concrete instances of a conversation/interaction protocol shared between specific agents, typically tracked by a conversation-id and represented as a Coloured Petri Net or Dooley Graph marking in engines like ACRE. Conversations make protocol state first-class so plans can reason about whether a dialogue is in progress, completed, or stuck."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Conversation Protocols]] - [[Colored Petri Nets]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"about":1,"acre":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"as":1,"between":1,"by":1,"can":1,"class":1,"colored":1,"coloured":1,"completed":1,"concrete":1,"conversation":4,"conversations":2,"dialogue":1,"dooley":1,"engine":1,"engines":1,"first":1,"graph":1,"id":1,"in":3,"instances":1,"interaction":1,"is":1,"like":1,"make":1,"marking":1,"net":1,"nets":1,"of":1,"or":2,"petri":2,"plans":1,"progress":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":1,"represented":1,"shared":1,"so":1,"specific":1,"state":1,"stuck":1,"this":1,"tracked":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Adaptive Protocols","s":"concepts/adaptive-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Adaptive Protocols","l":1,"t":"Communication protocols whose parameters (e.g. fan-out, gossip period, neighbour set) self-tune at run time in response to observed network conditions such as size, churn or load, rather than being fixed at design time."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"adaptive":2,"aggregation":1,"as":1,"at":2,"based":1,"being":1,"churn":1,"communication":1,"conditions":1,"design":1,"dynamic":1,"e":1,"fan":1,"fixed":1,"g":1,"gossip":3,"in":3,"large":1,"load":1,"neighbour":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"observed":1,"or":1,"out":1,"parameters":1,"period":1,"protocols":3,"rather":1,"response":1,"run":1,"self":2,"set":1,"size":1,"such":1,"systems":1,"than":1,"this":1,"time":2,"to":1,"tune":1,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Weak Agency","s":"concepts/weak-agency","secs":[{"h":"Weak Agency","l":1,"t":"Wooldridge's baseline notion: an agent is autonomous, social, reactive, and proactive — no mental-state commitment required."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Strong Agency]]"}],"tf":{"agency":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":2,"autonomous":1,"baseline":1,"commitment":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"is":1,"mental":1,"no":1,"notion":1,"practice":1,"proactive":1,"reactive":1,"required":1,"s":1,"social":1,"state":1,"strong":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"weak":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Task Verification","s":"concepts/task-verification","secs":[{"h":"Task Verification","l":1,"t":"The MAST category (~21%) covering failures where a MAS produces results that are never adequately checked against the original task, leading to silently wrong outputs despite correct-looking execution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]]"}],"tf":{"21":1,"a":1,"adequately":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"are":1,"category":1,"checked":1,"correct":1,"covering":1,"despite":1,"do":1,"execution":1,"fail":1,"failures":1,"in":1,"leading":1,"llm":1,"looking":1,"mas":1,"mast":2,"multi":1,"never":1,"original":1,"outputs":1,"produces":1,"results":1,"silently":1,"systems":1,"task":2,"taxonomy":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"where":1,"why":1,"wrong":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Rationality Assumption","s":"concepts/rationality-assumption","secs":[{"h":"Rationality Assumption","l":1,"t":"Dennett: to take the intentional stance is to assume the system will act rationally given its beliefs and desires. Without this, predictions don't get off the ground."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] - [[Principle of Rationality]]"}],"tf":{"act":1,"and":2,"assume":1,"assumption":1,"beliefs":1,"believers":1,"dennett":1,"desires":1,"don":1,"get":1,"given":1,"ground":1,"in":1,"intentional":2,"is":1,"it":1,"its":1,"of":1,"off":1,"predictions":1,"principle":1,"rationality":2,"rationally":1,"stance":1,"strategy":1,"system":1,"t":1,"take":1,"the":4,"this":2,"to":2,"true":1,"vault":1,"why":1,"will":1,"without":1,"works":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Link and Monitor","s":"concepts/link-and-monitor","secs":[{"h":"Link and Monitor","l":1,"t":"Erlang's primitive failure-propagation mechanisms: `link` creates a bidirectional death-notification between processes, while `monitor` installs a one-way observation. Together they support the supervisor-tree \"let it crash\" style of fault-tolerant design."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Let It Crash]] - [[Supervision Tree]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"between":1,"bidirectional":1,"crash":2,"creates":1,"death":1,"design":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"failure":1,"fault":1,"in":1,"installs":1,"it":2,"let":2,"link":1,"mechanisms":1,"monitor":1,"notification":1,"observation":1,"of":1,"one":1,"primitive":1,"processes":1,"programming":1,"propagation":1,"s":1,"second":1,"style":1,"supervision":1,"supervisor":1,"support":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"together":1,"tolerant":1,"tree":2,"vault":1,"way":1,"while":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Description Logics","s":"concepts/description-logics","secs":[{"h":"Description Logics","l":1,"t":"A family of decidable fragments of first-order logic tailored for describing concepts (classes), roles (binary relations) and individuals. They provide the formal foundation for OWL and most Semantic-Web ontologies, with well-studied trade-offs between expressivity and reasoning complexity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Semantic Web]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":3,"between":1,"binary":1,"classes":1,"complexity":1,"concepts":1,"decidable":1,"describing":1,"description":1,"expressivity":1,"family":1,"first":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"foundation":1,"fragments":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"individuals":1,"logic":1,"logics":1,"most":1,"of":2,"offs":1,"on":1,"ontologies":3,"order":1,"owl":1,"provide":1,"reasoning":1,"relations":1,"roles":1,"semantic":2,"studied":1,"tailored":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"trade":1,"vault":1,"web":2,"well":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Universal Turing Machine","s":"concepts/universal-turing-machine","secs":[{"h":"Universal Turing Machine","l":1,"t":"A Turing machine that, given the encoding of an arbitrary machine and an input, simulates that machine's behaviour on the input. Its existence is the foundation of general-purpose computation and of algorithmic information theory."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"algorithmic":2,"an":2,"and":2,"arbitrary":1,"behaviour":1,"complexity":1,"computation":1,"encoding":1,"existence":1,"foundation":1,"general":1,"given":1,"grunwald":1,"in":1,"information":2,"input":2,"is":1,"its":1,"kolmogorov":1,"machine":4,"of":3,"on":1,"purpose":1,"s":1,"simulates":1,"that":2,"the":3,"theory":2,"this":1,"turing":2,"universal":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Confused Deputy","s":"concepts/confused-deputy","secs":[{"h":"Confused Deputy","l":1,"t":"Hardy 1988: a privileged program tricked into misusing its authority on behalf of a less-privileged caller. Classic demonstration of why ambient-authority ACL systems are structurally fragile."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Ambient Authority]] - [[Object Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"1988":1,"a":2,"acl":1,"ambient":2,"and":1,"are":1,"authority":3,"behalf":1,"caller":1,"capability":2,"classic":1,"confused":1,"demonstration":1,"deputy":1,"distributed":1,"fragile":1,"hardy":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"into":1,"its":1,"less":1,"misusing":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"of":3,"on":1,"privileged":2,"program":1,"security":2,"spritely":1,"structurally":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tricked":1,"vault":1,"why":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Infotaxis","s":"concepts/infotaxis","secs":[{"h":"Infotaxis","l":1,"t":"A search strategy (Vergassola et al.) in which an agent moves to maximise expected information gain about the location of a source, used as a concrete example of goal-directed behaviour in Levin's framework for cognitive agency without an explicit reward signal."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Cognitive Light Cone]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"about":1,"agency":1,"agent":1,"al":1,"an":2,"as":1,"behaviour":1,"boundary":1,"cognitive":2,"computational":1,"concrete":1,"cone":1,"directed":1,"et":1,"example":1,"expected":1,"explicit":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"gain":1,"goal":1,"in":3,"information":1,"infotaxis":1,"levin":1,"light":1,"location":1,"maximise":1,"moves":1,"of":3,"reward":1,"s":1,"search":1,"self":1,"signal":1,"source":1,"strategy":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vergassola":1,"which":1,"without":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"Unsupervised Grammar Induction","s":"concepts/unsupervised-grammar-induction","secs":[{"h":"Unsupervised Grammar Induction","l":1,"t":"The learning problem of inferring a grammar's productions from corpora without annotated parses — essentially, discovering the syntactic structure of a language from usage alone. Invoked in automated ACL evolution where agents must jointly infer compatible grammars for new shared constructs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":1,"acls":1,"agents":1,"alone":1,"annotated":1,"automated":2,"automating":1,"compatible":1,"competence":1,"constructs":1,"corpora":1,"discovering":1,"essentially":1,"evolution":3,"for":1,"from":2,"grammar":2,"grammars":1,"in":2,"induction":1,"infer":1,"inferring":1,"invoked":1,"jointly":1,"language":1,"learning":1,"linguistic":1,"must":1,"new":1,"of":4,"parses":1,"problem":1,"productions":1,"s":1,"shared":1,"structure":1,"syntactic":1,"the":3,"this":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"unsupervised":1,"usage":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"without":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Reentrancy","s":"concepts/reentrancy","secs":[{"h":"Reentrancy","l":1,"t":"A smart-contract vulnerability in which a called contract invokes back into the caller before the caller has updated its state, enabling repeated withdrawals or inconsistent updates. Famously exploited in the DAO attack."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Solidity]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"attack":1,"back":1,"before":1,"called":1,"caller":2,"contract":2,"contracts":2,"dao":1,"enabling":1,"exploited":1,"famously":1,"has":1,"in":3,"inconsistent":1,"into":1,"invokes":1,"its":1,"making":1,"or":1,"reentrancy":1,"repeated":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"solidity":1,"state":1,"the":3,"this":1,"updated":1,"updates":1,"vault":1,"vulnerability":1,"which":1,"withdrawals":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Safe Tcl","s":"concepts/safe-tcl","secs":[{"h":"Safe Tcl","l":1,"t":"A sandboxing mechanism for Tcl that splits execution into a trusted master interpreter and one or more untrusted slave interpreters, with dangerous commands hidden from slaves and selectively re-exposed via aliases (link substitution) controlled by policy. Used in both Agent Tcl and D'Agents for mobile-code isolation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Sandboxing]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":2,"agents":2,"aliases":1,"and":3,"book":1,"both":1,"by":1,"chapter":1,"code":1,"commands":1,"controlled":1,"d":1,"dagents":1,"dangerous":1,"execution":1,"exposed":1,"flexible":1,"for":2,"from":1,"hidden":1,"in":2,"interpreter":1,"interpreters":1,"into":1,"isolation":1,"link":1,"master":1,"mechanism":1,"mobile":2,"more":1,"one":1,"or":1,"policy":1,"re":1,"safe":1,"sandboxing":2,"secure":1,"security":1,"selectively":1,"slave":1,"slaves":1,"splits":1,"substitution":1,"tcl":4,"that":1,"this":1,"trusted":1,"untrusted":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"with":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Error Halting","s":"concepts/error-halting","secs":[{"h":"Error Halting","l":1,"t":"Von Neumann's observation that a fully digital self-reproducing automaton with no tolerance for component failure will halt on the first error, and that biological systems instead degrade gracefully via redundancy. Motivates the analog/digital hybrid and the complication-threshold argument."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] - [[Digital-Analog Hybrid]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"analog":2,"and":2,"argument":1,"automata":1,"automaton":1,"biological":1,"complication":1,"component":1,"degrade":1,"digital":3,"error":2,"failure":1,"first":1,"for":1,"fully":1,"gracefully":1,"halt":1,"halting":1,"hybrid":2,"in":1,"instead":1,"motivates":1,"neumann":1,"no":1,"observation":1,"of":1,"on":1,"redundancy":1,"reproducing":2,"s":1,"self":2,"systems":1,"that":2,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"threshold":1,"tolerance":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"von":1,"will":1,"with":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Cohen's Kappa","s":"concepts/cohen's-kappa","secs":[{"h":"Cohen's Kappa","l":1,"t":"A chance-corrected inter-annotator agreement coefficient; values above ~0.8 are typically considered strong agreement and are used to validate qualitative coding schemes such as failure-mode taxonomies."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]]"}],"tf":{"0":1,"8":1,"a":1,"above":1,"agent":1,"agreement":2,"and":1,"annotator":1,"are":2,"as":1,"chance":1,"coding":1,"coefficient":1,"cohen":1,"considered":1,"corrected":1,"do":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"kappa":1,"llm":1,"mast":1,"mode":1,"multi":1,"qualitative":1,"s":1,"schemes":1,"strong":1,"such":1,"systems":1,"taxonomies":1,"taxonomy":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typically":1,"used":1,"validate":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"why":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Logic Programming","s":"concepts/logic-programming","secs":[{"h":"Logic Programming","l":1,"t":"A programming paradigm in which computation is expressed as deduction from facts and rules in (a restricted fragment of) first-order logic. Prolog is its canonical realisation, based on Horn clauses and SLD resolution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[SLD Resolution]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":2,"as":1,"based":1,"canonical":1,"clauses":1,"computation":1,"deduction":1,"expressed":1,"facts":1,"first":1,"foundations":1,"fragment":1,"from":1,"horn":1,"in":3,"is":2,"its":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"of":2,"on":1,"order":1,"paradigm":1,"programming":3,"prolog":1,"realisation":1,"resolution":2,"restricted":1,"rules":1,"sld":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Architectural Pattern","s":"concepts/architectural-pattern","secs":[{"h":"Architectural Pattern","l":1,"t":"A reusable, named solution to a recurring system-level design problem, described in terms of components, connectors, and constraints on their composition. Unlike design patterns, architectural patterns govern overall structure and cross-cutting quality attributes such as dependability or scalability."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"and":2,"architectural":3,"as":1,"attributes":1,"components":1,"composition":1,"connectors":1,"constraints":1,"cross":1,"cutting":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"described":1,"description":1,"design":3,"for":2,"govern":1,"in":2,"level":1,"named":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"overall":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":4,"problem":1,"quality":1,"recurring":1,"reusable":1,"scalability":1,"semantic":1,"software":1,"sol":1,"solution":1,"structure":1,"such":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"terms":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unlike":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Control-Flow Graph","s":"concepts/control-flow-graph","secs":[{"h":"Control-Flow Graph","l":1,"t":"A directed graph over basic blocks representing all possible execution paths of a program. In the DDoS-prevention language design, CFG properties (bounded loops, absence of back-edges beyond a budget) are statically enforced so handlers cannot be weaponised for amplification."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"absence":1,"all":1,"amplification":1,"approach":1,"are":1,"back":1,"based":1,"basic":1,"be":1,"beyond":1,"blocks":1,"bounded":1,"budget":1,"cannot":1,"cfg":1,"control":1,"ddos":2,"design":1,"directed":1,"edges":1,"enforced":1,"execution":1,"flow":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"graph":2,"handlers":1,"in":2,"language":2,"loops":1,"of":2,"over":1,"paths":1,"possible":1,"prevent":1,"prevention":1,"program":1,"properties":1,"representing":1,"so":1,"statically":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"weaponised":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Finite-state Grammars","s":"concepts/finite-state-grammars","secs":[{"h":"Finite-state Grammars","l":1,"t":"Grammars generated by a finite Markov source; Chomsky's first model of language, shown inadequate because natural-language phenomena (e.g., centre-embedding) require at least context-free power."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"at":1,"because":1,"by":1,"centre":1,"chomsky":2,"context":1,"description":1,"e":1,"embedding":1,"finite":2,"first":1,"for":1,"free":1,"g":1,"generated":1,"grammars":2,"hierarchy":1,"in":1,"inadequate":1,"language":3,"least":1,"markov":1,"model":1,"models":1,"natural":1,"of":2,"phenomena":1,"power":1,"require":1,"s":1,"shown":1,"source":1,"state":1,"the":1,"this":1,"three":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":25,"n":"Facilitators","s":"concepts/facilitators","secs":[{"h":"Facilitators","l":1,"t":"Mediator agents in KQML that route, broker, and match-make between heterogeneous KBS agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"agents":2,"and":2,"between":1,"broker":1,"facilitators":1,"heterogeneous":1,"in":2,"kbs":1,"kqml":4,"language":1,"make":1,"match":1,"mediator":1,"overview":1,"protocol":1,"route":1,"that":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Cross-Agent Corruption","s":"concepts/cross-agent-corruption","secs":[{"h":"Cross-Agent Corruption","l":1,"t":"One agent's failures, biases, or unsafe practices propagating to peers via shared channels, memory, or imitation — a key multi-agent failure mode."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"attacks":1,"biases":1,"channels":1,"chaos":1,"clawworm":1,"corruption":1,"cross":1,"do":1,"ecosystems":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"failures":1,"imitation":1,"in":1,"key":1,"llm":2,"memory":1,"mode":1,"multi":2,"of":1,"one":1,"or":2,"peers":1,"practices":1,"propagating":2,"s":1,"self":1,"shared":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unsafe":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"why":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Partial Information","s":"concepts/partial-information","secs":[{"h":"Partial Information","l":1,"t":"The condition most real-world reasoning operates under — incomplete knowledge of the world, requiring default, non-monotonic, or probabilistic mechanisms."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Default Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"artificial":1,"condition":1,"default":2,"epistemological":1,"in":1,"incomplete":1,"information":1,"intelligence":1,"knowledge":1,"mechanisms":1,"monotonic":2,"most":1,"non":2,"of":2,"operates":1,"or":1,"partial":1,"probabilistic":1,"problems":1,"real":1,"reasoning":3,"requiring":1,"the":2,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"world":2}},{"dl":58,"n":"REINFORCE","s":"concepts/reinforce","secs":[{"h":"REINFORCE","l":1,"t":"Williams's policy-gradient algorithm that updates a stochastic policy in proportion to the product of the log-probability of the sampled action and the received return. It is the workhorse estimator underlying most emergent-communication training loops over discrete messages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"action":1,"agent":2,"algorithm":1,"and":2,"communication":1,"cooperation":1,"discrete":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"estimator":1,"gradient":1,"in":2,"is":1,"it":1,"language":1,"learning":1,"log":1,"loops":1,"messages":1,"most":1,"multi":2,"natural":1,"of":3,"over":1,"policy":2,"probability":1,"product":1,"proportion":1,"received":1,"reinforce":1,"reinforcement":1,"return":1,"s":1,"sampled":1,"stochastic":1,"that":1,"the":6,"this":1,"to":1,"training":1,"underlying":1,"updates":1,"vault":1,"williams":1,"workhorse":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Agent Payments Protocol","s":"concepts/agent-payments-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)","l":1,"t":"Google-led protocol letting AI agents perform financial transactions on behalf of users, with cryptographic mandates bounding what each agent may pay and to whom."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"ap2":1,"behalf":1,"bounding":1,"comparative":1,"cryptographic":1,"each":1,"financial":1,"google":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"led":1,"letting":1,"mandates":1,"may":1,"models":1,"of":1,"on":1,"pay":1,"payments":1,"perform":1,"protocol":3,"study":1,"this":1,"to":2,"transactions":1,"trust":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"whom":1,"with":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Frame Logic","s":"concepts/frame-logic","secs":[{"h":"Frame Logic","l":1,"t":"F-Logic (Kifer, Lausen, Wu): a logic combining the declarative semantics of first-order logic with the object-oriented, frame-based structuring of knowledge — classes, attributes, inheritance, methods — as first-class terms. A foundational formalism for ontology languages surveyed in the Handbook on Ontologies."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[KIF]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"as":1,"attributes":1,"based":1,"class":1,"classes":1,"combining":1,"declarative":1,"f":1,"first":2,"for":1,"formalism":1,"foundational":1,"frame":2,"handbook":2,"in":2,"inheritance":1,"kif":1,"kifer":1,"knowledge":1,"languages":1,"lausen":1,"logic":4,"methods":1,"object":1,"of":2,"on":2,"ontologies":3,"ontology":1,"order":1,"oriented":1,"semantics":1,"structuring":1,"surveyed":1,"terms":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"wu":1}},{"dl":69,"n":"ACL Design Principles","s":"concepts/acl-design-principles","secs":[{"h":"ACL Design Principles","l":1,"t":"Eight criteria proposed by Kone, Shimazu and Nakajima for evaluating agent communication languages: heterogeneity, cooperation/coordination, separation (of message from transport and content), interoperability, transparency, extensibility/scalability, performance, and security. The principles accompany a four-part ACL template (message format, semantic model, interaction protocols, shared ontology/content language)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accompany":1,"acl":3,"agent":3,"and":3,"art":1,"by":1,"communication":3,"content":2,"cooperation":1,"coordination":1,"criteria":1,"design":1,"eight":1,"evaluating":1,"extensibility":1,"for":1,"format":1,"four":1,"from":1,"heterogeneity":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"interoperability":1,"kone":1,"language":1,"languages":3,"message":2,"model":1,"nakajima":1,"of":2,"ontology":1,"part":1,"performance":1,"principles":3,"proposed":1,"protocols":1,"rethinking":1,"scalability":1,"security":1,"semantic":1,"separation":1,"shared":1,"shimazu":1,"state":1,"template":1,"the":3,"this":1,"transparency":1,"transport":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Adaptation Dimensions","s":"concepts/adaptation-dimensions","secs":[{"h":"Adaptation Dimensions","l":1,"t":"Orthogonal axes along which a self-adaptive system may change — typically parameter, structural/compositional, behavioural, and goal adaptation — used to classify and combine adaptation mechanisms in ensemble-based systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adaptation":4,"adaptive":2,"along":1,"and":2,"ascens":1,"awareness":1,"axes":1,"based":1,"behavioural":1,"change":1,"classify":1,"combine":1,"compositional":1,"dimensions":1,"ensemble":1,"expression":1,"goal":1,"in":2,"may":1,"mechanisms":1,"orthogonal":1,"parameter":1,"self":5,"structural":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"this":1,"to":1,"typically":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Reputation","s":"concepts/reputation","secs":[{"h":"Reputation","l":1,"t":"A publicly aggregated assessment of an agent's past behaviour based on witness reports, used to guide interaction choice when direct experience is scarce."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"aggregated":1,"an":1,"and":2,"assessment":1,"based":1,"behaviour":1,"choice":1,"computational":1,"direct":1,"experience":1,"guide":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"is":1,"models":1,"of":1,"on":2,"past":1,"publicly":1,"reports":1,"reputation":3,"review":1,"s":1,"scarce":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":2,"used":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"witness":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Large Population Models","s":"concepts/large-population-models","secs":[{"h":"Large Population Models","l":1,"t":"Reframing from large single models (LLM) to large populations of interacting agents where leverage comes from protocol design."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agents":2,"comes":1,"design":1,"from":2,"in":1,"interacting":1,"large":3,"levels":1,"leverage":1,"llm":2,"models":2,"of":2,"orchestration":1,"population":1,"populations":1,"protocol":1,"reframing":1,"single":1,"social":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Intent Formalization","s":"concepts/intent-formalization","secs":[{"h":"Intent Formalization","l":1,"t":"Automatic translation of informal user intent into formal, checkable specifications — spans tests, code contracts, logical contracts, and DSLs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Code Contracts]] - [[Logical Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"automatic":1,"challenge":1,"checkable":1,"code":2,"coding":1,"contracts":4,"dsls":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalization":2,"grand":1,"in":1,"informal":1,"intent":3,"into":1,"logical":2,"of":1,"reliable":1,"spans":1,"specifications":1,"tests":1,"this":1,"translation":1,"user":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Vibe Coding","s":"concepts/vibe-coding","secs":[{"h":"Vibe Coding","l":1,"t":"Karpathy's term for AI-driven development where users describe intent in natural language and accept generated code with minimal or no review — the purest manifestation of the intent gap."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accept":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"challenge":1,"code":1,"coding":2,"describe":1,"development":1,"driven":1,"for":2,"formalization":1,"gap":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"in":2,"intent":3,"karpathy":1,"language":1,"llm":1,"manifestation":1,"minimal":1,"natural":1,"no":1,"of":1,"or":1,"purest":1,"reliable":1,"review":1,"s":1,"term":1,"the":2,"this":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"vibe":1,"where":1,"with":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Data Spaces","s":"concepts/data-spaces","secs":[{"h":"Data Spaces","l":1,"t":"McCarthy 1963: sets of states over which a computation ranges; precursor to abstract domains and denotational value spaces."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]]"}],"tf":{"1963":1,"a":2,"abstract":1,"and":1,"computation":2,"data":1,"denotational":1,"domains":1,"in":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":2,"over":1,"precursor":1,"ranges":1,"science":1,"sets":1,"spaces":2,"states":1,"this":1,"to":1,"towards":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Conversational Implicature","s":"concepts/conversational-implicature","secs":[{"h":"Conversational Implicature","l":1,"t":"Grice: what a speaker *implicates* beyond what she literally says, derived by assuming the Cooperative Principle. Cancellable, non-detachable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]] - [[Gricean Maxims]] - [[Cooperative Principle]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"assuming":1,"beyond":1,"by":1,"cancellable":1,"conversation":1,"conversational":1,"cooperative":2,"derived":1,"detachable":1,"grice":1,"gricean":1,"implicates":1,"implicature":1,"in":1,"literally":1,"logic":1,"maxims":1,"non":1,"principle":2,"says":1,"she":1,"speaker":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"what":2}},{"dl":38,"n":"Non-monotonic Reasoning","s":"concepts/non-monotonic-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Non-monotonic Reasoning","l":1,"t":"Reasoning in which adding premises may invalidate previously derivable conclusions. Required for default reasoning, exception handling, and business rules where new information retracts tentative conclusions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Negation as Failure]]"}],"tf":{"adding":1,"and":1,"as":1,"business":2,"common":1,"communication":1,"conclusions":2,"default":1,"derivable":1,"exception":1,"failure":1,"for":1,"handling":1,"in":2,"information":1,"invalidate":1,"language":1,"may":1,"monotonic":1,"negation":1,"new":1,"non":1,"premises":1,"previously":1,"reasoning":3,"required":1,"retracts":1,"rules":1,"tentative":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"which":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Exception Principle","s":"concepts/exception-principle","secs":[{"h":"Exception Principle","l":1,"t":"Minsky: rather than redefining a concept each time something fails to fit, record the exception explicitly and keep the concept. Concepts are unified by exception-tolerance, not exception-exclusion."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Uniframes]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"are":1,"by":1,"concept":2,"concepts":1,"each":1,"exception":4,"exclusion":1,"explicitly":1,"fails":1,"fit":1,"in":1,"keep":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"not":1,"of":1,"principle":1,"rather":1,"record":1,"redefining":1,"society":1,"something":1,"than":1,"the":3,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"tolerance":1,"unified":1,"uniframes":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Abstract Agent Interfaces","s":"concepts/abstract-agent-interfaces","secs":[{"h":"Abstract Agent Interfaces","l":1,"t":"Interface specifications that describe an agent's conversational capabilities in terms of roles and message exchanges rather than internal implementation. They allow heterogeneous agents to interoperate by agreeing on conversation-level contracts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"abstract":1,"acl":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"agreeing":1,"allow":1,"an":1,"and":1,"by":1,"capabilities":1,"contracts":1,"conversation":2,"conversational":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"describe":1,"exchanges":1,"heterogeneous":1,"implementation":1,"in":2,"interface":1,"interfaces":1,"internal":1,"interoperate":1,"level":1,"message":1,"of":1,"on":1,"policy":1,"rather":1,"roles":1,"s":1,"specifications":1,"terms":1,"than":1,"that":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Code as Data","s":"concepts/code-as-data","secs":[{"h":"Code as Data","l":1,"t":"Homoiconicity: program text and program structure share a representation, enabling macros and meta-programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"as":2,"code":1,"creating":1,"data":1,"enabling":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"graham":1,"homoiconicity":1,"in":2,"language":2,"languages":1,"macros":2,"meta":1,"program":2,"programming":1,"racket":1,"representation":1,"share":1,"structure":1,"text":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":27,"n":"Language Games","s":"concepts/language-games","secs":[{"h":"Language Games","l":1,"t":"Wittgenstein-inspired situated interactions in which agents bootstrap grounded shared vocabulary without a central designer."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":1,"autonomous":1,"bootstrap":1,"central":1,"communication":1,"designer":1,"emergent":1,"for":1,"games":2,"grounded":1,"in":2,"inspired":1,"interactions":1,"language":2,"robots":1,"shared":1,"situated":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"which":1,"without":1,"wittgenstein":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Mirsky Autonomy Scale","s":"concepts/mirsky-autonomy-scale","secs":[{"h":"Mirsky Autonomy Scale","l":1,"t":"Six-level ordinal scale (L0–L5) for agent autonomy proposed by Mirsky (2025); current LLM agents cluster around L2 (executes sub-tasks autonomously but cannot self-recognise competence limits)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]]"}],"tf":{"2025":1,"agent":1,"agents":2,"around":1,"autonomously":1,"autonomy":2,"but":1,"by":1,"cannot":1,"chaos":1,"cluster":1,"competence":1,"current":1,"executes":1,"for":1,"in":1,"l0":1,"l2":1,"l5":1,"level":1,"limits":1,"llm":1,"mirsky":2,"of":1,"ordinal":1,"proposed":1,"recognise":1,"scale":2,"self":1,"six":1,"sub":1,"tasks":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Capability Security","s":"concepts/capability-security","secs":[{"h":"Capability Security","l":1,"t":"Access-control style where authority is conveyed by unforgeable object references; lexical scope in languages like Scheme suffices as a capability kernel."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"access":1,"as":1,"authority":1,"by":1,"calculus":1,"capability":2,"control":1,"conveyed":1,"distributed":1,"in":2,"is":1,"kernel":2,"lambda":1,"languages":1,"lexical":1,"like":1,"object":1,"references":1,"scheme":1,"scope":1,"security":3,"style":1,"suffices":1,"this":1,"unforgeable":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":86,"n":"Computability","s":"concepts/computability","secs":[{"h":"Computability","l":1,"t":"Theory of which functions can be computed by a Turing machine; the undecidability of the halting problem is the load-bearing result behind LangSec arguments about parser safety."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936. - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene 1936. - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] — Kleene 1943, arithmetical hierarchy. - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] — Post 1944."}],"tf":{"1936":2,"1943":1,"1944":1,"a":1,"about":1,"an":1,"and":2,"arguments":1,"arithmetical":1,"be":1,"bearing":1,"behind":1,"buffer":1,"by":1,"can":1,"chomsky":1,"church":1,"computability":1,"computed":1,"decision":1,"elementary":1,"enumerable":1,"exploit":1,"from":1,"functions":2,"general":1,"halting":2,"hierarchy":2,"in":1,"insecurity":1,"integers":1,"is":1,"kleene":2,"langsec":1,"load":1,"machine":1,"machines":1,"natural":1,"network":1,"number":1,"numbers":1,"of":6,"overflows":1,"parser":1,"positive":1,"post":1,"predicates":1,"problem":2,"problems":2,"programming":1,"quantifiers":1,"recursive":2,"recursively":1,"result":1,"safety":1,"sets":1,"stack":1,"the":4,"their":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":1,"turing":1,"undecidability":1,"unsolvable":1,"vault":1,"weird":1,"which":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Principle of Least Authority","s":"concepts/principle-of-least-authority","secs":[{"h":"Principle of Least Authority (POLA)","l":1,"t":"Design principle: each component should be granted only the authority it needs to do its job, no more. Capability security operationalises POLA; ACL systems tend to violate it by default."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Object Capability Security]] - [[Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"and":1,"authority":2,"be":1,"by":1,"capability":4,"component":1,"default":1,"design":1,"distributed":1,"do":1,"each":1,"granted":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"it":2,"its":1,"job":1,"least":1,"more":1,"needs":1,"no":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"of":2,"only":1,"operationalises":1,"pola":2,"principle":2,"security":4,"should":1,"spritely":1,"systems":1,"tend":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"violate":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Eliza","s":"concepts/eliza","secs":[{"h":"Eliza","l":1,"t":"Weizenbaum's 1966 pattern-matching chatbot simulating a Rogerian psychotherapist using keyword-driven reflection templates. The prototype case for surface-only conversational agents and the origin of the \"Eliza effect\" — human overattribution of understanding to simple systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[Social Chatbots]]"}],"tf":{"1966":1,"a":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"case":1,"chatbot":1,"chatbots":2,"conversational":1,"driven":1,"effect":1,"eliza":3,"for":1,"from":1,"human":1,"in":1,"keyword":1,"matching":1,"of":2,"only":1,"origin":1,"overattribution":1,"pattern":1,"prototype":1,"psychotherapist":1,"reflection":1,"rogerian":1,"s":1,"simple":1,"simulating":1,"social":2,"surface":1,"systems":1,"templates":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":2,"understanding":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"weizenbaum":1,"xiaoice":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Grounding","s":"concepts/grounding","secs":[{"h":"Grounding","l":1,"t":"The problem of connecting symbols used in communication to their sensorimotor referents in the world. In Steels's language-game experiments grounding is operationalised as agents converging on associations between word forms and perceptual categories via repeated interaction."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]] - [[Language Games]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"and":1,"as":1,"associations":1,"autonomous":1,"between":1,"categories":1,"communication":1,"connecting":1,"converging":1,"experiments":1,"for":1,"forms":1,"game":1,"games":2,"grounding":3,"in":4,"interaction":1,"is":1,"language":3,"of":1,"on":1,"operationalised":1,"perceptual":1,"problem":2,"referents":1,"repeated":1,"robots":1,"s":1,"sensorimotor":1,"steels":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"word":1,"world":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Vocabulary Size Penalty","s":"concepts/vocabulary-size-penalty","secs":[{"h":"Vocabulary Size Penalty","l":1,"t":"A Dirichlet-process-inspired regulariser in Mordatch & Abbeel's emergent-language setup that penalises usage of rarely-seen symbols, pushing agents toward compact, reusable vocabularies and thereby encouraging compositional rather than holistic encodings."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Compositionality]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abbeel":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"communication":1,"compact":1,"compositional":2,"compositionality":1,"dirichlet":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"encodings":1,"encouraging":1,"grounded":1,"holistic":1,"in":3,"inspired":1,"language":2,"mordatch":1,"multi":1,"of":2,"penalises":1,"penalty":1,"populations":1,"process":1,"pushing":1,"rarely":1,"rather":1,"regulariser":1,"reusable":1,"s":1,"seen":1,"setup":1,"size":1,"symbols":1,"than":1,"that":1,"thereby":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"usage":1,"vault":1,"vocabularies":1,"vocabulary":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Specification Completeness","s":"concepts/specification-completeness","secs":[{"h":"Specification Completeness","l":1,"t":"Property of a specification w.r.t. a code-under-test: the spec discriminates — it rejects incorrect implementations; measured via mutation testing when no oracle is available."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"available":1,"challenge":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"completeness":1,"discriminates":1,"for":1,"formalization":1,"grand":1,"implementations":1,"in":1,"incorrect":1,"intent":1,"is":1,"it":1,"measured":1,"mutation":1,"no":1,"of":1,"oracle":1,"property":1,"r":1,"rejects":1,"reliable":1,"spec":1,"specification":2,"t":1,"test":1,"testing":1,"the":1,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"w":1,"when":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Potential Games","s":"concepts/potential-games","secs":[{"h":"Potential Games","l":1,"t":"A class of games in which player incentives can be summarised by a single potential function whose change under a unilateral deviation equals that player's utility change. Convenient for analysing convergence and resilience of multi-agent learning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Price of Anarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":1,"analysing":1,"anarchy":1,"and":1,"are":1,"be":1,"by":1,"can":1,"change":2,"class":1,"communication":1,"convenient":1,"convergence":1,"deviation":1,"equals":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"function":1,"games":2,"in":2,"incentives":1,"learning":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"of":3,"player":2,"potential":2,"price":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"s":1,"single":1,"summarised":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"under":1,"unilateral":1,"utility":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Referential Games","s":"concepts/referential-games","secs":[{"h":"Referential Games","l":1,"t":"Lewis-style signalling game in which a speaker must refer to a target among distractors using a shared codebook — standard testbed for emergent communication."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":2,"among":1,"and":1,"codebook":1,"communication":1,"compositional":1,"cooperation":1,"distractors":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":1,"for":1,"game":1,"games":1,"grounded":1,"in":3,"language":2,"lewis":1,"multi":2,"must":1,"natural":1,"of":2,"populations":1,"refer":1,"referential":1,"shared":1,"signalling":1,"speaker":1,"standard":1,"style":1,"target":1,"testbed":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Lambda Calculus","s":"concepts/lambda-calculus","secs":[{"h":"Lambda Calculus","l":1,"t":"A formal system introduced by Church that expresses computation via function abstraction and application. It serves as a foundational model of computation and the theoretical basis for functional programming languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, the λ-calculus applied to the Entscheidungsproblem."}],"tf":{"1936":1,"a":2,"abstraction":1,"an":1,"and":2,"application":1,"applied":1,"as":1,"basis":1,"by":1,"calculus":3,"church":2,"computation":2,"elementary":1,"entscheidungsproblem":1,"expresses":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"foundational":1,"function":1,"functional":1,"in":1,"introduced":1,"it":1,"kernel":1,"lambda":2,"languages":1,"model":1,"number":1,"of":2,"problem":1,"programming":1,"security":1,"serves":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unsolvable":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"λ":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"TOTE Loop","s":"concepts/tote-loop","secs":[{"h":"TOTE Loop","l":1,"t":"Miller, Galanter and Pribram's Test-Operate-Test-Exit cycle: a basic cognitive control structure in which a system compares state to a goal (Test), acts to reduce the discrepancy (Operate), re-tests, and exits on match. Levin uses it as a primitive for building up scale-free cognition."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]]"}],"tf":{"a":5,"acts":1,"and":2,"as":1,"basic":1,"boundary":1,"building":1,"cognition":1,"cognitive":1,"compares":1,"computational":1,"control":1,"cycle":1,"discrepancy":1,"exit":1,"exits":1,"for":1,"free":1,"galanter":1,"goal":1,"in":2,"it":1,"levin":1,"loop":2,"match":1,"metacognitive":1,"miller":1,"of":1,"on":1,"operate":2,"pribram":1,"primitive":1,"re":1,"reduce":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"self":1,"state":1,"structure":1,"system":1,"test":3,"tests":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"tote":1,"up":1,"uses":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Context-Free Grammars","s":"concepts/context-free-grammars","secs":[{"h":"Context-Free Grammars","l":1,"t":"A class of formal grammars in which each production rewrites a single non-terminal independent of context. Chomsky showed they are strictly more expressive than finite-state grammars but insufficient to fully capture natural language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"are":1,"but":1,"capture":1,"chomsky":2,"class":1,"context":2,"description":1,"each":1,"expressive":1,"finite":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"free":1,"fully":1,"grammars":3,"hierarchy":1,"in":2,"independent":1,"insufficient":1,"language":2,"models":1,"more":1,"natural":1,"non":1,"of":3,"production":1,"rewrites":1,"showed":1,"single":1,"state":1,"strictly":1,"terminal":1,"than":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"three":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":67,"n":"Distributed Optimization","s":"concepts/distributed-optimization","secs":[{"h":"Distributed Optimization","l":1,"t":"The problem of jointly minimising a global objective (often a sum of per-agent local costs) using only local computation and peer-to-peer messages. Standard tools include potential games, gradient consensus, and best-response dynamics; the class is sensitive to communication failures in ways formalised by Gopalakrishnan et al."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Best-Response Dynamics]] - [[Nash Equilibrium]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"al":1,"and":2,"are":1,"best":2,"by":1,"class":1,"communication":2,"computation":1,"consensus":1,"costs":1,"distributed":1,"dynamics":2,"equilibrium":1,"et":1,"failures":2,"formalised":1,"games":1,"global":1,"gopalakrishnan":1,"gradient":1,"in":2,"include":1,"is":1,"jointly":1,"local":2,"messages":1,"minimising":1,"multiagent":1,"nash":1,"objective":1,"of":2,"often":1,"only":1,"optimization":1,"peer":2,"per":1,"potential":1,"problem":1,"resilient":1,"response":2,"sensitive":1,"standard":1,"sum":1,"systems":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":3,"tools":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"ways":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Inductive Inference","s":"concepts/inductive-inference","secs":[{"h":"Inductive Inference","l":1,"t":"The problem of selecting a hypothesis (typically a program or distribution) that explains observed data and extrapolates to unseen cases. Solomonoff's algorithmic formalisation grounds it in a universal prior weighted by Kolmogorov complexity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]] - [[Minimum Description Length]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"algorithmic":2,"and":1,"by":1,"cases":1,"complexity":2,"data":1,"description":1,"distribution":1,"explains":1,"extrapolates":1,"formalisation":1,"grounds":1,"grunwald":1,"hypothesis":1,"in":2,"inductive":1,"inference":1,"information":1,"it":1,"kolmogorov":2,"length":1,"minimum":1,"observed":1,"of":1,"or":1,"prior":1,"problem":1,"program":1,"s":1,"selecting":1,"solomonoff":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typically":1,"universal":1,"unseen":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"weighted":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Common Sense Database","s":"concepts/common-sense-database","secs":[{"h":"Common Sense Database","l":1,"t":"A proposed machine-readable repository of everyday knowledge — the practical payload of McCarthy's research programme; partially realised by Cyc and later ConceptNet."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"by":1,"common":2,"conceptnet":1,"cyc":1,"database":1,"everyday":1,"generality":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"knowledge":2,"later":1,"machine":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":2,"partially":1,"payload":1,"practical":1,"programme":1,"proposed":1,"readable":1,"realised":1,"reasoning":1,"repository":1,"representation":1,"research":1,"s":1,"sense":2,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Coordination Kernel","s":"concepts/coordination-kernel","secs":[{"h":"Coordination Kernel","l":1,"t":"A minimal, extensible runtime that provides core primitives for coordinating distributed processes, atop which richer coordination abstractions (tuple spaces, channels, workflows) can be layered."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstractions":1,"atop":1,"be":1,"can":1,"channels":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":3,"core":1,"distributed":2,"extensible":2,"for":1,"in":1,"kernel":1,"layered":1,"minimal":1,"primitives":1,"processes":1,"provides":1,"richer":1,"runtime":1,"spaces":1,"that":1,"this":1,"tuple":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"workflows":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Conversation-turns Per Session (CPS)","s":"concepts/conversation-turns-per-session-(cps)","secs":[{"h":"Conversation-turns Per Session (CPS)","l":1,"t":"Microsoft's design metric for social chatbots: the average number of user-bot turns within a single conversation session. CPS is used as a long-horizon engagement proxy that discourages terse, task-only optimisation in favour of sustained dialogue."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"as":1,"average":1,"bot":1,"chatbots":2,"conversation":2,"cps":2,"design":1,"dialogue":1,"discourages":1,"eliza":1,"engagement":1,"favour":1,"for":1,"from":1,"horizon":1,"in":2,"is":1,"long":1,"metric":1,"microsoft":1,"number":1,"of":2,"only":1,"optimisation":1,"per":1,"proxy":1,"s":1,"session":2,"single":1,"social":2,"sustained":1,"task":1,"terse":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"turns":2,"used":1,"user":1,"vault":1,"within":1,"xiaoice":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"PASSI Methodology","s":"concepts/passi-methodology","secs":[{"h":"PASSI Methodology","l":1,"t":"Process for Agent Societies Specification and Implementation — an iterative UML-based methodology (Cossentino) for designing multi-agent systems across five models (system requirements, agent society, agent implementation, code, deployment). Referenced as a design-pattern lens in Semantic Description for Agent Design Patterns."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agent":7,"an":1,"and":1,"as":1,"based":1,"code":1,"cossentino":1,"deployment":1,"description":2,"design":3,"designing":1,"five":1,"for":4,"implementation":2,"in":2,"iterative":1,"lens":1,"methodology":2,"models":1,"multi":2,"passi":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":2,"process":1,"referenced":1,"requirements":1,"semantic":2,"societies":1,"society":1,"specification":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"this":1,"uml":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Rational Effect","s":"concepts/rational-effect","secs":[{"h":"Rational Effect","l":1,"t":"In FIPA-ACL, the effect a sender of a communicative act intends to bring about in the recipient (e.g. that the hearer come to believe a proposition). Because it concerns private mental state it is unverifiable, and is the principal target of critiques that call for grounded or social semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"about":1,"acl":2,"act":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"because":1,"believe":1,"bring":1,"call":1,"come":1,"communication":1,"communicative":1,"concerns":1,"critiques":1,"e":1,"effect":2,"fipa":2,"for":1,"g":1,"grounded":1,"hearer":1,"in":4,"intends":1,"is":2,"it":2,"language":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"of":2,"or":1,"principal":1,"private":1,"proposition":1,"rational":1,"recipient":1,"semantics":2,"sender":1,"social":1,"state":1,"target":1,"that":2,"the":4,"this":1,"to":2,"trends":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Trojan Tools","s":"concepts/trojan-tools","secs":[{"h":"Trojan Tools","l":1,"t":"Malicious third-party tools that present themselves as benign utilities but, when invoked by an LLM agent, exfiltrate data, escalate privileges or hijack the agent's plan. They are a principal threat vector in the emerging MCP tool ecosystem."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Tool Use]] - [[Prompt Injection]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"are":1,"as":1,"attacks":1,"benign":1,"but":1,"by":1,"data":1,"ecosystem":1,"emerging":1,"escalate":1,"exfiltrate":1,"hijack":1,"in":2,"injection":1,"invoked":1,"llm":1,"malicious":2,"maltool":1,"mcp":1,"or":1,"party":1,"plan":1,"present":1,"principal":1,"privileges":1,"prompt":1,"s":1,"that":1,"the":2,"themselves":1,"they":1,"third":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"tool":3,"tools":2,"trojan":1,"use":1,"utilities":1,"vault":1,"vector":1,"when":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Lexical Scope","s":"concepts/lexical-scope","secs":[{"h":"Lexical Scope","l":1,"t":"The binding rule in which a name's referent is determined by its textual surroundings at definition time, providing the closure discipline that underpins capability-based security in lambda-calculus-style kernels."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"at":1,"based":1,"binding":1,"by":1,"calculus":2,"capability":2,"closure":1,"definition":1,"determined":1,"discipline":1,"in":3,"is":1,"its":1,"kernel":1,"kernels":1,"lambda":2,"lexical":1,"name":1,"providing":1,"referent":1,"rule":1,"s":1,"scope":1,"security":3,"style":1,"surroundings":1,"textual":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"time":1,"underpins":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Is-a Hierarchy","s":"concepts/is-a-hierarchy","secs":[{"h":"Is-a Hierarchy","l":1,"t":"Taxonomy of class/subclass relations (bird→animal, sparrow→bird) — basic KR device used throughout common-sense AI and ontology engineering."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"animal":1,"applications":1,"basic":1,"bird":2,"circumscription":1,"class":1,"common":2,"device":1,"engineering":1,"formalizing":1,"hierarchy":1,"in":1,"is":1,"knowledge":2,"kr":1,"of":1,"ontology":1,"relations":1,"representation":1,"sense":2,"sparrow":1,"subclass":1,"taxonomy":1,"this":1,"throughout":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Advice Taker","s":"concepts/advice-taker","secs":[{"h":"Advice Taker","l":1,"t":"McCarthy 1959: proposed program that accepts *advice* — declarative statements about goals and actions — and reasons logically to derive new actions. Never fully built but set KR's agenda."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Declarative Knowledge]] - [[Logicist AI]]"}],"tf":{"1959":1,"about":1,"accepts":1,"actions":2,"advice":2,"agenda":1,"ai":1,"and":2,"built":1,"but":1,"common":1,"declarative":2,"derive":1,"fully":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"knowledge":1,"kr":1,"logically":1,"logicist":1,"mccarthy":1,"never":1,"new":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"proposed":1,"reasons":1,"s":1,"sense":1,"set":1,"statements":1,"taker":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Weighted Relation","s":"concepts/weighted-relation","secs":[{"h":"Weighted Relation","l":1,"t":"An edge in an agent network annotated with a learned scalar (e.g., a Q-value or trust score) that encodes the strength or utility of the inter-agent link and is updated online to drive self-organisation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":3,"an":3,"and":1,"annotated":1,"composite":1,"drive":1,"e":1,"edge":1,"encodes":1,"g":1,"in":3,"inter":1,"is":1,"learned":1,"link":1,"mechanism":1,"network":2,"of":1,"online":1,"or":2,"organisation":2,"q":1,"relation":1,"scalar":1,"score":1,"self":2,"strength":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":1,"updated":1,"utility":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"weighted":1,"with":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Convergent Gossip","s":"concepts/convergent-gossip","secs":[{"h":"Convergent Gossip","l":1,"t":"A class of gossip protocols in which pairwise state exchange drives every node's local estimate toward a common value (typically an average or quantile). Variance decays geometrically in the number of rounds under mild connectivity assumptions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":1,"an":1,"assumptions":1,"average":1,"based":1,"class":1,"common":1,"computation":1,"connectivity":1,"convergent":1,"decays":1,"distributed":1,"drives":1,"estimate":1,"every":1,"exchange":1,"geometrically":1,"gossip":4,"gossiping":1,"in":4,"information":1,"local":1,"mild":1,"node":1,"number":1,"of":3,"or":1,"pairwise":1,"protocols":2,"quantile":1,"rounds":1,"s":1,"state":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"typically":1,"under":1,"value":1,"variance":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"agent_jump","s":"concepts/agent_jump","secs":[{"h":"agent_jump","l":1,"t":"The single Agent Tcl primitive that transparently migrates an executing agent to a named host, capturing the complete interpreter state (stack, frames, variables) and restoring it on the destination."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[Mobile Agent]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":1,"capturing":1,"complete":1,"destination":1,"executing":1,"flexible":1,"frames":1,"host":1,"in":1,"interpreter":1,"it":1,"jump":1,"migrates":1,"mobile":2,"named":1,"on":1,"primitive":1,"restoring":1,"secure":1,"single":1,"stack":1,"state":1,"tcl":2,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"transparently":1,"variables":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":106,"n":"Halting Problem","s":"concepts/halting-problem","secs":[{"h":"Halting Problem","l":1,"t":"Turing's theorem that no algorithm can decide, for every program-input pair, whether execution terminates. Sassaman et al. invoke it to argue that recognising arbitrary network inputs is equivalently undecidable, so protocols must be restricted to decidable (ideally regular or context-free) languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, the co-originating undecidability result (Entscheidungsproblem). - [[Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and Their Decision Problems]] — Post 1944, foundational treatment of unsolvability and degrees. - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene 1936, the recursive-function framing equivalent to Turing/Church."}],"tf":{"1936":2,"1944":1,"al":1,"algorithm":1,"an":1,"and":2,"arbitrary":1,"argue":1,"be":1,"can":1,"church":2,"co":1,"context":1,"decidable":1,"decide":1,"decision":1,"degrees":1,"elementary":1,"entscheidungsproblem":1,"enumerable":1,"equivalent":1,"equivalently":1,"et":1,"every":1,"execution":1,"for":1,"foundational":1,"framing":1,"free":1,"function":1,"functions":1,"general":1,"halting":2,"ideally":1,"in":1,"input":1,"inputs":1,"insecurity":1,"integers":1,"invoke":1,"is":1,"it":1,"kleene":1,"langsec":1,"languages":1,"must":1,"natural":1,"network":2,"no":1,"number":1,"numbers":1,"of":5,"or":1,"originating":1,"pair":1,"positive":1,"post":1,"problem":2,"problems":2,"program":1,"protocols":1,"recognising":1,"recursive":2,"recursively":1,"regular":1,"restricted":1,"result":1,"s":1,"sassaman":1,"sets":1,"so":1,"stack":1,"terminates":1,"that":2,"the":3,"their":1,"theorem":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":3,"treatment":1,"turing":2,"undecidability":1,"undecidable":1,"unsolvability":1,"unsolvable":1,"vault":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"LLM-as-judge","s":"concepts/llm-as-judge","secs":[{"h":"LLM-as-judge","l":1,"t":"An evaluation pattern in which a language model scores or labels outputs (sometimes from other LLMs), used to scale grading of failure modes or task success but subject to its own biases and calibration issues."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":1,"as":1,"biases":1,"but":1,"calibration":1,"do":1,"evaluation":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"from":1,"grading":1,"in":2,"issues":1,"its":1,"judge":1,"labels":1,"language":1,"llm":2,"llms":1,"model":1,"modes":1,"multi":1,"of":1,"or":2,"other":1,"outputs":1,"own":1,"pattern":1,"scale":1,"scores":1,"sometimes":1,"subject":1,"success":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"this":1,"to":2,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"why":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Design Stance","s":"concepts/design-stance","secs":[{"h":"Design Stance","l":1,"t":"Dennett: an intentional stance that treats a system's structure as *designed to do* something and derives predictions from the design. McCarthy adopts this (rather than the naturalistic philosophical stance) when importing speech acts into programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Intentional Stance]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"acts":2,"adopts":1,"an":1,"and":1,"as":1,"ascribing":1,"based":1,"dennett":1,"derives":1,"design":2,"designed":1,"do":1,"elephant":1,"from":1,"importing":1,"in":1,"intentional":2,"into":1,"language":1,"machines":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":1,"naturalistic":1,"on":1,"philosophical":1,"predictions":1,"programming":2,"qualities":1,"rather":1,"s":1,"something":1,"speech":2,"stance":4,"structure":1,"system":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":2,"to":2,"treats":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"AgentCards","s":"concepts/agentcards","secs":[{"h":"AgentCards","l":1,"t":"Self-describing JSON documents in Google's A2A protocol declaring an agent's identity, capabilities, and supported interaction modalities — pure Claim-trust without external endorsement."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"a2a":1,"agent":4,"agentcards":1,"an":1,"and":1,"capabilities":1,"claim":1,"comparative":1,"declaring":1,"describing":1,"documents":1,"endorsement":1,"external":1,"google":1,"identity":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"interaction":1,"json":1,"modalities":1,"models":1,"protocol":2,"pure":1,"s":2,"self":1,"study":1,"supported":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":2,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Communication Structure","s":"concepts/communication-structure","secs":[{"h":"Communication Structure","l":1,"t":"Conway's term for the graph of who-talks-to-whom inside a designing organisation. His \"law\" holds that the communication structure of the builders is mirrored in the module structure of the artefact they produce."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"artefact":1,"builders":1,"committees":1,"communication":2,"conway":1,"coordination":1,"designing":1,"do":1,"for":1,"graph":1,"his":1,"holds":1,"how":1,"in":2,"inside":1,"invent":1,"is":1,"law":1,"mirrored":1,"module":1,"of":3,"organisation":1,"produce":1,"s":1,"structure":3,"talks":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":5,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"who":1,"whom":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"EDI","s":"concepts/edi","secs":[{"h":"EDI","l":1,"t":"Electronic Data Interchange: pre-Internet B2B standards (ANSI X12, UN/EDIFACT) for structured exchange of purchase orders, invoices, shipping notices between enterprises. A direct ancestor of agent communication languages in the narrow domain of commercial transactions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"ancestor":1,"ansi":1,"b2b":1,"between":1,"business":1,"commercial":1,"common":1,"communication":3,"data":1,"direct":1,"domain":1,"edi":1,"edifact":1,"electronic":1,"enterprises":1,"exchange":1,"for":1,"in":2,"interchange":1,"internet":1,"invoices":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"narrow":1,"notices":1,"of":3,"orders":1,"pre":1,"purchase":1,"shipping":1,"standards":1,"structured":1,"the":1,"this":1,"transactions":1,"un":1,"vault":1,"x12":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Mnesia","s":"concepts/mnesia","secs":[{"h":"Mnesia","l":1,"t":"Erlang's built-in distributed database: a transactional, in-memory-plus-disk key-value/relational store that stores native Erlang terms and integrates with the language's concurrency model. Part of the OTP platform."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"built":1,"concurrency":1,"database":1,"disk":1,"distributed":1,"edition":1,"erlang":3,"in":3,"integrates":1,"key":1,"language":1,"memory":1,"mnesia":1,"model":1,"native":1,"of":1,"otp":1,"part":1,"platform":1,"plus":1,"programming":1,"relational":1,"s":2,"second":1,"store":1,"stores":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transactional":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Hoare Logic","s":"concepts/hoare-logic","secs":[{"h":"Hoare Logic","l":1,"t":"Axiomatic program-verification system based on Hoare triples {P}C{Q}; direct descendant of Floyd's edge-assertion method."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"assertion":1,"assigning":1,"axiomatic":1,"based":1,"c":1,"descendant":1,"direct":1,"edge":1,"floyd":1,"formal":1,"hoare":2,"in":1,"logic":1,"meanings":1,"method":1,"of":1,"on":1,"p":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"q":1,"s":1,"system":1,"this":1,"to":1,"triples":1,"vault":1,"verification":2}},{"dl":31,"n":"Uniframes","s":"concepts/uniframes","secs":[{"h":"Uniframes","l":1,"t":"Minsky's anti-classical theory of concepts: concepts are unified by their accommodation of *exceptions*, not by necessary-and-sufficient conditions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Exception Principle]]"}],"tf":{"accommodation":1,"and":1,"anti":1,"are":1,"by":2,"classical":1,"concepts":2,"conditions":1,"exception":1,"exceptions":1,"in":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"necessary":1,"not":1,"of":3,"principle":1,"s":1,"society":1,"sufficient":1,"the":1,"their":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"unified":1,"uniframes":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Semantic Gap","s":"concepts/semantic-gap","secs":[{"h":"Semantic Gap","l":1,"t":"The discrepancy between a smart-contract's high-level intent (as understood by its authors) and its low-level EVM behaviour, where subtle bytecode semantics enable exploits invisible at the source level."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"as":1,"at":1,"authors":1,"behaviour":1,"between":1,"by":1,"bytecode":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"discrepancy":1,"enable":1,"evm":1,"exploits":1,"gap":1,"high":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"invisible":1,"its":2,"level":3,"low":1,"making":1,"s":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"source":1,"subtle":1,"the":2,"this":1,"understood":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Skill Supply Chain Attack","s":"concepts/skill-supply-chain-attack","secs":[{"h":"Skill Supply Chain Attack","l":1,"t":"Attack compromising the packages, plugins, or tool descriptions that agents load — exploits the same trust assumptions as traditional software supply-chain attacks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"as":1,"assumptions":1,"attack":2,"attacks":3,"chain":2,"clawworm":1,"compromising":1,"descriptions":1,"ecosystems":1,"exploits":1,"in":1,"llm":1,"load":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"or":1,"packages":1,"plugins":1,"propagating":1,"same":1,"self":1,"skill":1,"software":1,"supply":2,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tool":2,"traditional":1,"trust":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Dezert-Smarandache Theory","s":"concepts/dezert-smarandache-theory","secs":[{"h":"Dezert-Smarandache Theory","l":1,"t":"A generalisation of Dempster-Shafer evidence combination (DSmT) that handles paradoxical, conflicting, and overlapping hypotheses by operating on the hyper-power-set of a frame of discernment. Used to fuse direct experience with neighbour opinions in self-organising agent networks where trust signals may contradict."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Trust Fusion]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":2,"by":1,"combination":1,"composite":1,"conflicting":1,"contradict":1,"dempster":1,"dezert":1,"direct":1,"discernment":1,"dsmt":1,"evidence":1,"experience":1,"frame":1,"fuse":1,"fusion":1,"generalisation":1,"handles":1,"hyper":1,"hypotheses":1,"in":3,"may":1,"mechanism":1,"neighbour":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":3,"on":1,"operating":1,"opinions":1,"organisation":1,"organising":1,"overlapping":1,"paradoxical":1,"power":1,"reputation":1,"self":2,"set":1,"shafer":1,"signals":1,"smarandache":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":3,"used":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"with":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Attack Surface Taxonomy","s":"concepts/attack-surface-taxonomy","secs":[{"h":"Attack Surface Taxonomy","l":1,"t":"Systematic classification of an agentic system's attack surface along perception, brain, action, and agent-to-{agent,environment,memory} axes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"agent":2,"agentic":2,"agents":1,"ai":2,"along":1,"an":1,"and":1,"attack":3,"axes":1,"brain":1,"classification":1,"environment":1,"in":1,"memory":1,"of":2,"perception":1,"s":1,"sok":1,"surface":3,"system":1,"systematic":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"to":1,"under":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Redundancy","s":"concepts/redundancy","secs":[{"h":"Redundancy","l":1,"t":"The inclusion of more information or components than the minimum needed to perform a function, so that failures can be detected and masked. Von Neumann's theory of reliable computation from unreliable components shows how graceful redundancy yields arbitrarily reliable automata."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] - [[Natural vs Artificial Automata]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"arbitrarily":1,"artificial":1,"automata":3,"be":1,"can":1,"components":2,"computation":1,"detected":1,"failures":1,"from":1,"function":1,"graceful":1,"how":1,"in":1,"inclusion":1,"information":1,"masked":1,"minimum":1,"more":1,"natural":1,"needed":1,"neumann":1,"of":3,"or":1,"perform":1,"redundancy":2,"reliable":2,"reproducing":1,"s":1,"self":1,"shows":1,"so":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":1,"unreliable":1,"vault":1,"von":1,"vs":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Joint Intentions","s":"concepts/joint-intentions","secs":[{"h":"Joint Intentions","l":1,"t":"Cohen & Levesque's theory of teamwork: joint persistent goals with mutual belief commitments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"and":1,"belief":1,"cohen":1,"commitments":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intentions":1,"joint":2,"levesque":1,"multiagent":1,"mutual":1,"of":1,"persistent":1,"practice":1,"s":1,"sycara":1,"systems":1,"teamwork":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Knowing How vs Knowing That","s":"concepts/knowing-how-vs-knowing-that","secs":[{"h":"Knowing How vs Knowing That","l":1,"t":"Ryle's distinction between procedural ability and propositional knowledge; McCarthy & Hayes use it to separate action-formalism design concerns."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"ability":1,"action":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"between":1,"concerns":1,"design":1,"distinction":1,"formalism":1,"from":1,"hayes":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"it":1,"knowing":2,"knowledge":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":1,"philosophical":1,"problems":1,"procedural":1,"propositional":1,"ryle":1,"s":1,"separate":1,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"vs":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Gossip Framework","s":"concepts/gossip-framework","secs":[{"h":"Gossip Framework","l":1,"t":"An abstract specification of a gossip protocol in terms of three pluggable components — peer sampling, state exchange, and state update — so that concrete protocols (dissemination, aggregation, clustering) can be obtained by instantiating the slots."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"aggregation":1,"an":1,"and":1,"be":1,"by":1,"can":1,"clustering":1,"components":1,"concrete":1,"dissemination":1,"distributed":1,"exchange":1,"framework":1,"gossip":3,"gossiping":1,"in":3,"instantiating":1,"obtained":1,"of":2,"peer":2,"pluggable":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"sampling":2,"service":1,"slots":1,"so":1,"specification":1,"state":2,"systems":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"three":1,"update":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Termination Proof","s":"concepts/termination-proof","secs":[{"h":"Termination Proof","l":1,"t":"A formal demonstration that a program halts on all inputs of interest, typically via a well-founded measure that strictly decreases across iterations or recursive calls. Complements partial correctness to yield total correctness."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Verification Condition]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"across":1,"all":1,"assigning":1,"calls":1,"complements":1,"condition":1,"correctness":2,"decreases":1,"demonstration":1,"formal":1,"founded":1,"halts":1,"hoare":1,"in":1,"inputs":1,"interest":1,"iterations":1,"logic":1,"meanings":1,"measure":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"partial":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"proof":1,"recursive":1,"strictly":1,"termination":1,"that":2,"this":1,"to":2,"total":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"via":1,"well":1,"yield":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"XiaoIce","s":"concepts/xiaoice","secs":[{"h":"XiaoIce","l":1,"t":"Microsoft's social chatbot (launched 2014 in China; 100M+ users) built around the CPS metric, with an architecture comprising chat manager, core chat (retrieval + generation + personality + ethics filter), visual awareness, and domain skills. The flagship example of EQ-centric conversational design."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[Social Chatbots]] - [[Empathetic Response Generation]]"}],"tf":{"100m":1,"2014":1,"an":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"around":1,"awareness":1,"built":1,"centric":1,"chat":2,"chatbot":1,"chatbots":2,"china":1,"comprising":1,"conversational":1,"core":1,"cps":1,"design":1,"domain":1,"eliza":1,"empathetic":1,"eq":1,"ethics":1,"example":1,"filter":1,"flagship":1,"from":1,"generation":2,"in":2,"launched":1,"manager":1,"metric":1,"microsoft":1,"of":1,"personality":1,"response":1,"retrieval":1,"s":1,"skills":1,"social":3,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"visual":1,"with":1,"xiaoice":2}},{"dl":53,"n":"Matrix Communication Games","s":"concepts/matrix-communication-games","secs":[{"h":"Matrix Communication Games","l":1,"t":"Minimal two-player matrix games extended with an explicit communication channel, used by Lowe et al. as a testbed for causal analysis of emergent communication where spurious and genuine signalling can be analytically separated."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Causal Influence of Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"al":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"analytically":1,"and":1,"as":1,"be":1,"by":1,"can":1,"causal":2,"channel":1,"communication":6,"emergent":3,"et":1,"explicit":1,"extended":1,"for":1,"games":2,"genuine":1,"in":1,"influence":1,"lowe":1,"matrix":2,"measuring":1,"minimal":1,"of":3,"on":1,"pitfalls":1,"player":1,"separated":1,"signalling":1,"spurious":1,"testbed":1,"the":1,"this":1,"two":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"with":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Properties","s":"concepts/properties","secs":[{"h":"Properties","l":1,"t":"Declarative predicates over system behaviour — safety, liveness, non-interference — used to specify and verify agent interactions in data-driven coordination languages. Framing coordination in terms of properties supports compositional reasoning and automated checking."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":2,"automated":1,"behaviour":1,"checking":1,"compositional":1,"coordination":2,"data":2,"declarative":1,"driven":2,"formal":1,"framing":1,"in":4,"interaction":1,"interactions":1,"interference":1,"languages":2,"liveness":1,"non":1,"of":1,"over":1,"predicates":1,"properties":2,"reasoning":1,"safety":1,"secure":1,"specify":1,"supports":1,"system":1,"terms":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"verify":1}},{"dl":201,"n":"Code is Law","s":"concepts/code-is-law","secs":[{"h":"Code is Law","l":1,"t":"A slogan, originally from Lawrence Lessig's *Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace* (1999), picked up by the Ethereum and especially [[Ethereum Classic]] communities: smart-contract code, once deployed, *is* the governing law of the interactions it mediates. Whatever the deployed bytecode does is the correct, binding outcome — no off-chain appeal, no reinterpretation by a court, no fork to undo an unintended result. The principle was load-bearing in the ETH/ETC split over [[TheDAO]]: ETC took \"code is law\" literally and refused to fork to reverse the exploit; ETH treated the DAO attacker's outcome as a violation of intent and forked regardless. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] argues that \"code is law\" only makes moral sense if the *meaning* of the code is knowable — i.e., if there is an unambiguous executable semantics ([[KEVM]]), if languages don't hide implicit behaviour ([[Fallback Method]], [[Delegatecall]]), and if users have the tools ([[LangSec]], verification) to learn what a contract can actually do before they transact with it. Without those, \"code is law\" means \"the winner is whoever reads the bytecode better\" — which is a law, but not a legitimate one."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"ethereum #governance #smart-contracts","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1999":1,"a":6,"actually":1,"an":2,"and":5,"appeal":1,"argues":1,"as":1,"attacker":1,"bearing":1,"before":1,"behaviour":1,"better":1,"binding":1,"but":1,"by":2,"bytecode":2,"can":1,"chain":1,"classic":2,"code":7,"communities":1,"contract":2,"contracts":1,"correct":1,"court":1,"cyberspace":1,"dao":1,"delegatecall":1,"deployed":2,"do":1,"does":1,"don":1,"e":1,"especially":1,"etc":2,"eth":2,"ethereum":4,"executable":1,"exploit":1,"fallback":1,"fork":2,"forked":1,"from":1,"governance":1,"governing":1,"have":1,"hide":1,"house":1,"i":1,"if":4,"implicit":1,"in":2,"intent":1,"interactions":1,"is":10,"it":2,"kevm":1,"knowable":1,"langsec":2,"languages":1,"law":6,"lawrence":1,"laws":1,"learn":1,"legitimate":1,"lessig":1,"literally":1,"load":1,"makes":1,"meaning":1,"means":1,"mediates":1,"method":1,"moral":1,"no":3,"not":1,"of":4,"off":1,"on":1,"once":1,"one":1,"only":1,"originally":1,"other":1,"outcome":2,"over":1,"picked":1,"principle":1,"reads":1,"refused":1,"regardless":1,"reinterpretation":1,"result":1,"reverse":1,"rock":1,"s":2,"semantics":1,"sense":1,"slogan":1,"smart":2,"split":1,"t":1,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":14,"thedao":1,"there":1,"they":1,"those":1,"to":4,"took":1,"tools":1,"transact":1,"treated":1,"unambiguous":1,"undo":1,"unintended":1,"up":1,"users":1,"verification":1,"violation":1,"was":1,"what":1,"whatever":1,"which":1,"whoever":1,"winner":1,"with":1,"without":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Trust and Reputation","s":"concepts/trust-and-reputation","secs":[{"h":"Trust and Reputation","l":1,"t":"Computational models for assessing trustworthiness of agents. - [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]"},{"h":"Related","l":10,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":4,"ai":1,"and":3,"assessing":1,"attacks":1,"behaviour":1,"computational":2,"distributed":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":1,"for":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"llm":1,"logical":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"models":2,"multi":1,"of":1,"on":1,"related":1,"reputation":2,"review":1,"security":1,"systems":1,"threat":1,"tool":1,"trust":2,"trustworthiness":1,"trustworthy":1,"under":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Ontology Design Criteria","s":"concepts/ontology-design-criteria","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Design Criteria","l":1,"t":"Gruber's five criteria for good ontology design: clarity, coherence, extendibility, minimal encoding bias, and minimal ontological commitment. They trade off completeness against reusability and are the canonical guidance for portable ontology construction."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Conceptualization]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"against":1,"and":2,"are":1,"bias":1,"canonical":1,"clarity":1,"coherence":1,"commitment":1,"completeness":1,"conceptualization":1,"construction":1,"criteria":2,"design":2,"encoding":1,"extendibility":1,"five":1,"for":2,"good":1,"gruber":1,"guidance":1,"in":1,"minimal":2,"off":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontological":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":4,"portable":2,"reusability":1,"s":1,"specifications":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"trade":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":137,"n":"CRDTs","s":"concepts/crdts","secs":[{"h":"CRDTs","l":1,"t":"**Conflict-free Replicated Data Types** (Shapiro et al.) — data types whose operations commute, associate, and are idempotent, guaranteeing that replicas updated in any order converge to the same value. Each CRDT is an object-oriented packaging of a small monotonic state-merge lattice. From the **[[CALM Theorem]]** viewpoint, CRDTs are canonical monotonic building blocks: programs that stay within the CRDT abstraction are automatically coordination-free. They express a *partial* monotonic pattern — for end-to-end application consistency the program's *composition* of CRDTs also has to stay monotonic, which is the standing open problem the CALM paper highlights."},{"h":"Common examples","l":7,"t":"- G-Counter, PN-Counter - G-Set, 2P-Set, OR-Set, LWW-Set - LWW-Register, MV-Register - RGA (sequence CRDTs)"},{"h":"In this vault","l":13,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[Confluence]]"}],"tf":{"2p":1,"a":2,"abstraction":1,"al":1,"also":1,"an":1,"and":1,"any":1,"application":1,"are":3,"associate":1,"automatically":1,"avoidance":1,"blocks":1,"building":1,"calm":4,"canonical":1,"common":1,"commute":1,"composition":1,"conflict":1,"confluence":1,"consistency":2,"converge":1,"coordination":2,"counter":2,"crdt":2,"crdts":4,"data":2,"distributed":1,"each":1,"easy":1,"end":2,"et":1,"examples":1,"express":1,"for":1,"free":2,"from":1,"g":2,"guaranteeing":1,"has":1,"highlights":1,"idempotent":1,"in":2,"is":3,"keeping":1,"lattice":1,"logic":1,"lww":2,"merge":1,"monotonic":5,"mv":1,"object":1,"of":2,"open":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"order":1,"oriented":1,"packaging":1,"paper":1,"partial":1,"pattern":1,"pn":1,"problem":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"register":2,"replicas":1,"replicated":1,"rga":1,"s":1,"same":1,"sequence":1,"set":4,"shapiro":1,"small":1,"standing":1,"state":1,"stay":2,"that":2,"the":6,"theorem":2,"they":1,"this":1,"to":3,"types":2,"updated":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"viewpoint":1,"when":1,"which":1,"whose":1,"within":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"DSL","s":"concepts/dsl","secs":[{"h":"DSL","l":1,"t":"Domain-Specific Language — a (usually small) programming or specification language tailored to a particular problem domain, trading generality for notational fit and often implemented via embedding or a language workbench."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"and":1,"domain":3,"dsl":1,"embedding":1,"fit":1,"for":1,"generality":1,"implemented":1,"in":1,"language":5,"languages":1,"notational":1,"often":1,"or":2,"particular":1,"problem":1,"programming":1,"small":1,"specific":2,"specification":1,"spoofax":1,"tailored":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trading":1,"usually":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"workbench":2,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Closed World Assumption","s":"concepts/closed-world-assumption","secs":[{"h":"Closed World Assumption","l":1,"t":"The inference rule that any ground atom not entailed by the knowledge base is taken to be false. It is the default for logic-programming semantics and is what allows negation-as-failure, but it is unsound for open, distributed knowledge such as the Semantic Web."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[First-Order Logic]]"}],"tf":{"allows":1,"and":1,"any":1,"as":2,"assumption":1,"atom":1,"base":1,"be":1,"but":1,"by":1,"closed":1,"default":1,"distributed":1,"entailed":1,"failure":1,"false":1,"first":1,"for":2,"foundations":1,"ground":1,"in":1,"inference":1,"is":4,"it":2,"knowledge":2,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"negation":1,"not":1,"of":1,"open":1,"order":1,"programming":2,"rule":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"such":1,"taken":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"to":1,"unsound":1,"vault":1,"web":1,"what":1,"world":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Honesty Constraint","s":"concepts/honesty-constraint","secs":[{"h":"Honesty Constraint","l":1,"t":"Shoham's requirement in AGENT-0 that an agent only assert what it believes and only commit to what it intends — the foundational axiom that makes mentalistic ACL semantics meaningful."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"0":1,"acl":1,"agent":3,"an":1,"and":1,"assert":1,"axiom":1,"believes":1,"commit":1,"constraint":1,"foundational":1,"honesty":1,"in":2,"intends":1,"it":2,"makes":1,"meaningful":1,"mentalistic":2,"only":2,"oriented":1,"programming":1,"requirement":1,"s":1,"semantics":2,"shoham":1,"that":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"what":2}},{"dl":138,"n":"Fallback Method","s":"concepts/fallback-method","secs":[{"h":"Fallback Method","l":1,"t":"In Solidity, the unnamed function a contract invokes when it receives a call whose signature doesn't match any declared method (or when it receives plain Ether). Prior to Solidity 0.6 it was `function() { ... }`; since 0.6 it is split into `fallback()` and `receive()`. Fallback methods are a canonical Solidity foot-gun: they execute code on *every* unknown call, including calls from untrusted counterparties, and they run in a context where the caller's identity, the amount of Ether received, and the remaining gas are easy to misreason about. The DAO reentrancy exploit ([[TheDAO]]) and several Parity-wallet incidents ([[Parity Multisig]]) turned on fallback-method behaviour. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] cites the fallback method as a language design that hides implicit behaviour — the opposite of what a [[LangSec]] approach prescribes."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"solidity #smart-contracts #langsec","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"0":2,"6":2,"a":6,"about":1,"amount":1,"and":4,"any":1,"approach":1,"are":2,"as":1,"behaviour":2,"call":2,"caller":1,"calls":1,"canonical":1,"cites":1,"classic":1,"code":1,"context":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"counterparties":1,"dao":1,"declared":1,"design":1,"doesn":1,"easy":1,"ether":2,"ethereum":1,"every":1,"execute":1,"exploit":1,"fallback":4,"foot":1,"from":1,"function":1,"gas":1,"gun":1,"hides":1,"house":1,"identity":1,"implicit":1,"in":3,"incidents":1,"including":1,"into":1,"invokes":1,"is":1,"it":4,"langsec":3,"language":1,"match":1,"method":4,"methods":1,"misreason":1,"multisig":1,"of":2,"on":3,"opposite":1,"or":1,"parity":2,"plain":1,"prescribes":1,"prior":1,"received":1,"receives":2,"reentrancy":1,"remaining":1,"rock":1,"run":1,"s":1,"several":1,"signature":1,"since":1,"smart":1,"solidity":4,"split":1,"t":1,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":7,"thedao":1,"they":2,"to":2,"turned":1,"unknown":1,"unnamed":1,"untrusted":1,"wallet":1,"was":1,"what":1,"when":2,"where":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Six-Level EI Rating","s":"concepts/six-level-ei-rating","secs":[{"h":"Six-Level EI Rating","l":1,"t":"A taxonomy ranking edge-intelligence deployments by how much data and computation is offloaded off-device, from pure cloud (level 0) to fully on-device (level 6), used to compare latency, privacy, and bandwidth trade-offs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Edge Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"0":1,"6":1,"a":1,"and":2,"bandwidth":1,"by":1,"cloud":1,"compare":1,"computation":1,"data":1,"deployments":1,"device":2,"edge":3,"ei":1,"from":1,"fully":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intelligence":3,"is":1,"latency":1,"level":3,"much":1,"off":1,"offloaded":1,"offs":1,"on":1,"privacy":1,"pure":1,"ranking":1,"rating":1,"six":1,"survey":1,"taxonomy":1,"this":1,"to":2,"trade":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"Parser Differentials","s":"concepts/parser-differentials","secs":[{"h":"Parser Differentials","l":1,"t":"The security phenomenon (plural of parser differential) in which two implementations of the same format disagree on input interpretation, permitting an attacker to craft messages that parse one way to a validator and another way to a consumer. The structural flaw driving the PKI Layer Cake attacks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"an":1,"and":1,"another":1,"attacker":1,"attacks":1,"cake":2,"consumer":1,"craft":1,"differential":2,"differentials":1,"disagree":1,"driving":1,"flaw":1,"format":1,"implementations":1,"in":2,"input":1,"interpretation":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":1,"layer":2,"messages":1,"of":2,"on":1,"one":1,"parse":1,"parser":3,"patterson":1,"permitting":1,"phenomenon":1,"pki":2,"plural":1,"same":1,"sassaman":1,"security":1,"structural":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"to":3,"two":1,"validator":1,"vault":1,"way":2,"which":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Nested Beliefs","s":"concepts/nested-beliefs","secs":[{"h":"Nested Beliefs","l":1,"t":"Beliefs about beliefs (and about beliefs about beliefs…), required for agents to reason about what their interlocutors know, intend, or mean; central to mentalistic ACL semantics and linguistic-competence evolution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"about":4,"acl":1,"agents":1,"and":2,"automating":1,"beliefs":5,"central":1,"competence":2,"evolution":2,"for":1,"in":1,"intend":1,"interlocutors":1,"know":1,"linguistic":2,"mean":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"nested":1,"of":1,"or":1,"reason":1,"required":1,"semantics":1,"state":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"towards":1,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":110,"n":"Epistemia","s":"concepts/epistemia","secs":[{"h":"Epistemia","l":1,"t":"A structural condition in which **linguistic plausibility substitutes for epistemic evaluation** — coined in [[Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence]] (Quattrociocchi, Capraro & Perc 2025). Under Epistemia, a generative system produces answers that are syntactically well-formed, semantically fluent, and rhetorically convincing without instantiating the processes by which beliefs are normally formed, tested, or revised. The user experiences the possession of an answer without traversing the cognitive labour of judgment. Not reducible to [[Hallucination]], automation bias, or over-trust: Epistemia is an architectural phenomenon, not a user error. It persists even when systems are factually accurate — the harm is the structural bypassing of evaluation itself."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"epistemology #llm #judgment","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"2025":1,"a":3,"accurate":1,"an":2,"and":2,"answer":1,"answers":1,"architectural":1,"are":3,"artificial":1,"automation":1,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"bias":1,"by":1,"bypassing":1,"capraro":1,"cognitive":1,"coined":1,"condition":1,"convincing":1,"epistemia":3,"epistemic":1,"epistemological":1,"epistemology":1,"error":1,"evaluation":2,"even":1,"experiences":1,"factually":1,"fault":1,"fluent":1,"for":1,"formed":2,"generative":1,"hallucination":1,"harm":1,"human":1,"in":2,"instantiating":1,"intelligence":1,"is":2,"it":1,"itself":1,"judgment":2,"labour":1,"lines":1,"linguistic":1,"llm":1,"normally":1,"not":2,"of":3,"or":2,"over":1,"perc":1,"persists":1,"phenomenon":1,"plausibility":1,"possession":1,"processes":1,"produces":1,"quattrociocchi":1,"reducible":1,"revised":1,"rhetorically":1,"semantically":1,"structural":2,"substitutes":1,"syntactically":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"tested":1,"that":1,"the":6,"to":1,"traversing":1,"trust":1,"under":1,"user":2,"well":1,"when":1,"which":2,"without":2}},{"dl":42,"n":"Kernel Sentences","s":"concepts/kernel-sentences","secs":[{"h":"Kernel Sentences","l":1,"t":"In early transformational grammar, the minimal set of simple declarative sentences from which all other sentences are derived via transformations. Introduced in Chomsky's three-models analysis of natural language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]]"}],"tf":{"all":1,"analysis":1,"are":1,"chomsky":1,"declarative":1,"derived":1,"description":1,"early":1,"for":1,"from":1,"grammar":1,"in":3,"introduced":1,"kernel":1,"language":2,"minimal":1,"models":2,"natural":1,"of":3,"other":1,"s":1,"sentences":3,"set":1,"simple":1,"the":2,"this":1,"three":2,"transformational":1,"transformations":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"which":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Code Contracts","s":"concepts/code-contracts","secs":[{"h":"Code Contracts","l":1,"t":"Executable specifications (assertions, pre/postconditions, invariants) checked dynamically at runtime — middle of the intent-formalization spectrum."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"assertions":1,"at":1,"challenge":1,"checked":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"contracts":1,"dynamically":1,"executable":1,"for":1,"formalization":2,"grand":1,"hoare":1,"in":1,"intent":2,"invariants":1,"logic":1,"middle":1,"of":1,"postconditions":1,"pre":1,"reliable":1,"runtime":1,"specifications":1,"spectrum":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Metacognitive Loop","s":"concepts/metacognitive-loop","secs":[{"h":"Metacognitive Loop","l":1,"t":"Self-monitoring feedback loop in which an agent observes its own behaviour against expectations and revises."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"adaptive":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":2,"behaviour":2,"ensuring":1,"ethical":1,"expectations":1,"feedback":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"its":1,"logical":1,"loop":2,"metacognitive":1,"monitoring":1,"observes":1,"own":1,"revises":1,"self":2,"systems":1,"this":1,"trustworthy":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Data Processing","s":"concepts/data-processing","secs":[{"h":"Data Processing","l":1,"t":"In the Kermarrec–van Steen three-parameter gossip framework, the component of a gossip protocol that decides *what to do* with state received from a peer (overwrite, merge, aggregate, filter). Together with peer selection and data exchange, it parameterises the space of gossip protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Peer Selection]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":1,"and":1,"component":1,"data":2,"decides":1,"distributed":1,"do":1,"exchange":1,"filter":1,"framework":1,"from":1,"gossip":4,"gossiping":1,"in":3,"it":1,"kermarrec":1,"merge":1,"of":2,"overwrite":1,"parameter":1,"parameterises":1,"peer":3,"processing":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"received":1,"selection":2,"space":1,"state":1,"steen":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"three":1,"to":1,"together":1,"van":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"with":2}},{"dl":53,"n":"Homoiconicity","s":"concepts/homoiconicity","secs":[{"h":"Homoiconicity","l":1,"t":"Property of a language where program text has the same structure as the data it manipulates, so programs can read, transform, and emit programs as naturally as data."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Code as Data]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"as":5,"by":1,"can":1,"code":1,"computation":1,"data":3,"emit":1,"expressions":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"functions":1,"graham":1,"has":1,"homoiconicity":1,"in":1,"it":1,"language":3,"machine":1,"macros":1,"manipulates":1,"naturally":1,"of":2,"program":1,"programs":2,"property":1,"read":1,"recursive":1,"same":1,"so":1,"structure":1,"symbolic":1,"text":1,"the":3,"their":1,"this":1,"transform":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Aggregate Functions","s":"concepts/aggregate-functions","secs":[{"h":"Aggregate Functions","l":1,"t":"Global summary statistics over distributed values — sums, averages, counts, variances, quantiles — that gossip-based algorithms compute approximately via local peer-to-peer exchanges. Many aggregates reduce to sum/count ratios computable by Push-Sum, giving O(log n) convergence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Push-Sum]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"aggregate":2,"aggregates":1,"algorithms":1,"approximately":1,"averages":1,"based":2,"by":1,"computable":1,"computation":1,"compute":1,"convergence":1,"count":1,"counts":1,"distributed":1,"exchanges":1,"functions":1,"giving":1,"global":1,"gossip":3,"in":1,"information":1,"local":1,"log":1,"many":1,"n":1,"o":1,"of":1,"over":1,"peer":2,"protocols":1,"push":2,"quantiles":1,"ratios":1,"reduce":1,"statistics":1,"sum":3,"summary":1,"sums":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":2,"values":1,"variances":1,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Postel's Robustness Principle","s":"concepts/postel's-robustness-principle","secs":[{"h":"Postel's Robustness Principle","l":1,"t":"\"Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept.\" The maxim was intended to aid early Internet deployment but is now recognised — especially by LangSec — as a source of interoperability failures and security holes, because liberal parsers diverge on malformed inputs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Parser Differential]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accept":1,"aid":1,"and":1,"as":1,"be":2,"because":1,"but":1,"by":1,"cake":1,"conservative":1,"deployment":1,"differential":1,"diverge":1,"early":1,"especially":1,"failures":1,"holes":1,"in":3,"inputs":1,"intended":1,"internet":1,"interoperability":1,"is":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":2,"layer":1,"liberal":2,"malformed":1,"maxim":1,"now":1,"of":1,"on":1,"parser":1,"parsers":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"postel":1,"principle":1,"recognised":1,"robustness":1,"s":1,"sassaman":1,"security":1,"send":1,"source":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"was":1,"what":2,"you":2}},{"dl":37,"n":"Communications Processing","s":"concepts/communications-processing","secs":[{"h":"Communications Processing","l":1,"t":"Structured handling of messages exchanged between distributed language runtimes, including marshalling, authentication, decryption, and dispatch. A dedicated subsystem isolates transport and security concerns from application code."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"application":1,"authentication":1,"between":1,"code":1,"communications":2,"concerns":1,"decryption":1,"dedicated":1,"dispatch":1,"distributed":2,"exchanged":1,"for":1,"from":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"including":1,"isolates":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"marshalling":1,"messages":1,"of":1,"processing":2,"runtimes":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"structured":1,"subsystem":1,"this":1,"transport":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Tuple Spaces","s":"concepts/tuple-spaces","secs":[{"h":"Tuple Spaces","l":1,"t":"Linda-style associative shared memories where processes coordinate by inserting, reading, and removing typed tuples via pattern matching, decoupling producers and consumers in space and time."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Data-Driven Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"and":3,"associative":1,"by":1,"consumers":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":1,"data":2,"decoupling":1,"driven":2,"in":3,"inserting":1,"interaction":1,"languages":1,"linda":1,"matching":1,"memories":1,"pattern":1,"processes":1,"producers":1,"reading":1,"removing":1,"secure":1,"shared":1,"space":1,"spaces":1,"style":1,"this":1,"time":1,"tuple":1,"tuples":1,"typed":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"where":1}},{"dl":62,"n":"Runtime Verification","s":"concepts/runtime-verification","secs":[{"h":"Runtime Verification","l":1,"t":"A lightweight verification technique in which a monitor checks at execution time whether the observed trace of a system satisfies a formal specification, raising alarms or triggering recovery on violation. It complements model checking by handling systems too large or open for exhaustive analysis."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Trace Expressions]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"agents":1,"alarms":1,"analysis":1,"and":1,"at":1,"behaviour":1,"by":1,"checking":1,"checks":1,"complements":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":1,"execution":1,"exhaustive":1,"expressions":1,"for":1,"formal":2,"handling":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"it":1,"large":1,"lightweight":1,"logical":1,"model":1,"monitor":1,"observed":1,"of":1,"on":1,"open":1,"or":2,"raising":1,"recovery":1,"runtime":1,"satisfies":1,"specification":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"time":1,"too":1,"trace":2,"triggering":1,"trustworthy":1,"vault":1,"verification":3,"violation":1,"whether":1,"which":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Unsafe Action Rate","s":"concepts/unsafe-action-rate","secs":[{"h":"Unsafe Action Rate","l":1,"t":"Empirical metric: the fraction of agent actions that cross a declared safety policy during red-team evaluation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Red-Teaming LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"action":1,"actions":1,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"attack":1,"cross":1,"declared":1,"during":1,"empirical":1,"evaluation":1,"fraction":1,"in":1,"llm":1,"metric":1,"of":2,"policy":1,"rate":1,"red":2,"safety":1,"sok":1,"surface":1,"team":1,"teaming":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"unsafe":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":145,"n":"Ethereum Classic","s":"concepts/ethereum-classic","secs":[{"h":"Ethereum Classic","l":1,"t":"The chain that continued the original [[Ethereum]] ledger after the July 2016 hard-fork that reversed [[TheDAO]] attack. Ethereum Classic (ETC) rejected the \"bailout\" fork on the principle that \"code is law\" — the DAO attacker's exploit was valid under the deployed semantics, and rewriting history to undo it violated the property the system was meant to deliver. Ethereum (ETH) took the forked ledger; ETC retained the original. The community around ETC has since positioned itself as a venue for more conservative contract-language design and stronger formal-methods discipline. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] is Patterson's 2017 ETC Summit talk addressed to this community, urging adoption of [[KEVM]], a [[LangSec]] programming-language discipline, and verification tooling — the sort of infrastructure ETC's \"code is law\" principle ([[Code is Law]]) commits it to taking seriously."},{"h":"Tags","l":7,"t":""},{"h":"ethereum #blockchain #smart-contracts","l":8,"t":""}],"tf":{"2016":1,"2017":1,"a":2,"addressed":1,"adoption":1,"after":1,"and":3,"around":1,"as":1,"attack":1,"attacker":1,"bailout":1,"blockchain":1,"chain":1,"classic":3,"code":3,"commits":1,"community":2,"conservative":1,"continued":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"dao":1,"deliver":1,"deployed":1,"design":1,"discipline":2,"etc":5,"eth":1,"ethereum":6,"exploit":1,"for":1,"fork":2,"forked":1,"formal":1,"hard":1,"has":1,"history":1,"house":1,"in":1,"infrastructure":1,"is":4,"it":2,"itself":1,"july":1,"kevm":1,"langsec":2,"language":2,"law":3,"ledger":2,"meant":1,"methods":1,"more":1,"of":2,"on":2,"original":2,"patterson":1,"positioned":1,"principle":2,"programming":1,"property":1,"rejected":1,"retained":1,"reversed":1,"rewriting":1,"rock":1,"s":3,"semantics":1,"seriously":1,"since":1,"smart":1,"sort":1,"stronger":1,"summit":1,"system":1,"tags":1,"taking":1,"talk":1,"that":3,"the":13,"thedao":1,"this":1,"to":4,"took":1,"tooling":1,"under":1,"undo":1,"urging":1,"valid":1,"venue":1,"verification":1,"violated":1,"was":2}},{"dl":118,"n":"Reachability Analysis","s":"concepts/reachability-analysis","secs":[{"h":"Reachability Analysis","l":1,"t":"A family of [[Static Analysis]] techniques that decide (or approximate) whether a given program point or state is reachable from a given start state. In finite-state models (as in model checking), reachability is decidable; on arbitrary Turing-complete programs, reachability of an *arbitrary semantic condition* is undecidable ([[Rice's Theorem]]), so practical tools restrict to abstract domains or bounded horizons. Reachability analysis answers the foundational question of safety verification: \"can the program enter a bad state?\" For smart contracts, this includes \"can `selfdestruct` be invoked by an untrusted caller?\", \"can invariant X be violated?\", \"is this branch reachable?\". [[KEVM]] and similar executable-semantics tools enable reachability analysis over the EVM."},{"h":"Tags","l":7,"t":""},{"h":"verification #static-analysis #model-checking","l":8,"t":""}],"tf":{"a":4,"abstract":1,"an":2,"analysis":5,"and":1,"answers":1,"approximate":1,"arbitrary":2,"as":1,"bad":1,"be":2,"bounded":1,"branch":1,"by":1,"caller":1,"can":3,"checking":2,"complete":1,"condition":1,"contracts":1,"decidable":1,"decide":1,"domains":1,"enable":1,"enter":1,"evm":1,"executable":1,"family":1,"finite":1,"for":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"given":2,"horizons":1,"in":2,"includes":1,"invariant":1,"invoked":1,"is":4,"kevm":1,"model":2,"models":1,"of":3,"on":1,"or":3,"over":1,"point":1,"practical":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"question":1,"reachability":5,"reachable":2,"restrict":1,"rice":1,"s":1,"safety":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"similar":1,"smart":1,"so":1,"start":1,"state":4,"static":2,"tags":1,"techniques":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theorem":1,"this":2,"to":1,"tools":2,"turing":1,"undecidable":1,"untrusted":1,"verification":2,"violated":1,"whether":1,"x":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Hallucination","s":"concepts/hallucination","secs":[{"h":"Hallucination","l":1,"t":"An LLM-generated output that is fluent but factually unsupported; in agent settings, hallucinations propagate through tool calls and inter-agent messages and are a primary failure mode."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":2,"are":1,"but":1,"calls":1,"factually":1,"failure":1,"fluent":1,"generated":1,"hallucination":1,"hallucinations":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"is":1,"llm":2,"messages":1,"mode":1,"output":1,"primary":1,"propagate":1,"settings":1,"that":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"through":1,"tool":1,"under":1,"unsupported":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Correlational Knowledge","s":"concepts/correlational-knowledge","secs":[{"h":"Correlational Knowledge","l":1,"t":"Rosenschein: a machine state 'knows' p iff it correlates with p holding in the environment; sidesteps the representation question."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] - [[Epistemic Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"correlates":1,"correlational":1,"digital":1,"environment":1,"epistemic":2,"holding":1,"iff":1,"in":2,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"knows":1,"logic":1,"machine":1,"machines":1,"of":1,"p":2,"properties":1,"provable":1,"question":1,"representation":1,"rosenschein":1,"sidesteps":1,"state":1,"synthesis":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":2}},{"dl":33,"n":"Abnormality Predicate","s":"concepts/abnormality-predicate","secs":[{"h":"Abnormality Predicate","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's `ab(x)`: a catch-all predicate marking cases where a default rule fails; circumscribing `ab` enforces 'all abnormalities have been listed'."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Circumscription]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"abnormalities":1,"abnormality":1,"all":2,"applications":1,"been":1,"cases":1,"catch":1,"circumscribing":1,"circumscription":2,"common":1,"default":1,"enforces":1,"fails":1,"formalizing":1,"have":1,"in":1,"knowledge":1,"listed":1,"marking":1,"mccarthy":1,"predicate":2,"rule":1,"s":1,"sense":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Semiotic Cycle","s":"concepts/semiotic-cycle","secs":[{"h":"Semiotic Cycle","l":1,"t":"The iterative loop in which agents perceive, categorise, name, and re-ground symbols through interaction, producing a coupled evolution of conceptualisations and lexicon. Central to Steels's view of grounded language emergence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":1,"and":2,"autonomous":1,"categorise":1,"central":1,"conceptualisations":1,"coupled":1,"cycle":1,"emergence":1,"evolution":1,"for":1,"games":1,"ground":1,"grounded":1,"grounding":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"iterative":1,"language":2,"lexicon":1,"loop":1,"name":1,"of":2,"perceive":1,"problem":1,"producing":1,"re":1,"robots":1,"s":1,"semiotic":1,"steels":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"the":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"view":1,"which":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Ontology Engineering","s":"concepts/ontology-engineering","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Engineering","l":1,"t":"The methodology and tools for designing, building, evaluating, and maintaining ontologies. Encompasses requirements analysis, conceptualisation, formalisation, evaluation, and evolution over the ontology life cycle."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"analysis":1,"and":3,"building":1,"conceptualisation":1,"cycle":1,"designing":1,"encompasses":1,"engineering":1,"evaluating":1,"evaluation":1,"evolution":1,"for":1,"formalisation":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"life":1,"maintaining":1,"methodology":1,"on":1,"ontologies":3,"ontology":2,"over":1,"requirements":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tools":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Syntactic Abstraction","s":"concepts/syntactic-abstraction","secs":[{"h":"Syntactic Abstraction","l":1,"t":"The ability, central to Lisp/Scheme/Racket, to extend a language with new syntactic forms that compile to existing primitives via macros — i.e. to abstract over surface syntax, not just values and functions. The operational basis of language-oriented programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Racket Macros]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"ability":1,"abstract":1,"abstraction":1,"and":1,"as":1,"basis":1,"central":1,"compile":1,"creating":1,"e":1,"existing":1,"extend":1,"extension":1,"forms":1,"functions":1,"i":1,"in":2,"just":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"lisp":1,"macros":3,"new":1,"not":1,"of":1,"operational":1,"oriented":1,"over":1,"primitives":1,"programming":1,"racket":3,"scheme":1,"surface":1,"syntactic":2,"syntax":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":4,"values":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"with":1}},{"dl":67,"n":"Access Control Rules","s":"concepts/access-control-rules","secs":[{"h":"Access Control Rules","l":1,"t":"In LACIOS and related data-driven coordination languages, declarative rules that govern which agents may perceive, retrieve, or modify symbolic descriptions in a shared tuple-space. Global rules specify system-wide perception/retrieval policies; local rules let individual agents contextually hide themselves or their data, separating coordination logic from access policy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[Sandboxing]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"access":2,"agents":3,"and":1,"capability":1,"contextually":1,"control":1,"coordination":2,"data":3,"declarative":1,"descriptions":1,"driven":2,"from":1,"global":1,"govern":1,"hide":1,"in":4,"individual":1,"interaction":1,"lacios":1,"languages":2,"let":1,"local":1,"logic":1,"may":1,"modify":1,"or":2,"perceive":1,"perception":1,"policies":1,"policy":1,"related":1,"retrieval":1,"retrieve":1,"rules":4,"sandboxing":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"separating":1,"shared":1,"space":1,"specify":1,"symbolic":1,"system":1,"that":1,"their":1,"themselves":1,"this":1,"tuple":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"wide":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Structural Induction","s":"concepts/structural-induction","secs":[{"h":"Structural Induction","l":1,"t":"Proof technique over inductively-defined structures (syntax trees, lists, derivations): prove for base cases and closure cases. The workhorse of compiler-correctness proofs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"arithmetic":1,"base":1,"cases":2,"closure":1,"compiler":2,"correctness":2,"defined":1,"derivations":1,"expressions":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"in":1,"induction":1,"inductively":1,"lists":1,"of":2,"over":1,"proof":1,"proofs":1,"prove":1,"structural":1,"structures":1,"syntax":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"trees":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"workhorse":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Social State","s":"concepts/social-state","secs":[{"h":"Social State","l":1,"t":"The publicly observable state of an interaction — commitments, roles, norms, obligations — that supplants private mental state as the locus of ACL semantics in commitment-based and institutional accounts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"accounts":1,"acl":1,"agent":1,"an":2,"and":1,"as":1,"based":2,"commitment":2,"commitments":1,"environments":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"in":2,"institutional":2,"interaction":2,"locus":1,"mental":1,"norms":1,"obligations":1,"observable":1,"of":2,"open":1,"oriented":1,"private":1,"publicly":1,"reality":1,"roles":1,"semantics":2,"social":1,"state":3,"supplants":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Data Exchange","s":"concepts/data-exchange","secs":[{"h":"Data Exchange","l":1,"t":"The transfer of state or updates between nodes in a distributed system. In gossip protocols, nodes periodically exchange data with random peers to disseminate information and converge on aggregates."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"aggregates":1,"and":1,"between":1,"converge":1,"data":2,"disseminate":1,"distributed":2,"exchange":2,"gossip":2,"gossiping":1,"in":4,"information":1,"nodes":2,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"peers":1,"periodically":1,"protocols":2,"random":1,"state":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transfer":1,"updates":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"DSLs","s":"concepts/dsls","secs":[{"h":"DSLs","l":1,"t":"Domain-Specific Languages: small, focused programming notations designed for a particular application domain. Racket treats DSL creation as a first-class activity, using macros and language-extension mechanisms to let programmers grow the host language toward each problem."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - [[Hygienic Macros]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"activity":1,"and":1,"application":1,"as":1,"class":1,"creating":1,"creation":1,"designed":1,"domain":3,"dsl":1,"dsls":1,"each":1,"extension":1,"first":1,"focused":1,"for":1,"grow":1,"host":1,"hygienic":1,"in":2,"language":2,"languages":3,"let":1,"macros":2,"mechanisms":1,"notations":1,"particular":1,"problem":1,"programmers":1,"programming":1,"racket":2,"small":1,"specific":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"treats":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":117,"n":"Confluence","s":"concepts/confluence","secs":[{"h":"Confluence","l":1,"t":"*Program* consistency (as used by CALM): a distributed program is **confluent** if it produces the same observable outputs regardless of the non-deterministic order in which its inputs are delivered or batched. Formally, a confluent single-machine operation is one that maps sets of inputs to sets of outputs such that repeated or reordered applications yield the same final set. Confluence is weaker and more permissive than storage-level linearizability / serializability — it allows wildly different mid-flight states across replicas as long as the *application-level* outcome converges. This is the user-observable criterion the **[[CALM Theorem]]** characterises."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[CAP Theorem]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"allows":1,"and":1,"application":1,"applications":1,"are":1,"as":3,"avoidance":1,"batched":1,"by":1,"calm":4,"cap":1,"characterises":1,"confluence":2,"confluent":2,"consistency":2,"converges":1,"coordination":1,"criterion":1,"delivered":1,"deterministic":1,"different":1,"distributed":2,"easy":1,"final":1,"flight":1,"formally":1,"if":1,"in":2,"inputs":2,"is":5,"it":2,"its":1,"keeping":1,"level":2,"linearizability":1,"logic":1,"long":1,"machine":1,"maps":1,"mid":1,"monotonic":1,"more":1,"non":1,"observable":2,"of":3,"one":1,"operation":1,"or":2,"order":1,"outcome":1,"outputs":2,"permissive":1,"produces":1,"program":2,"regardless":1,"reordered":1,"repeated":1,"replicas":1,"same":2,"serializability":1,"set":1,"sets":2,"single":1,"states":1,"storage":1,"such":1,"than":1,"that":2,"the":6,"theorem":3,"this":2,"to":1,"used":1,"user":1,"vault":1,"weaker":1,"when":1,"which":1,"wildly":1,"yield":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Happy Performance","s":"concepts/happy-performance","secs":[{"h":"Happy Performance","l":1,"t":"Austin's condition for a successful speech act (truthful, sincere, authorised, responsive). McCarthy lifts it into a program-correctness criterion: an Elephant program is correct partly by *happily* performing its outward speech acts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":3,"act":2,"acts":2,"an":1,"austin":1,"authorised":1,"based":1,"by":1,"condition":1,"correct":1,"correctness":1,"criterion":1,"elephant":2,"for":1,"foundations":1,"happily":1,"happy":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":1,"into":1,"is":1,"it":1,"its":1,"language":1,"lifts":1,"logic":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":1,"on":1,"outward":1,"partly":1,"performance":1,"performing":1,"program":2,"programming":1,"responsive":1,"s":1,"sincere":1,"speech":4,"successful":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"truthful":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Symbol Level","s":"concepts/symbol-level","secs":[{"h":"Symbol Level","l":1,"t":"Newell: the implementation layer below the knowledge level, where explicit symbolic representations are manipulated by rule."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[Knowledge Level]]"}],"tf":{"are":1,"below":1,"by":1,"explicit":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"knowledge":3,"layer":1,"level":4,"manipulated":1,"newell":1,"representations":1,"rule":1,"symbol":1,"symbolic":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":106,"n":"Monotonic Logic","s":"concepts/monotonic-logic","secs":[{"h":"Monotonic Logic","l":1,"t":"A logic in which the conclusion set grows monotonically with the premise set: adding information never retracts a conclusion. Formally, a program *P* is monotone if `S ⊆ T ⟹ P(S) ⊆ P(T)`. Monotone relational operations: selection, projection, intersection, join, transitive closure. Non-monotone: universal quantification, set difference, aggregates with totality assumption, **[[Negation as Failure]]**. In distributed systems, monotonicity is the load-bearing property behind the **[[CALM Theorem]]**: monotone programs are safe under arbitrary message reordering and partial delivery, because no conclusion ever has to be taken back."},{"h":"In this vault","l":9,"t":"- [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Confluence]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"adding":1,"aggregates":1,"and":1,"arbitrary":1,"are":1,"as":1,"assumption":1,"avoidance":1,"back":1,"be":1,"bearing":1,"because":1,"behind":1,"calm":3,"closure":1,"conclusion":3,"confluence":1,"consistency":1,"coordination":1,"delivery":1,"difference":1,"distributed":2,"easy":1,"ever":1,"failure":1,"formally":1,"foundations":1,"grows":1,"has":1,"if":1,"in":3,"information":1,"intersection":1,"is":3,"join":1,"keeping":1,"lloyd":1,"load":1,"logic":3,"message":1,"monotone":4,"monotonic":2,"monotonically":1,"monotonicity":1,"negation":1,"never":1,"no":1,"non":2,"of":1,"operations":1,"p":1,"partial":1,"premise":1,"program":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"projection":1,"property":1,"quantification":1,"reasoning":1,"relational":1,"reordering":1,"retracts":1,"safe":1,"selection":1,"set":3,"systems":1,"taken":1,"the":4,"theorem":2,"this":1,"to":1,"totality":1,"transitive":1,"under":1,"universal":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"which":1,"with":2}},{"dl":29,"n":"Elaboration Tolerance","s":"concepts/elaboration-tolerance","secs":[{"h":"Elaboration Tolerance","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's criterion: adding a new fact or requirement should require only a local extension, not rewriting the entire representation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adding":1,"artificial":1,"criterion":1,"elaboration":1,"entire":1,"extension":1,"fact":1,"generality":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"local":1,"mccarthy":1,"new":1,"not":1,"only":1,"or":1,"representation":1,"require":1,"requirement":1,"rewriting":1,"s":1,"should":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tolerance":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Delegated Authority","s":"concepts/delegated-authority","secs":[{"h":"Delegated Authority","l":1,"t":"An agent acting on behalf of a human principal — raises accountability and identity-verification questions when agents cannot authenticate the delegator."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accountability":1,"acting":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"an":1,"and":1,"authenticate":1,"authority":1,"behalf":1,"cannot":1,"chaos":1,"delegated":1,"delegator":1,"human":1,"identity":1,"in":1,"of":2,"on":1,"principal":1,"questions":1,"raises":1,"security":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"when":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Logical Contracts","s":"concepts/logical-contracts","secs":[{"h":"Logical Contracts","l":1,"t":"Specifications expressed in verification-aware languages (Dafny, F*, Verus) using quantifiers, ghost variables, and recursive predicates — checked statically by program verifiers."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Dafny]] - [[F*]] - [[Verus]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"aware":1,"by":1,"challenge":1,"checked":1,"coding":1,"contracts":1,"dafny":2,"expressed":1,"f":2,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalization":1,"ghost":1,"grand":1,"in":2,"intent":1,"languages":1,"logical":1,"predicates":1,"program":1,"quantifiers":1,"recursive":1,"reliable":1,"specifications":1,"statically":1,"this":1,"using":1,"variables":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"verifiers":1,"verus":2}},{"dl":33,"n":"BDI","s":"concepts/bdi","secs":[{"h":"Belief-Desire-Intention","l":1,"t":"Dominant agent-architecture paradigm: agents maintain beliefs, desires, and intentions and deliberate over them."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"agents":2,"and":3,"architecture":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":1,"deliberate":1,"desire":1,"desires":1,"dominant":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intention":1,"intentions":1,"maintain":1,"mental":1,"multiagent":1,"oriented":1,"over":1,"paradigm":1,"practice":1,"programming":1,"state":1,"sycara":1,"systems":1,"them":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Verification Condition","s":"concepts/verification-condition","secs":[{"h":"Verification Condition","l":1,"t":"A logical formula whose validity implies that a program satisfies its specification. Generated mechanically from annotated code in Hoare-style program verification and discharged by theorem provers."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Termination Proof]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"annotated":1,"assigning":1,"by":1,"code":1,"condition":1,"discharged":1,"formula":1,"from":1,"generated":1,"hoare":2,"implies":1,"in":2,"its":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"meanings":1,"mechanically":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"proof":1,"provers":1,"satisfies":1,"specification":1,"style":1,"termination":1,"that":1,"theorem":1,"this":1,"to":1,"validity":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"whose":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Cheap Talk","s":"concepts/cheap-talk","secs":[{"h":"Cheap Talk","l":1,"t":"Costless, non-binding, unverifiable communication among self-interested agents; game-theoretically it can still coordinate equilibria when interests partially align, but is theoretically unreliable when interests diverge."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"align":1,"among":1,"and":1,"binding":1,"but":1,"can":1,"cheap":1,"communication":2,"cooperation":1,"coordinate":1,"costless":1,"diverge":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"equilibria":1,"game":1,"in":1,"interested":1,"interests":2,"is":1,"it":1,"language":1,"multi":1,"natural":1,"non":1,"of":1,"partially":1,"self":1,"still":1,"talk":1,"the":1,"theoretically":2,"this":1,"unreliable":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"when":2}},{"dl":49,"n":"TheDAO","s":"concepts/thedao","secs":[{"h":"TheDAO","l":1,"t":"A 2016 Ethereum-based decentralised autonomous organisation that held ~$150M in ether and was drained via a reentrancy bug in its split function, precipitating the controversial Ethereum hard fork. The canonical cautionary example for smart-contract verification."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"150m":1,"2016":1,"a":2,"and":1,"autonomous":1,"based":1,"bug":1,"canonical":1,"cautionary":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"controversial":1,"decentralised":1,"drained":1,"ether":1,"ethereum":2,"example":1,"for":1,"fork":1,"formal":1,"function":1,"hard":1,"held":1,"in":3,"its":1,"making":1,"organisation":1,"precipitating":1,"reentrancy":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"split":1,"that":1,"the":2,"thedao":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"via":1,"was":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Conversation Policy","s":"concepts/conversation-policy","secs":[{"h":"Conversation Policy","l":1,"t":"Constraints on legal sequences of ACL messages — the layer between single performatives and a full protocol."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Interaction Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"acre":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"between":1,"communication":1,"constraints":1,"conversation":2,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"engine":1,"full":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"language":1,"layer":1,"legal":1,"messages":1,"of":1,"on":1,"performatives":1,"policy":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"reasoning":1,"sequences":1,"single":1,"the":1,"this":1,"trends":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Planning Theory of Intention","s":"concepts/planning-theory-of-intention","secs":[{"h":"Planning Theory of Intention","l":1,"t":"Bratman: intentions are plan-states that resist reconsideration and constrain further deliberation — not mere desires weighted by belief."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[Intention]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"are":1,"belief":1,"bratman":1,"by":1,"constrain":1,"deliberation":1,"desires":1,"faces":1,"further":1,"in":1,"intention":3,"intentions":1,"mere":1,"not":1,"of":2,"plan":1,"planning":1,"reconsideration":1,"resist":1,"states":1,"that":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"weighted":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Agent Worm","s":"concepts/agent-worm","secs":[{"h":"Agent Worm","l":1,"t":"Self-propagating malware targeting multi-agent LLM ecosystems that uses agent-to-agent channels to replicate — analogous to Internet worms for agentic networks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":6,"agentic":1,"analogous":1,"attacks":1,"channels":1,"clawworm":1,"ecosystems":2,"for":1,"in":1,"internet":1,"llm":2,"malware":1,"multi":1,"networks":1,"propagating":2,"replicate":1,"security":1,"self":2,"targeting":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":3,"uses":1,"vault":1,"worm":1,"worms":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Rational Offer Groups","s":"concepts/rational-offer-groups","secs":[{"h":"Rational Offer Groups","l":1,"t":"Rosenschein-Genesereth: the set of deal proposals an individually-rational agent is willing to make given its utility and beliefs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Deals Among Rational Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"among":1,"an":1,"and":1,"beliefs":1,"deal":1,"deals":1,"genesereth":1,"given":1,"groups":1,"in":1,"individually":1,"is":1,"its":1,"make":1,"of":1,"offer":1,"proposals":1,"rational":3,"rosenschein":1,"set":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"utility":1,"vault":1,"willing":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Conditional Expressions","s":"concepts/conditional-expressions","secs":[{"h":"Conditional Expressions","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's `if p then a else b` as a primitive logical term; the device that lets recursive functions be written as sentences of first-order arithmetic."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"arithmetic":1,"as":2,"be":1,"computation":1,"conditional":1,"device":1,"expressions":1,"first":1,"foundations":1,"functions":1,"in":1,"lets":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":3,"order":1,"primitive":1,"programming":1,"recursive":1,"s":1,"science":1,"sentences":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"towards":1,"vault":1,"written":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Denotational Semantics","s":"concepts/denotational-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Denotational Semantics","l":1,"t":"Scott-Strachey style: assign to each syntactic construct a mathematical *denotation* (function or domain element). Contrasts with operational and axiomatic semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Operational Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"arithmetic":1,"assign":1,"assigning":1,"axiomatic":1,"compiler":1,"construct":1,"contrasts":1,"correctness":1,"denotation":1,"denotational":1,"domain":1,"each":1,"element":1,"expressions":1,"for":1,"function":1,"in":1,"mathematical":1,"meanings":1,"of":1,"operational":2,"or":1,"programs":1,"scott":1,"semantics":3,"strachey":1,"style":1,"syntactic":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Conversation Protocols","s":"concepts/conversation-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Conversation Protocols","l":1,"t":"Stateful, multi-turn interaction patterns (Contract Net, auction, query) specified as a finite automaton, Petri net, or role-based dialogue over performatives. Promote tractable ACL use by constraining expected message sequences, and are the unit on which ACRE's reasoning engine operates."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Interaction Protocols]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"acre":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"are":1,"as":1,"auction":1,"automaton":1,"based":1,"by":1,"constraining":1,"contract":1,"conversation":2,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"dialogue":1,"engine":1,"expected":1,"finite":1,"in":1,"interaction":2,"message":1,"multi":1,"net":2,"on":1,"operates":1,"or":1,"over":1,"patterns":1,"performatives":1,"petri":1,"policy":1,"promote":1,"protocols":2,"query":1,"reasoning":1,"role":1,"s":1,"sequences":1,"specified":1,"stateful":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tractable":1,"turn":1,"unit":1,"use":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Rational Balance","s":"concepts/rational-balance","secs":[{"h":"Rational Balance","l":1,"t":"Cohen-Levesque: the stable equilibrium between an agent's beliefs, goals, and commitments that makes its behaviour predictable yet bounded-resource."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"an":1,"and":1,"balance":1,"bdi":1,"behaviour":1,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"bounded":1,"choice":1,"cohen":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"equilibrium":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"is":1,"its":1,"levesque":1,"makes":1,"predictable":1,"rational":1,"resource":1,"s":1,"stable":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"yet":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"State Vector","s":"concepts/state-vector","secs":[{"h":"State Vector","l":1,"t":"Compiler-correctness abstraction: the entire program state (memory, registers, program counter) packaged as a single value the source- and target-level semantics must correspond over."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"abstraction":1,"and":1,"arithmetic":1,"as":1,"compiler":2,"computation":1,"correctness":2,"correspond":1,"counter":1,"entire":1,"expressions":1,"for":1,"in":1,"level":1,"mathematical":1,"memory":1,"must":1,"of":2,"over":1,"packaged":1,"program":2,"registers":1,"science":1,"semantics":1,"single":1,"source":1,"state":2,"target":1,"the":2,"this":1,"towards":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"vector":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Open Multi-Agent Systems","s":"concepts/open-multi-agent-systems","secs":[{"h":"Open Multi-Agent Systems","l":1,"t":"MAS in which agents may join, leave, and act heterogeneously at runtime, with no central designer controlling their code or goals; demands public, verifiable semantics and robust trust/coordination mechanisms."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]]"}],"tf":{"act":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"an":1,"and":2,"at":1,"central":1,"code":1,"controlling":1,"coordination":1,"data":1,"demands":1,"designer":1,"driven":1,"environments":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"goals":1,"heterogeneously":1,"in":3,"interaction":2,"join":1,"languages":1,"leave":1,"mas":1,"may":1,"mechanisms":1,"multi":1,"no":1,"open":2,"or":1,"oriented":1,"public":1,"robust":1,"runtime":1,"secure":1,"semantics":1,"systems":1,"their":1,"this":1,"trust":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Speech Acts","s":"concepts/speech-acts","secs":[{"h":"Speech Acts","l":1,"t":"Austin and Searle's theory that utterances are actions performed in speaking — assertions, requests, promises, declarations — each defined by a force plus propositional content and by felicity conditions. Speech-act theory is the linguistic foundation of both KQML and FIPA performatives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[KQML Overview]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Illocutionary Force]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"act":2,"actions":1,"acts":1,"agents":1,"and":3,"are":1,"assertions":1,"austin":1,"both":1,"by":2,"conditions":1,"content":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"declarations":1,"defined":1,"each":1,"felicity":1,"fipa":1,"force":2,"foundation":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"is":1,"kqml":2,"linguistic":1,"of":1,"overview":1,"performatives":1,"performed":1,"plus":1,"promises":1,"propositional":1,"requests":1,"s":1,"searle":1,"speaking":1,"speech":3,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":3,"this":1,"using":1,"utterances":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Module Languages","s":"concepts/module-languages","secs":[{"h":"Module Languages","l":1,"t":"In Racket, reusable language implementations packaged as modules whose `#lang` directive selects a reader, expander, and base bindings — letting a single source file be interpreted under a completely different grammar and semantics. The mechanism behind Racket's language-oriented programming style."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Language-oriented Programming]] - [[Racket Macros]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"and":2,"as":1,"base":1,"be":1,"behind":1,"bindings":1,"completely":1,"creating":1,"different":1,"directive":1,"expander":1,"file":1,"grammar":1,"implementations":1,"in":3,"interpreted":1,"language":3,"languages":2,"letting":1,"macros":1,"mechanism":1,"module":1,"modules":1,"oriented":2,"packaged":1,"programming":2,"racket":4,"reader":1,"reusable":1,"s":1,"selects":1,"semantics":1,"single":1,"source":1,"style":1,"the":1,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Jailbreak","s":"concepts/jailbreak","secs":[{"h":"Jailbreak","l":1,"t":"An attack that circumvents an LLM's safety alignment to produce disallowed outputs; in agent settings, a jailbroken component can subvert downstream tools and peers."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Prompt Injection]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"alignment":1,"an":2,"and":1,"attack":1,"can":1,"circumvents":1,"component":1,"disallowed":1,"downstream":1,"in":2,"injection":1,"jailbreak":1,"jailbroken":1,"llm":1,"outputs":1,"peers":1,"produce":1,"prompt":1,"s":1,"safety":1,"settings":1,"subvert":1,"that":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"to":1,"tools":1,"under":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":289,"n":"Rice's Theorem","s":"concepts/rice's-theorem","secs":[{"h":"Rice's Theorem","l":1,"t":"A foundational result in computability theory (Henry Gordon Rice, 1951–53): **every non-trivial semantic property of the partial function computed by a program is undecidable**. Source paper: [[Classes of Recursively Enumerable Sets and Their Decision Problems]]. \"Non-trivial\" means the property holds for some computable functions but not others; \"semantic\" means it depends on the input/output behaviour, not on the syntactic form of the program. Put differently: you cannot in general decide, by inspecting a program, whether it belongs to any interesting class defined by *what it does*. Halting is one such property ([[Halting Problem]]), but so is \"produces output X on input Y,\" \"terminates for all inputs,\" \"implements function f,\" \"contains no unreachable states,\" and so on. Rice's theorem is the formal frontier against which static-analysis, verification, and capability-bounding claims must be measured. Any tool promising to decide a non-trivial semantic property on arbitrary programs is — by Rice — either restricting the program class (e.g. [[Finite-state Grammars]], typed or total subsets) or approximating (sound-but-incomplete analyses). Whole research programs — [[LangSec]], [[Formal Verification]], [[Static Analysis]], [[Weird Machine]] — are organised around this constraint. Concrete implication cited in [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]]: Ethereum's gas mechanism cannot \"sidestep Turing completeness\" to deliver a safety guarantee, because safety is a semantic property and Rice's theorem makes semantic properties of arbitrary programs undecidable. Gas is a *resource bound* (non-semantic, decidable) masquerading as a *safety property* (semantic, undecidable)."},{"h":"Connections","l":11,"t":"- [[Halting Problem]] - [[Computability]] - [[Universal Turing Machine]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Static Analysis]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Weird Machine]] - [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]]"},{"h":"Tags","l":23,"t":""},{"h":"computability #undecidability #foundational #langsec #verification","l":24,"t":""}],"tf":{"1951":1,"53":1,"a":8,"against":1,"all":1,"analyses":1,"analysis":3,"and":4,"any":2,"applications":1,"approximating":1,"arbitrary":2,"are":1,"around":1,"as":1,"be":1,"because":1,"behaviour":1,"belongs":1,"bound":1,"bounding":1,"but":3,"by":4,"cannot":2,"capability":1,"cited":1,"claims":1,"class":2,"classes":1,"classic":2,"completeness":1,"computability":3,"computable":1,"computed":1,"concrete":1,"connections":1,"constraint":1,"contains":1,"decidable":1,"decide":2,"decision":1,"defined":1,"deliver":1,"depends":1,"differently":1,"does":1,"e":1,"either":1,"enumerable":1,"ethereum":3,"every":1,"f":1,"finite":1,"for":2,"form":1,"formal":4,"foundational":2,"frontier":1,"function":2,"functions":1,"g":1,"gas":2,"general":1,"gordon":1,"grammars":1,"guarantee":1,"halting":4,"henry":1,"holds":1,"house":2,"implements":1,"implication":1,"in":5,"incomplete":1,"input":2,"inputs":1,"insecurity":1,"inspecting":1,"interesting":1,"is":7,"it":3,"langsec":5,"language":1,"machine":3,"makes":1,"masquerading":1,"means":2,"measured":1,"mechanism":1,"must":1,"network":1,"no":1,"non":4,"not":2,"of":6,"on":7,"one":1,"or":2,"organised":1,"others":1,"output":2,"paper":1,"partial":1,"problem":2,"problems":2,"produces":1,"program":4,"programs":3,"promising":1,"properties":1,"property":6,"put":1,"recursively":1,"research":1,"resource":1,"restricting":1,"result":1,"rice":5,"rock":2,"s":4,"safety":3,"security":1,"semantic":7,"sets":1,"sidestep":1,"so":2,"some":1,"sound":1,"source":1,"stack":1,"state":1,"states":1,"static":3,"subsets":1,"such":1,"syntactic":1,"tags":1,"terminates":1,"the":8,"their":1,"theorem":3,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":3,"tool":1,"total":1,"trivial":3,"turing":2,"typed":1,"undecidability":1,"undecidable":3,"universal":1,"unreachable":1,"verification":4,"weird":2,"what":1,"whether":1,"which":1,"whole":1,"x":1,"y":1,"you":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Meta-Adaptation","s":"concepts/meta-adaptation","secs":[{"h":"Meta-Adaptation","l":1,"t":"Adaptation applied to the adaptation process itself: a system adjusts not just its behaviour but the rules, thresholds or strategies it uses to adapt. ASCENS treats meta-adaptation as a necessary capability for long-lived, self-aware ensembles."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adapt":1,"adaptation":5,"adaptive":1,"adjusts":1,"applied":1,"as":1,"ascens":2,"aware":1,"awareness":1,"behaviour":1,"but":1,"capability":1,"ensembles":1,"expression":1,"for":1,"in":1,"it":1,"its":1,"itself":1,"just":1,"lived":1,"long":1,"meta":2,"necessary":1,"not":1,"or":1,"process":1,"rules":1,"self":5,"strategies":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":2,"this":1,"thresholds":1,"to":2,"treats":1,"uses":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Cognitive Trust","s":"concepts/cognitive-trust","secs":[{"h":"Cognitive Trust","l":1,"t":"A family of trust models (e.g., Castelfranchi & Falcone) that represent trust as a mental attitude grounded in explicit beliefs about the trustee's competence, willingness, and dependence, rather than as a numeric reputation score. Contrasts with game-theoretic and statistical reputation models in the Sabater–Sierra taxonomy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"about":1,"and":4,"as":2,"attitude":1,"beliefs":1,"castelfranchi":1,"cognitive":1,"competence":1,"computational":1,"contrasts":1,"dependence":1,"e":1,"explicit":1,"falcone":1,"family":1,"g":1,"game":1,"grounded":1,"in":3,"mental":2,"models":3,"numeric":1,"of":1,"on":1,"rather":1,"represent":1,"reputation":4,"review":1,"s":1,"sabater":1,"score":1,"sierra":1,"state":1,"statistical":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"trust":5,"trustee":1,"vault":1,"willingness":1,"with":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Phrase-structure Grammar","s":"concepts/phrase-structure-grammar","secs":[{"h":"Phrase-structure Grammar","l":1,"t":"Chomsky's formalism in which strings of a language are generated by rewrite rules over terminal and non-terminal symbols, producing hierarchical constituent trees. The restrictions placed on the rule shape define the Chomsky hierarchy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"are":1,"by":1,"chomsky":3,"constituent":1,"define":1,"description":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"generated":1,"grammar":1,"hierarchical":1,"hierarchy":2,"in":2,"language":2,"models":1,"non":1,"of":2,"on":1,"over":1,"phrase":1,"placed":1,"producing":1,"restrictions":1,"rewrite":1,"rule":1,"rules":1,"s":1,"shape":1,"strings":1,"structure":1,"symbols":1,"terminal":2,"the":4,"this":1,"three":1,"trees":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Micronemes","s":"concepts/micronemes","secs":[{"h":"Micronemes","l":1,"t":"Minsky: very short-range context signals that slightly bias many agents' activity — the 'mood' or 'aura' of the current mental moment."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"activity":1,"agents":1,"aura":1,"bias":1,"context":1,"current":1,"in":1,"many":1,"mental":1,"micronemes":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"moment":1,"mood":1,"of":2,"or":1,"range":1,"short":1,"signals":1,"slightly":1,"society":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"very":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Stratego","s":"concepts/stratego","secs":[{"h":"Stratego","l":1,"t":"A language and system for program transformation based on rewrite rules and programmable strategies for applying them. Serves as the transformation backbone of the Spoofax language workbench."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Meta-Programming]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"applying":1,"as":1,"backbone":1,"based":1,"for":2,"in":1,"language":3,"meta":1,"of":1,"on":1,"program":1,"programmable":1,"programming":1,"rewrite":1,"rules":1,"serves":1,"spoofax":2,"strategies":1,"stratego":1,"system":1,"the":3,"them":1,"this":1,"transformation":2,"vault":1,"workbench":2}},{"dl":49,"n":"Design Organization","s":"concepts/design-organization","secs":[{"h":"Design Organization","l":1,"t":"Conway's observation (in \"How Do Committees Invent?\") that the structure of any designed system mirrors the communication structure of the organisation that designed it. Design organisations choose subsystem boundaries, and those boundaries ossify as interfaces."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"any":1,"as":1,"boundaries":2,"choose":1,"committees":2,"communication":1,"conway":1,"design":2,"designed":2,"do":2,"how":2,"in":2,"interfaces":1,"invent":2,"it":1,"levels":1,"mirrors":1,"observation":1,"of":3,"orchestration":1,"organisation":1,"organisations":1,"organization":1,"ossify":1,"s":1,"social":1,"structure":2,"subsystem":1,"system":1,"that":2,"the":3,"this":1,"those":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Prioritised Circumscription","s":"concepts/prioritised-circumscription","secs":[{"h":"Prioritised Circumscription","l":1,"t":"Variant where some abnormalities are preferred over others — imposes a priority ordering so more-specific information overrides less-specific."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Circumscription]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abnormalities":1,"applications":1,"are":1,"circumscription":3,"common":1,"formalizing":1,"imposes":1,"in":1,"information":1,"knowledge":1,"less":1,"more":1,"ordering":1,"others":1,"over":1,"overrides":1,"preferred":1,"prioritised":1,"priority":1,"sense":1,"so":1,"some":1,"specific":2,"this":1,"to":1,"variant":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":69,"n":"Recursive Function","s":"concepts/recursive-function","secs":[{"h":"Recursive Function","l":1,"t":"Function defined in terms of itself; McCarthy's Lisp made recursion — not iteration — the default mechanism of computation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers]] — Kleene 1936, the defining paper for the general-recursive class. - [[Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers]] — Kleene 1943, extends the theory to predicates and the arithmetical hierarchy."}],"tf":{"1936":1,"1943":1,"and":3,"arithmetical":1,"by":1,"class":1,"computation":2,"default":1,"defined":1,"defining":1,"expressions":1,"extends":1,"for":1,"foundations":1,"function":2,"functions":2,"general":2,"hierarchy":1,"in":2,"iteration":1,"itself":1,"kleene":2,"lisp":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":1,"machine":1,"made":1,"mccarthy":1,"mechanism":1,"natural":1,"not":1,"numbers":1,"of":5,"paper":1,"predicates":2,"programming":1,"quantifiers":1,"recursion":1,"recursive":5,"s":1,"symbolic":1,"terms":1,"the":5,"their":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":62,"n":"Reactive vs Deliberative Agents","s":"concepts/reactive-vs-deliberative-agents","secs":[{"h":"Reactive vs Deliberative Agents","l":1,"t":"A classical dichotomy in agent architecture: reactive agents (Brooks, subsumption) respond to percepts via hardwired stimulus-response rules without explicit world models; deliberative agents (BDI, planning) maintain symbolic representations and reason over them before acting. Hybrid architectures combine a reactive lower layer with a deliberative upper layer."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[BDI]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[Weak Agency]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"acting":1,"agency":2,"agent":1,"agents":3,"and":1,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"bdi":2,"before":1,"brooks":1,"classical":1,"combine":1,"deliberative":3,"dichotomy":1,"explicit":1,"hardwired":1,"hybrid":1,"in":2,"layer":2,"lower":1,"maintain":1,"models":1,"multiagent":1,"over":1,"percepts":1,"planning":1,"reactive":3,"reason":1,"representations":1,"respond":1,"response":1,"rules":1,"stimulus":1,"strong":1,"subsumption":1,"sycara":1,"symbolic":1,"systems":1,"them":1,"this":1,"to":1,"upper":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"weak":1,"with":1,"without":1,"world":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Social Agency","s":"concepts/social-agency","secs":[{"h":"Social Agency","l":1,"t":"An account of agency emphasising the public, normative, and relational aspects of action: commitments, roles, and institutional facts rather than private mental states. Motivates commitment-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Commitments]]"}],"tf":{"account":1,"acl":2,"action":1,"agency":2,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":2,"aspects":1,"based":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":2,"communication":1,"emphasising":1,"facts":1,"in":1,"institutional":1,"languages":1,"mental":1,"motivates":1,"normative":1,"of":2,"principles":2,"private":1,"public":1,"rather":1,"relational":1,"rethinking":2,"roles":1,"semantics":1,"social":1,"states":1,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Default Logic","s":"concepts/default-logic","secs":[{"h":"Default Logic","l":1,"t":"Reiter's non-monotonic formalism for reasoning about typical/default rules that can be overridden by exceptions — BOID uses default logic to prioritise conflicting mental attitudes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The BOID Architecture]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"architecture":1,"attitudes":1,"be":1,"boid":2,"by":1,"can":1,"conflicting":1,"default":3,"exceptions":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"in":1,"logic":2,"mental":1,"monotonic":2,"non":2,"overridden":1,"prioritise":1,"reasoning":2,"reiter":1,"rules":1,"s":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typical":1,"uses":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":84,"n":"Distributed Security","s":"concepts/distributed-security","secs":[{"h":"Distributed Security","l":1,"t":"Security of distributed/agent systems: mobile code, secure messaging, language-based defences. - [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]"},{"h":"Related","l":17,"t":"- [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Edge Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":4,"ai":1,"and":1,"approach":1,"architectural":1,"attacks":1,"based":2,"book":1,"cake":1,"calculus":1,"chapter":1,"code":1,"communications":1,"dagents":1,"data":1,"ddos":1,"defences":1,"dependable":1,"distributed":3,"driven":1,"edge":1,"flexible":1,"for":2,"halting":1,"in":1,"insecurity":1,"intelligence":1,"interaction":1,"kaminsky":1,"kernel":1,"lambda":1,"language":2,"languages":2,"layer":1,"llm":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"messaging":1,"mobile":2,"network":1,"of":2,"patterns":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"prevent":1,"problems":1,"processing":1,"related":1,"reputation":1,"sassaman":1,"secure":4,"security":4,"software":1,"sol":1,"stack":1,"systems":2,"tcl":1,"the":1,"threat":1,"to":1,"tool":1,"trust":1,"under":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Single Phenomenon View","s":"concepts/single-phenomenon-view","secs":[{"h":"Single Phenomenon View","l":1,"t":"View Bratman rejects: intention-in-action and future-directed intention are the same kind of state. Bratman argues they differ in functional role."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"and":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"bratman":2,"differ":1,"directed":1,"faces":1,"functional":1,"future":1,"in":3,"intention":3,"kind":1,"of":2,"phenomenon":1,"rejects":1,"role":1,"same":1,"single":1,"state":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"view":2}},{"dl":39,"n":"Solidity","s":"concepts/solidity","secs":[{"h":"Solidity","l":1,"t":"A statically typed, contract-oriented programming language targeting the Ethereum Virtual Machine. Its semantics and standard patterns are a frequent source of smart-contract vulnerabilities such as reentrancy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]] - [[Reentrancy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"are":1,"as":1,"contract":2,"contracts":2,"ethereum":1,"frequent":1,"in":1,"its":1,"language":1,"machine":1,"making":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"patterns":1,"programming":1,"reentrancy":2,"semantics":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"solidity":1,"source":1,"standard":1,"statically":1,"such":1,"targeting":1,"the":1,"this":1,"typed":1,"vault":1,"virtual":1,"vulnerabilities":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Agencies","s":"concepts/agencies","secs":[{"h":"Agencies","l":1,"t":"Minsky: organised groups of agents that accomplish together what none can alone. Agencies themselves are agents within larger agencies — the structure recurs all the way up."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Agents (Minsky)]] - [[Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"accomplish":1,"agencies":3,"agents":3,"all":1,"alone":1,"are":1,"can":1,"groups":1,"in":1,"larger":1,"mind":2,"minsky":2,"none":1,"of":3,"organised":1,"recurs":1,"society":2,"structure":1,"that":1,"the":3,"themselves":1,"this":1,"together":1,"up":1,"vault":1,"way":1,"what":1,"within":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Determinism","s":"concepts/determinism","secs":[{"h":"Determinism","l":1,"t":"The property that, given the same inputs and initial state, a system always produces the same outputs and final state. In distributed coordination it is prized because it enables replay, testing and verification, but it is hard to preserve under concurrency and partial failure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"always":1,"and":4,"because":1,"but":1,"concurrency":1,"coordination":2,"determinism":1,"distributed":2,"enables":1,"extensible":1,"failure":1,"final":1,"given":1,"hard":1,"in":2,"initial":1,"inputs":1,"is":2,"it":3,"outputs":1,"partial":1,"preserve":1,"prized":1,"produces":1,"property":1,"replay":1,"same":2,"state":2,"system":1,"testing":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"verification":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Resource Managers","s":"concepts/resource-managers","secs":[{"h":"Resource Managers","l":1,"t":"Components that mediate an agent's access to host resources (CPU, memory, files, network), enforcing per-agent quotas and security policies. Central to the Agent Tcl security architecture for mobile agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[Sandboxing]]"}],"tf":{"access":1,"agent":4,"agents":2,"an":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"central":1,"components":1,"cpu":1,"enforcing":1,"files":1,"flexible":1,"for":1,"host":1,"in":1,"managers":1,"mediate":1,"memory":1,"mobile":2,"network":1,"per":1,"policies":1,"quotas":1,"resource":1,"resources":1,"s":1,"sandboxing":1,"secure":1,"security":2,"tcl":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Uniform Gossip","s":"concepts/uniform-gossip","secs":[{"h":"Uniform Gossip","l":1,"t":"A gossip regime in which, each round, every node contacts a uniformly random peer; the baseline analysed by Kempe et al. for push-sum convergence and by subsequent aggregation protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":1,"al":1,"analysed":1,"and":1,"based":1,"baseline":1,"by":2,"computation":1,"contacts":1,"convergence":1,"each":1,"et":1,"every":1,"for":1,"gossip":4,"in":2,"information":1,"kempe":1,"node":1,"of":1,"peer":1,"protocols":2,"push":1,"random":1,"regime":1,"round":1,"subsequent":1,"sum":1,"the":1,"this":1,"uniform":1,"uniformly":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Emotional Quotient","s":"concepts/emotional-quotient","secs":[{"h":"Emotional Quotient","l":1,"t":"In the XiaoIce design, a measure of a chatbot's capacity for empathy, emotional understanding, and affective engagement, treated as a first-class design goal alongside task-oriented competence (IQ)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"affective":1,"alongside":1,"and":1,"as":1,"capacity":1,"chatbot":1,"chatbots":1,"class":1,"competence":1,"design":2,"eliza":1,"emotional":2,"empathy":1,"engagement":1,"first":1,"for":1,"from":1,"goal":1,"in":2,"iq":1,"measure":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"quotient":1,"s":1,"social":1,"task":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"treated":1,"understanding":1,"vault":1,"xiaoice":2}},{"dl":51,"n":"DNN Splitting","s":"concepts/dnn-splitting","secs":[{"h":"DNN Splitting","l":1,"t":"An edge-AI technique that partitions a deep neural network between cloud/edge servers and end devices, executing early layers locally and transmitting intermediate activations for remote completion. Trades computation against communication cost subject to bandwidth and latency constraints."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[Gradient Compression]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"activations":1,"against":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":3,"bandwidth":1,"between":1,"cloud":1,"communication":1,"completion":1,"compression":1,"computation":1,"constraints":1,"cost":1,"deep":1,"devices":1,"dnn":1,"early":1,"edge":4,"end":1,"executing":1,"for":1,"gradient":1,"in":1,"intelligence":2,"intermediate":1,"latency":1,"layers":1,"locally":1,"network":1,"neural":1,"partitions":1,"remote":1,"servers":1,"splitting":1,"subject":1,"survey":1,"technique":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trades":1,"transmitting":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"MOISE","s":"concepts/moise","secs":[{"h":"MOISE","l":1,"t":"An organisational model for multi-agent systems that specifies structural (roles, groups, links), functional (goals, missions, schemes) and deontic (permissions, obligations) dimensions. MOISE is often paired with Jason to give organisation-aware BDI programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Roles]] - [[Jason]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"an":2,"and":1,"aware":1,"bdi":1,"deontic":1,"dimensions":1,"environments":1,"for":2,"framework":1,"functional":1,"give":1,"goals":1,"groups":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"is":1,"jason":2,"links":1,"missions":1,"model":1,"moise":2,"multi":1,"obligations":1,"often":1,"open":1,"organisation":1,"organisational":1,"oriented":1,"paired":1,"permissions":1,"programming":1,"roles":2,"schemes":1,"specifies":1,"structural":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Resources","s":"concepts/resources","secs":[{"h":"Resources","l":1,"t":"In REST, the fundamental abstraction of any information that can be named: a conceptual mapping to a (possibly time-varying) set of entities, identified by a URI and manipulated via representations. Decouples what is addressed from how it is currently represented."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Representations]] - [[Statelessness]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"abstraction":1,"addressed":1,"and":1,"any":1,"architecture":1,"be":1,"by":1,"can":1,"conceptual":1,"currently":1,"decouples":1,"design":1,"entities":1,"from":1,"fundamental":1,"how":1,"identified":1,"in":2,"information":1,"is":2,"it":1,"manipulated":1,"mapping":1,"modern":1,"named":1,"of":3,"possibly":1,"principled":1,"representations":2,"represented":1,"resources":1,"rest":1,"set":1,"statelessness":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"uri":1,"varying":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"web":1,"what":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Restraining Bolts","s":"concepts/restraining-bolts","secs":[{"h":"Restraining Bolts","l":1,"t":"External, verifiable behaviour modifiers attached to an otherwise autonomous agent — typically a monitor plus an RL-style reward shaping — that guarantee compliance with ethical or regulatory constraints."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Ethical Governor]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":2,"and":1,"attached":1,"autonomous":1,"behaviour":2,"bolts":1,"compliance":1,"constraints":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":3,"external":1,"governor":1,"guarantee":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"logical":1,"modifiers":1,"monitor":1,"or":1,"otherwise":1,"plus":1,"regulatory":1,"restraining":1,"reward":1,"rl":1,"shaping":1,"style":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trustworthy":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"with":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Red-Teaming LLM Agents","s":"concepts/red-teaming-llm-agents","secs":[{"h":"Red-Teaming LLM Agents","l":1,"t":"Adversarial evaluation methodology for agentic systems: skilled attackers probe deployed agents over extended periods to surface failures that benchmarks miss."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]]"}],"tf":{"adversarial":1,"agentic":1,"agents":4,"ai":1,"attackers":1,"benchmarks":1,"chaos":1,"deployed":1,"evaluation":1,"extended":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"in":1,"llm":1,"methodology":1,"miss":1,"of":1,"over":1,"periods":1,"probe":1,"red":1,"skilled":1,"surface":1,"systems":1,"teaming":1,"that":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"to":1,"under":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Edge Intelligence","s":"concepts/edge-intelligence","secs":[{"h":"Edge Intelligence","l":1,"t":"AI distributed across edge devices — relevant as the deployment substrate for modern agent systems. - [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]]"},{"h":"Related","l":9,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"ai":1,"architecture":1,"as":1,"coordination":1,"deployment":1,"design":1,"devices":1,"distributed":3,"edge":3,"extensible":1,"for":1,"intelligence":2,"llm":1,"modern":2,"multi":1,"of":1,"principled":1,"related":1,"relevant":1,"security":1,"substrate":1,"survey":1,"systems":2,"the":2,"web":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Strong Realism","s":"concepts/strong-realism","secs":[{"h":"Strong Realism","l":1,"t":"Rao & Georgeff: BDI agents may only adopt intentions toward options they believe optionally achievable — constraining the BDI logic to realistic agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achievable":1,"adopt":1,"agents":3,"architecture":1,"bdi":4,"believe":1,"constraining":1,"georgeff":1,"in":1,"intentions":1,"logic":1,"may":1,"modeling":1,"only":1,"optionally":1,"options":1,"rao":1,"rational":1,"realism":1,"realistic":1,"strong":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"vault":1,"within":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"PLACA","s":"concepts/placa","secs":[{"h":"PLACA","l":1,"t":"Thomas's PLAnning Communicating Agents language: an extension of Shoham's Agent-Oriented Programming with first-class planning constructs, so that agents can both commit to and reason about future courses of action in their communications."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"action":1,"agent":2,"agents":3,"an":1,"and":2,"both":1,"can":1,"class":1,"commit":1,"communicating":1,"communications":1,"constructs":1,"courses":1,"extension":1,"first":1,"future":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"language":1,"of":2,"oriented":2,"placa":1,"planning":2,"practice":1,"programming":2,"reason":1,"s":2,"shoham":1,"so":1,"that":1,"their":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"thomas":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Talking Heads Experiment","s":"concepts/talking-heads-experiment","secs":[{"h":"Talking Heads Experiment","l":1,"t":"Steels's large-scale experiment in which robotic agents with pan-tilt cameras played guessing games over the internet, autonomously evolving a shared lexicon for visual categories. A landmark in grounded-language research."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Guessing Game]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agents":1,"autonomous":1,"autonomously":1,"cameras":1,"categories":1,"evolving":1,"experiment":2,"for":2,"game":1,"games":2,"grounded":1,"guessing":2,"heads":1,"in":3,"internet":1,"landmark":1,"language":2,"large":1,"lexicon":1,"over":1,"pan":1,"played":1,"research":1,"robotic":1,"robots":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"shared":1,"steels":1,"talking":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tilt":1,"vault":1,"visual":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"OAA ICL","s":"concepts/oaa-icl","secs":[{"h":"OAA ICL","l":1,"t":"Interagent Communication Language of SRI's Open Agent Architecture — Prolog-style delegated queries mediated by a facilitator."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Facilitators]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"architecture":1,"art":1,"by":1,"communication":2,"delegated":1,"facilitator":1,"facilitators":1,"icl":1,"in":2,"interagent":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"mediated":1,"oaa":1,"of":2,"open":1,"prolog":1,"queries":1,"s":1,"sri":1,"state":1,"style":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"ERC-8004","s":"concepts/erc-8004","secs":[{"h":"ERC-8004","l":1,"t":"Ethereum Request for Comments 8004 \"Trustless Agents\" — on-chain registries for agent identity, reputation, and validation, combining Brief, Proof, Stake, and Reputation trust primitives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]]"}],"tf":{"8004":2,"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"and":2,"brief":1,"chain":1,"combining":1,"comments":1,"comparative":1,"erc":1,"ethereum":1,"for":2,"identity":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"models":1,"on":1,"primitives":1,"proof":1,"registries":1,"reputation":2,"request":1,"stake":1,"study":1,"this":1,"trust":2,"trustless":1,"validation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Negation as Failure","s":"concepts/negation-as-failure","secs":[{"h":"Negation as Failure","l":1,"t":"A non-classical inference rule used in logic programming: a negated goal succeeds if the positive goal finitely fails. Enables practical Prolog semantics at the cost of non-monotonicity relative to classical logic."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"as":1,"at":1,"classical":2,"cost":1,"enables":1,"fails":1,"failure":1,"finitely":1,"foundations":1,"goal":2,"if":1,"in":2,"inference":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"monotonic":1,"monotonicity":1,"negated":1,"negation":1,"non":3,"of":2,"positive":1,"practical":1,"programming":2,"prolog":1,"reasoning":1,"relative":1,"rule":1,"semantics":1,"succeeds":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Default Reasoning","s":"concepts/default-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Default Reasoning","l":1,"t":"Inference from rules that typically hold but admit exceptions (birds fly, except penguins). Formalised via circumscription, default logic, or autoepistemic logic."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Default Logic]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"admit":1,"autoepistemic":1,"birds":1,"but":1,"circumscription":2,"default":3,"except":1,"exceptions":1,"fly":1,"form":1,"formalised":1,"from":1,"hold":1,"in":1,"inference":1,"logic":3,"monotonic":1,"non":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"of":1,"or":1,"penguins":1,"reasoning":3,"rules":1,"that":1,"this":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"eval apply","s":"concepts/eval-apply","secs":[{"h":"eval/apply","l":1,"t":"Lisp's mutually-recursive kernel: `eval` computes the value of an expression; `apply` invokes a procedure on arguments. Together they comprise a meta-circular evaluator in under a page of code."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Meta-circular Evaluator]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"an":1,"and":1,"apply":1,"arguments":1,"by":1,"circular":2,"code":1,"comprise":1,"computation":1,"computes":1,"eval":1,"evaluator":2,"expression":1,"expressions":1,"functions":1,"in":2,"invokes":1,"kernel":1,"lisp":1,"machine":1,"meta":2,"mutually":1,"of":3,"on":1,"page":1,"procedure":1,"recursive":2,"s":1,"symbolic":1,"the":1,"their":1,"they":1,"this":1,"together":1,"under":1,"value":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Proxy Payoff Evaluators","s":"concepts/proxy-payoff-evaluators","secs":[{"h":"Proxy Payoff Evaluators","l":1,"t":"Surrogate utility signals that a MAS learning rule uses when the true game payoff cannot be observed due to communication failures, computed from locally available information. Their quality bounds how closely the multi-agent dynamics can track the ideal game."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Log-linear Learning]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"are":1,"available":1,"be":1,"bounds":1,"can":1,"cannot":1,"closely":1,"communication":2,"computed":1,"due":1,"dynamics":1,"evaluators":1,"failures":2,"from":1,"game":2,"how":1,"ideal":1,"in":1,"information":1,"learning":2,"linear":1,"locally":1,"log":1,"mas":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"observed":1,"payoff":2,"proxy":1,"quality":1,"resilient":1,"rule":1,"signals":1,"surrogate":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":3,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"track":1,"true":1,"uses":1,"utility":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Knowledge Sharing Effort","s":"concepts/knowledge-sharing-effort","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Sharing Effort","l":1,"t":"The DARPA KSE initiative of the early 1990s that produced KIF, Ontolingua, and KQML to enable reuse and interoperation of knowledge bases across heterogeneous AI systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[KIF]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]]"}],"tf":{"1990s":1,"across":1,"ai":1,"and":2,"bases":1,"darpa":1,"early":1,"effort":1,"enable":1,"heterogeneous":1,"in":1,"initiative":1,"interoperation":1,"kif":2,"knowledge":2,"kqml":2,"kse":1,"of":2,"ontolingua":2,"ontology":1,"overview":1,"portable":1,"produced":1,"reuse":1,"sharing":1,"specifications":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"Social Chatbots","s":"concepts/social-chatbots","secs":[{"h":"Social Chatbots","l":1,"t":"Conversational systems optimised for long-term emotional engagement rather than single-turn task completion, characterised by the integration of IQ (knowledge, reasoning) with EQ (empathy, persona, social skill) and evaluated by sustained-engagement metrics like Conversation-turns Per Session (CPS). Exemplified by Microsoft XiaoIce."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[XiaoIce]] - [[Empathetic Response Generation]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"by":3,"characterised":1,"chatbots":2,"completion":1,"conversation":1,"conversational":1,"cps":1,"eliza":1,"emotional":1,"empathetic":1,"empathy":1,"engagement":2,"eq":1,"evaluated":1,"exemplified":1,"for":1,"from":1,"generation":1,"in":1,"integration":1,"iq":1,"knowledge":1,"like":1,"long":1,"metrics":1,"microsoft":1,"of":1,"optimised":1,"per":1,"persona":1,"rather":1,"reasoning":1,"response":1,"session":1,"single":1,"skill":1,"social":3,"sustained":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"term":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"turn":1,"turns":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"xiaoice":3}},{"dl":48,"n":"Agent-to-Agent Protocol","s":"concepts/agent-to-agent-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Agent-to-Agent Protocol","l":1,"t":"**A2A** — protocol for inter-agent communication among autonomous LLM agents. Discussed in: - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] - [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]]"},{"h":"Related","l":11,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a2a":1,"agent":7,"agents":2,"ai":1,"among":1,"architecture":1,"autonomous":1,"communication":2,"context":1,"design":1,"discussed":1,"effect":1,"for":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"interoperability":1,"languages":1,"llm":2,"model":1,"modern":1,"network":1,"of":3,"principled":1,"protocol":5,"protocols":2,"related":1,"ripple":1,"survey":2,"the":1,"to":1,"web":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Human-in-the-loop","s":"concepts/human-in-the-loop","secs":[{"h":"Human-in-the-loop","l":1,"t":"A system configuration in which a human can observe, approve, or override agent decisions at designated checkpoints; realised by AGENTS via an `is_human` flag and by collaboration frameworks as a general safety and alignment pattern."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":2,"agents":2,"ai":1,"al":1,"alignment":1,"an":1,"and":2,"approve":1,"as":1,"at":1,"by":2,"can":1,"checkpoints":1,"collaboration":2,"configuration":1,"decisions":1,"designated":1,"et":1,"flag":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"general":1,"human":2,"in":4,"loop":1,"multi":1,"observe":1,"or":1,"override":1,"pattern":1,"realised":1,"safety":1,"system":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tunkel":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"wasif":1,"which":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Conversation Policies","s":"concepts/conversation-policies","secs":[{"h":"Conversation Policies","l":1,"t":"Named constraints on admissible sequences of ACL messages — the layer between single performatives and a complete protocol (plural of [[Conversation Policy]])."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Semantics and Conversations for an ACL]] - [[Conversation Policy]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"acre":1,"admissible":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":2,"between":1,"complete":1,"constraints":1,"conversation":4,"conversations":1,"engine":1,"for":1,"in":1,"layer":1,"messages":1,"named":1,"of":2,"on":1,"performatives":1,"plural":1,"policies":1,"policy":2,"protocol":1,"reasoning":1,"semantics":1,"sequences":1,"single":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"True Believer","s":"concepts/true-believer","secs":[{"h":"True Believer","l":1,"t":"Dennett: any entity that reliably behaves as if it had beliefs and desires — predictable from the intentional stance. Explicitly *not* a thesis about consciousness or phenomenology."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[True Believers - The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"and":2,"any":1,"as":1,"ascribing":1,"behaves":1,"beliefs":1,"believer":1,"believers":1,"consciousness":1,"dennett":1,"desires":1,"entity":1,"explicitly":1,"from":1,"had":1,"if":1,"in":1,"intentional":2,"it":2,"machines":1,"mental":1,"not":1,"or":1,"phenomenology":1,"predictable":1,"qualities":1,"reliably":1,"stance":1,"strategy":1,"that":1,"the":2,"thesis":1,"this":1,"to":1,"true":2,"vault":1,"why":1,"works":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"What Is Said","s":"concepts/what-is-said","secs":[{"h":"What Is Said","l":1,"t":"Grice's term for the literal, truth-conditional content of an utterance — contrasted with what is implicated."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]] - [[Conversational Implicature]]"}],"tf":{"an":1,"and":1,"conditional":1,"content":1,"contrasted":1,"conversation":1,"conversational":1,"for":1,"grice":1,"implicated":1,"implicature":1,"in":1,"is":2,"literal":1,"logic":1,"of":1,"s":1,"said":1,"term":1,"the":1,"this":1,"truth":1,"utterance":1,"vault":1,"what":2,"with":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"X.509 PKI","s":"concepts/x.509-pki","secs":[{"h":"X.509 PKI","l":1,"t":"The dominant public-key infrastructure: certificate authorities issue X.509 certificates binding public keys to identities, validated up a trust chain. The vault focus is on how ambiguities in X.509/ASN.1 parsing enable parser-differential attacks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[Certificate Authorities]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"1":1,"509":3,"a":1,"ambiguities":1,"asn":1,"attacks":1,"authorities":2,"binding":1,"cake":1,"certificate":2,"certificates":1,"chain":1,"differential":2,"dominant":1,"enable":1,"focus":1,"how":1,"identities":1,"in":2,"infrastructure":1,"is":1,"issue":1,"kaminsky":1,"key":1,"keys":1,"langsec":1,"layer":1,"on":1,"parser":2,"parsing":1,"patterson":1,"pki":2,"public":2,"sassaman":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":1,"up":1,"validated":1,"vault":2,"x":3}},{"dl":51,"n":"Mass Conservation","s":"concepts/mass-conservation","secs":[{"h":"Mass Conservation","l":1,"t":"An invariant in push-sum and related gossip aggregation protocols: the total \"mass\" (sum of node values and weights) is preserved across pairwise exchanges, guaranteeing correct convergence to the true aggregate."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Push-Sum]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"aggregate":2,"aggregation":2,"an":1,"and":2,"based":2,"computation":1,"conservation":1,"convergence":1,"correct":1,"dynamic":1,"exchanges":1,"gossip":3,"guaranteeing":1,"in":3,"information":1,"invariant":1,"is":1,"large":1,"mass":2,"networks":1,"node":1,"of":2,"pairwise":1,"preserved":1,"protocols":1,"push":2,"related":1,"sum":3,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"total":1,"true":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"weights":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Agentification","s":"concepts/agentification","secs":[{"h":"Agentification","l":1,"t":"The process of wrapping software components, services, or legacy systems with an agent layer that exposes goal-directed behaviour, beliefs, and communicative acts. Enables participation in agent-oriented architectures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"acts":1,"agent":3,"agentification":1,"an":1,"and":1,"architectures":1,"behaviour":1,"beliefs":1,"communicative":1,"components":1,"directed":1,"enables":1,"exposes":1,"goal":1,"in":2,"layer":1,"legacy":1,"of":1,"or":1,"oriented":2,"participation":1,"process":1,"programming":1,"services":1,"software":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"wrapping":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Architectural Styles","s":"concepts/architectural-styles","secs":[{"h":"Architectural Styles","l":1,"t":"Named, coordinated sets of architectural constraints that induce desirable system properties. Fielding's dissertation formalises styles (e.g., pipe-and-filter, client-server, REST) as design vocabularies for distributed systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[REST]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"architectural":2,"architecture":1,"as":1,"client":1,"constraints":1,"coordinated":1,"design":2,"desirable":1,"dissertation":1,"distributed":1,"e":1,"fielding":1,"filter":1,"for":1,"formalises":1,"g":1,"in":1,"induce":1,"modern":1,"named":1,"of":2,"pipe":1,"principled":1,"properties":1,"rest":2,"s":1,"server":1,"sets":1,"styles":2,"system":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"vocabularies":1,"web":1}},{"dl":67,"n":"Knowledge Representation Language","s":"concepts/knowledge-representation-language","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Representation Language","l":1,"t":"An agent's private, internal formalism for representing beliefs, goals, and world models — typically a frame-based, logic-based, or probabilistic language distinct from the shared ACL used on the wire. In ACL-evolution models each agent maintains a transducer between its KRL and the evolving public language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[KIF]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":2,"acls":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":2,"automated":1,"automating":1,"based":2,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"competence":1,"distinct":1,"each":1,"evolution":3,"evolving":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"frame":1,"from":1,"goals":1,"in":2,"internal":1,"its":1,"kif":1,"knowledge":1,"krl":1,"language":3,"linguistic":1,"logic":1,"maintains":1,"models":2,"of":2,"on":1,"or":1,"private":1,"probabilistic":1,"public":1,"representation":1,"representing":1,"s":1,"shared":1,"the":4,"this":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"transducer":1,"typically":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"wire":1,"world":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Simple Promise","s":"concepts/simple-promise","secs":[{"h":"Simple Promise","l":1,"t":"Elephant's minimal promise: an internal commitment to make some sentence true, plus an output assertion that the commitment exists. Truthfulness of the assertion is a correctness condition."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Abstract Performative]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"abstract":1,"acts":1,"an":2,"assertion":2,"based":2,"commitment":3,"condition":1,"correctness":1,"elephant":2,"exists":1,"in":1,"internal":1,"is":1,"language":1,"make":1,"minimal":1,"of":1,"on":1,"output":1,"performative":1,"plus":1,"programming":1,"promise":2,"s":1,"semantics":1,"sentence":1,"simple":1,"some":1,"speech":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"true":1,"truthfulness":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Guessing Game","s":"concepts/guessing-game","secs":[{"h":"Guessing Game","l":1,"t":"A language game in which a speaker refers to an object in a shared context and the hearer must identify it, used to drive lexicon formation and alignment in populations of robots or agents. A canonical Steels-style paradigm."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Language Games]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"agents":1,"alignment":1,"an":1,"and":2,"autonomous":1,"canonical":1,"context":1,"drive":1,"for":1,"formation":1,"game":2,"games":2,"guessing":1,"hearer":1,"identify":1,"in":4,"it":1,"language":3,"lexicon":1,"must":1,"object":1,"of":1,"or":1,"paradigm":1,"populations":1,"refers":1,"robots":2,"shared":1,"speaker":1,"steels":1,"style":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Agent Hub","s":"concepts/agent-hub","secs":[{"h":"Agent Hub","l":1,"t":"A GitHub-like online registry in the AGENTS framework where users can share, fork, and download pre-built agents and multi-agent configurations, lowering the barrier to reusing LLM-agent designs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":3,"agents":4,"al":1,"and":2,"barrier":1,"built":1,"can":1,"configurations":1,"designs":1,"download":1,"et":1,"fork":1,"framework":2,"github":1,"hub":1,"in":2,"like":1,"llm":2,"lowering":1,"multi":1,"online":1,"pre":1,"registry":1,"reusing":1,"share":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Bottom-up Programming","s":"concepts/bottom-up-programming","secs":[{"h":"Bottom-up Programming","l":1,"t":"Design style where the language is grown toward the problem via new operators and macros, rather than the program compressed into a fixed language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"as":1,"bottom":1,"compressed":1,"design":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"fixed":1,"graham":1,"grown":1,"in":1,"into":1,"is":1,"language":5,"macros":2,"new":1,"operators":1,"problem":1,"program":1,"programming":1,"rather":1,"style":1,"than":1,"the":4,"this":1,"toward":1,"up":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"where":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Context Independence","s":"concepts/context-independence","secs":[{"h":"Context Independence","l":1,"t":"A proposed diagnostic for genuine compositional language in emergent-communication experiments: a message should carry the same meaning across distinct contexts. Low context-independence indicates that the protocol exploits spurious correlations instead of forming reusable symbols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Emergent Communication]] - [[Compositionality]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"carry":1,"communication":3,"compositional":1,"compositionality":1,"context":2,"contexts":1,"correlations":1,"diagnostic":1,"distinct":1,"emergent":3,"experiments":1,"exploits":1,"for":1,"forming":1,"genuine":1,"in":2,"independence":2,"indicates":1,"instead":1,"language":1,"low":1,"meaning":1,"measuring":1,"message":1,"of":2,"on":1,"pitfalls":1,"proposed":1,"protocol":1,"reusable":1,"same":1,"should":1,"spurious":1,"symbols":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"ARCOL","s":"concepts/arcol","secs":[{"h":"ARCOL","l":1,"t":"Agent Rational Communication Language (France Telecom) — rational-action ACL semantics grounded in belief and intention modalities; a direct ancestor of FIPA-ACL."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Rational Action Semantics]] - [[FIPA-ACL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":3,"action":2,"agent":2,"ancestor":1,"and":1,"arcol":1,"art":1,"belief":1,"communication":2,"direct":1,"fipa":2,"france":1,"grounded":1,"in":3,"intention":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"modalities":1,"of":2,"rational":3,"semantics":2,"state":1,"telecom":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Approximate Theory","s":"concepts/approximate-theory","secs":[{"h":"Approximate Theory","l":1,"t":"McCarthy: a theory that is useful for reasoning in practice though not literally true — required when dealing with complex real-world systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"approximate":1,"ascribing":1,"complex":1,"dealing":1,"for":1,"in":2,"is":1,"literally":1,"machines":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":1,"not":1,"practice":1,"qualities":1,"real":1,"reasoning":1,"required":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"though":1,"to":1,"true":1,"useful":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"with":1,"world":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Brief Trust","s":"concepts/brief-trust","secs":[{"h":"Brief Trust","l":1,"t":"Inter-agent trust established via third-party or self-issued verifiable credentials (e.g. DIDs, VCs, SSL/TLS certs) — quick bootstrapping but static and needs robust revocation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Decentralized Identifiers]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"bootstrapping":1,"brief":1,"but":1,"certs":1,"comparative":1,"credentials":1,"decentralized":1,"dids":1,"e":1,"established":1,"g":1,"identifiers":1,"in":1,"inter":2,"issued":1,"models":1,"needs":1,"or":1,"party":1,"quick":1,"revocation":1,"robust":1,"self":1,"ssl":1,"static":1,"study":1,"third":1,"this":1,"tls":1,"trust":3,"vault":1,"vcs":1,"verifiable":1,"via":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Log-linear Learning","s":"concepts/log-linear-learning","secs":[{"h":"Log-linear Learning","l":1,"t":"A noisy best-response dynamic in which each agent selects actions with probability proportional to exp(utility/T). As the temperature T anneals, play concentrates on potential-maximising equilibria, giving convergence guarantees under bounded communication failure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":1,"anneals":1,"are":1,"as":1,"best":1,"bounded":1,"communication":2,"concentrates":1,"convergence":1,"dynamic":1,"each":1,"equilibria":1,"exp":1,"failure":1,"failures":1,"giving":1,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"learning":1,"linear":1,"log":1,"maximising":1,"multiagent":1,"noisy":1,"on":1,"play":1,"potential":1,"probability":1,"proportional":1,"resilient":1,"response":1,"selects":1,"systems":1,"t":2,"temperature":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"under":1,"utility":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Language-theoretic Security","s":"concepts/language-theoretic-security","secs":[{"h":"Language-theoretic Security","l":1,"t":"Approach that treats input handling as parsing of a formal language and locates vulnerabilities at the mismatch between intended and accepted languages; advocates minimal, decidable grammars and full input recognition before processing."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[LangSec]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accepted":1,"advocates":1,"and":3,"approach":1,"as":1,"at":1,"before":1,"between":1,"cake":1,"decidable":1,"formal":1,"full":1,"grammars":1,"halting":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"input":2,"insecurity":1,"intended":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"layer":1,"locates":1,"minimal":1,"mismatch":1,"network":1,"of":2,"parsing":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"problems":1,"processing":1,"recognition":1,"sassaman":1,"security":1,"stack":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"treats":1,"vault":1,"vulnerabilities":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Capsules","s":"concepts/capsules","secs":[{"h":"Capsules","l":1,"t":"Encapsulated units of code and authority that can be passed between principals without exposing their internals. In the security-kernel lambda calculus, capsules are the primitive bearers of capability-style authority, providing a semantic basis for object-capability security."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"are":1,"authority":2,"basis":1,"be":1,"bearers":1,"between":1,"calculus":2,"can":1,"capability":3,"capsules":2,"code":1,"encapsulated":1,"exposing":1,"for":1,"in":2,"internals":1,"kernel":2,"lambda":2,"object":1,"of":2,"passed":1,"primitive":1,"principals":1,"providing":1,"security":4,"semantic":1,"style":1,"that":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"units":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Newscast Gossip","s":"concepts/newscast-gossip","secs":[{"h":"Newscast Gossip","l":1,"t":"A peer-sampling protocol in which each node periodically exchanges a fixed-size cache of fresh (peer, timestamp) entries with a random neighbour, keeping the freshest. Newscast yields a self-healing, near-uniform random overlay used as substrate for many gossip protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"as":1,"cache":1,"each":1,"entries":1,"exchanges":1,"fixed":1,"for":1,"fresh":1,"freshest":1,"fungi":1,"gossip":3,"healing":1,"in":2,"inspired":1,"keeping":1,"many":1,"myconet":1,"near":1,"neighbour":1,"newscast":2,"node":1,"of":1,"overlay":2,"peer":3,"periodically":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"random":2,"sampling":2,"self":1,"service":1,"size":1,"substrate":1,"superpeer":1,"the":1,"this":1,"timestamp":1,"uniform":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Intention","s":"concepts/intention","secs":[{"h":"Intention","l":1,"t":"A commitment to act — the core mental state behind agent-oriented programming, distinguished from desire and belief by its future-directed, plan-constraining role."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"act":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"bdi":2,"behind":1,"belief":1,"by":1,"choice":1,"commitment":2,"constraining":1,"core":1,"desire":1,"directed":1,"distinguished":1,"faces":1,"from":1,"future":1,"in":1,"intention":3,"is":1,"its":1,"mental":1,"modeling":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"plan":1,"programming":1,"rational":1,"role":1,"state":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"within":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Pattern Composition","s":"concepts/pattern-composition","secs":[{"h":"Pattern Composition","l":1,"t":"The systematic combination of design patterns to address larger-scale problems, where the interfaces, constraints and intents of the component patterns must be reconciled. Semantic descriptions of agent patterns support tool-assisted composition and consistency checking."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]] - [[Architectural Pattern]]"}],"tf":{"address":1,"agent":2,"and":2,"architectural":1,"assisted":1,"be":1,"checking":1,"combination":1,"component":1,"composition":2,"consistency":1,"constraints":1,"description":1,"descriptions":1,"design":2,"for":1,"in":1,"intents":1,"interfaces":1,"larger":1,"must":1,"of":3,"pattern":2,"patterns":4,"problems":1,"reconciled":1,"scale":1,"semantic":2,"support":1,"systematic":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"tool":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Speaker Meaning","s":"concepts/speaker-meaning","secs":[{"h":"Speaker Meaning","l":1,"t":"Grice: what the speaker intends the hearer to recognise she intends — as distinct from sentence meaning. Foundational to intention-based theories of communication."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"act":1,"and":1,"as":1,"based":1,"communication":1,"conversation":1,"distinct":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"grice":1,"hearer":1,"in":1,"intends":2,"intention":1,"logic":1,"meaning":2,"of":1,"recognise":1,"sentence":1,"she":1,"speaker":2,"speech":1,"the":2,"theories":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Qualification Problem","s":"concepts/qualification-problem","secs":[{"h":"Qualification Problem","l":1,"t":"McCarthy: the impossibility of enumerating all the preconditions under which an action will have its expected effect; addressed by circumscribing abnormality."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abnormality":1,"action":1,"addressed":1,"all":1,"an":1,"by":1,"circumscribing":1,"circumscription":1,"common":1,"effect":1,"enumerating":1,"expected":1,"form":1,"have":1,"impossibility":1,"in":1,"its":1,"mccarthy":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"of":2,"preconditions":1,"problem":1,"qualification":1,"reasoning":2,"sense":1,"the":2,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"will":1}},{"dl":63,"n":"Direction of Fit","s":"concepts/direction-of-fit","secs":[{"h":"Direction of Fit","l":1,"t":"Searle and Anscombe's distinction between mental/speech-act types according to whether the mind (or word) is meant to match the world (word-to-world, as in assertions and beliefs) or the world is meant to match the mind (world-to-word, as in commands and desires)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Illocutionary Force]]"}],"tf":{"according":1,"act":2,"and":3,"anscombe":1,"as":2,"assertions":1,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"commands":1,"desires":1,"direction":1,"distinction":1,"fit":1,"force":1,"foundations":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":3,"is":2,"logic":1,"match":2,"meant":2,"mental":1,"mind":2,"of":2,"or":2,"s":1,"searle":1,"speech":2,"the":4,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":5,"types":1,"vault":1,"whether":1,"word":3,"world":4}},{"dl":34,"n":"Causal Threat Graph","s":"concepts/causal-threat-graph","secs":[{"h":"Causal Threat Graph","l":1,"t":"SoK construct: a directed graph capturing how a single vulnerability cascades into downstream agentic harms — used for systematic attack-surface analysis."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agentic":2,"ai":1,"analysis":1,"attack":2,"capturing":1,"cascades":1,"causal":1,"construct":1,"directed":1,"downstream":1,"for":1,"graph":2,"harms":1,"how":1,"in":1,"into":1,"of":1,"single":1,"sok":2,"surface":2,"systematic":1,"the":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vulnerability":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Common Sense Reasoning","s":"concepts/common-sense-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Common Sense Reasoning","l":1,"t":"Reasoning about everyday physical and social situations using informal but robust inferences — the enduring grand challenge McCarthy posed for AI."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"ascribing":1,"but":1,"challenge":1,"common":1,"enduring":1,"everyday":1,"for":1,"grand":1,"in":1,"inferences":1,"informal":1,"knowledge":1,"machines":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":1,"physical":1,"posed":1,"qualities":1,"reasoning":2,"representation":1,"robust":1,"sense":1,"situations":1,"social":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Protocol Design","s":"concepts/protocol-design","secs":[{"h":"Protocol Design","l":1,"t":"Discipline of specifying interaction rules, message formats, and state machines so as to achieve desired properties (liveness, safety, secrecy); the unifying craft across ACLs, LangSec, and agentic protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achieve":1,"acls":1,"across":1,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"and":2,"applications":1,"as":1,"communication":2,"craft":1,"design":1,"desired":1,"discipline":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"formats":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"langsec":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"liveness":1,"llms":1,"machines":1,"message":1,"networks":1,"of":3,"properties":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"rules":1,"safety":1,"scalable":1,"secrecy":1,"security":1,"so":1,"specifying":1,"state":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unifying":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Ethical Governor","s":"concepts/ethical-governor","secs":[{"h":"Ethical Governor","l":1,"t":"Runtime monitor that filters or blocks agent actions against ethical meta-rules."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[A-ILTL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"behaviour":1,"blocks":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":3,"filters":1,"governor":1,"iltl":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"logical":1,"meta":1,"monitor":1,"or":1,"rules":1,"runtime":1,"that":1,"this":1,"trustworthy":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Formula Circumscription","s":"concepts/formula-circumscription","secs":[{"h":"Formula Circumscription","l":1,"t":"McCarthy 1986 generalisation: circumscribe an arbitrary formula (not just a predicate), jointly minimising it over a set of parameters."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Circumscription]]"}],"tf":{"1986":1,"a":2,"an":1,"applications":1,"arbitrary":1,"circumscribe":1,"circumscription":3,"common":1,"formalizing":1,"formula":2,"generalisation":1,"in":1,"it":1,"jointly":1,"just":1,"knowledge":1,"mccarthy":1,"minimising":1,"not":1,"of":1,"over":1,"parameters":1,"predicate":1,"sense":1,"set":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"LangSec","s":"concepts/langsec","secs":[{"h":"Language-theoretic Security","l":1,"t":"Research programme treating input-handling bugs as recognition-theoretic failures: minimise input-language power and build validating recognisers."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"as":1,"babel":1,"bugs":1,"build":1,"cake":1,"differential":1,"distributed":1,"failures":1,"halting":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"input":2,"insecurity":1,"kaminsky":1,"language":2,"layer":1,"minimise":1,"network":1,"of":2,"parser":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"power":1,"problems":1,"programme":1,"recognisers":1,"recognition":1,"research":1,"sassaman":1,"security":2,"seven":1,"stack":1,"the":1,"theoretic":2,"this":1,"treating":1,"turrets":1,"validating":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Recognizer","s":"concepts/recognizer","secs":[{"h":"Recognizer","l":1,"t":"A program that decides membership in a formal language; LangSec advocates recognising the full input language *before* any processing, so the rest of the stack operates only on well-formed data."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"advocates":1,"any":1,"before":1,"data":1,"decides":1,"formal":1,"formed":1,"full":1,"halting":1,"in":2,"input":1,"insecurity":1,"langsec":2,"language":2,"membership":1,"network":1,"of":2,"on":1,"only":1,"operates":1,"problems":1,"processing":1,"program":1,"recognising":1,"recognizer":1,"rest":1,"so":1,"stack":2,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"vault":1,"well":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Symbolic Descriptions","s":"concepts/symbolic-descriptions","secs":[{"h":"Symbolic Descriptions","l":1,"t":"In LACIOS (Lacio Open System), parameterised property→value maps with symbolic variables replacing rigid tuples, enabling partial matching and contextual disclosure in data-driven agent coordination. The extension that makes access-control rules expressible over data structure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Access Control Rules]]"}],"tf":{"access":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"contextual":1,"control":2,"coordination":1,"data":3,"descriptions":1,"disclosure":1,"driven":2,"enabling":1,"expressible":1,"extension":1,"in":4,"interaction":1,"lacio":1,"lacios":1,"languages":1,"makes":1,"maps":1,"matching":1,"open":1,"over":1,"parameterised":1,"partial":1,"property":1,"replacing":1,"rigid":1,"rules":2,"secure":1,"structure":1,"symbolic":2,"system":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tuples":1,"value":1,"variables":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Conversation Specialization","s":"concepts/conversation-specialization","secs":[{"h":"Conversation Specialization","l":1,"t":"Refining a generic ACL conversation template into a domain- or role-specific sub-protocol by adding constraints on message order, content, or participants, while preserving compatibility with the parent conversation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":2,"adding":1,"agents":1,"by":1,"compatibility":1,"constraints":1,"content":1,"conversation":4,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"domain":1,"generic":1,"in":1,"into":1,"message":1,"on":1,"or":2,"order":1,"parent":1,"participants":1,"policy":1,"preserving":1,"protocol":1,"refining":1,"role":1,"specialization":1,"specific":1,"sub":1,"template":1,"the":1,"this":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"while":1,"with":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Sociological Reputation","s":"concepts/sociological-reputation","secs":[{"h":"Sociological Reputation","l":1,"t":"Reputation arising from an agent's position within a social network — its group memberships, roles and affiliations — rather than from direct experience. It supplements individual and witness-based reputation in computational trust models."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Witness Reputation]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"affiliations":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":4,"arising":1,"based":1,"computational":2,"direct":1,"experience":1,"from":2,"group":1,"in":2,"individual":1,"it":1,"its":1,"memberships":1,"models":2,"network":1,"on":1,"position":1,"rather":1,"reputation":6,"review":1,"roles":1,"s":1,"social":1,"sociological":1,"supplements":1,"than":1,"this":1,"trust":3,"vault":1,"within":1,"witness":2}},{"dl":46,"n":"Natural vs Artificial Automata","s":"concepts/natural-vs-artificial-automata","secs":[{"h":"Natural vs Artificial Automata","l":1,"t":"Von Neumann's contrast between biological automata (robust, analog, highly redundant, error-tolerant) and engineered ones (precise, digital, brittle). The comparison motivates his theory of reliable computation from unreliable components and self-reproduction."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] - [[Redundancy]]"}],"tf":{"analog":1,"and":2,"artificial":1,"automata":3,"between":1,"biological":1,"brittle":1,"comparison":1,"components":1,"computation":1,"contrast":1,"digital":1,"engineered":1,"error":1,"from":1,"highly":1,"his":1,"in":1,"motivates":1,"natural":1,"neumann":1,"of":2,"ones":1,"precise":1,"redundancy":1,"redundant":1,"reliable":1,"reproducing":1,"reproduction":1,"robust":1,"s":1,"self":2,"the":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"tolerant":1,"unreliable":1,"vault":1,"von":1,"vs":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Heuristic Adequacy","s":"concepts/heuristic-adequacy","secs":[{"h":"Heuristic Adequacy","l":1,"t":"McCarthy-Hayes criterion complementing epistemological adequacy: a representation is *heuristically adequate* if it permits tractable reasoning in practice."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Epistemological Adequacy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adequacy":3,"adequate":1,"artificial":1,"complementing":1,"criterion":1,"epistemological":3,"hayes":1,"heuristic":1,"heuristically":1,"if":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"is":1,"it":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":1,"permits":1,"practice":1,"problems":1,"reasoning":1,"representation":1,"this":1,"tractable":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Secure Agent Control Protocol","s":"concepts/secure-agent-control-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Secure Agent Control Protocol","l":1,"t":"The transport-level protocol over which SOL/SINS agents communicate across hosts, providing authenticated and integrity-protected message delivery and fault notifications that feed the SINS middleware's dependability machinery."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":2,"architectural":1,"authenticated":1,"communicate":1,"control":1,"delivery":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"distributed":1,"fault":1,"feed":1,"for":1,"hosts":1,"in":1,"integrity":1,"level":1,"machinery":1,"message":1,"middleware":1,"notifications":1,"over":1,"patterns":1,"protected":1,"protocol":2,"providing":1,"s":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"sins":2,"software":1,"sol":2,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transport":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":83,"n":"Dedalus","s":"concepts/dedalus","secs":[{"h":"Dedalus","l":1,"t":"Temporal Datalog variant (Alvaro, Marczak, Conway, Hellerstein, Maier) designed as a formal model of state and time in distributed computation. Tuples carry a logical timestamp; rules are partitioned into deductive (same-time), inductive (next-time), and asynchronous (non-deterministic-time). Dedalus is the logical basis of **[[Bloom Language]]** and the substrate on which the **[[CALM Theorem]]** is proved for programmable systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Bloom Language]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Relational Transducer]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"alvaro":1,"and":3,"are":1,"as":1,"asynchronous":1,"basis":1,"bloom":2,"calm":3,"carry":1,"computation":1,"consistency":1,"conway":1,"datalog":1,"dedalus":2,"deductive":1,"designed":1,"deterministic":1,"distributed":2,"easy":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"foundations":1,"hellerstein":1,"in":2,"inductive":1,"into":1,"is":3,"keeping":1,"language":2,"lloyd":1,"logic":1,"logical":2,"maier":1,"marczak":1,"model":1,"next":1,"non":1,"of":3,"on":1,"partitioned":1,"programmable":1,"programming":1,"proved":1,"relational":1,"rules":1,"same":1,"state":1,"substrate":1,"systems":1,"temporal":1,"the":3,"theorem":2,"this":1,"time":4,"timestamp":1,"transducer":1,"tuples":1,"variant":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"which":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Society-of-More","s":"concepts/society-of-more","secs":[{"h":"Society-of-More","l":1,"t":"Minsky's illustrative subsociety for the concept 'more' — an example of how an apparently simple concept is realised as a coalition of specialised agents in different sensory/numerical domains."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Papert's Principle]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":1,"an":2,"apparently":1,"as":1,"coalition":1,"concept":2,"different":1,"domains":1,"example":1,"for":1,"how":1,"illustrative":1,"in":2,"is":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"more":2,"numerical":1,"of":4,"papert":1,"principle":1,"realised":1,"s":2,"sensory":1,"simple":1,"society":2,"specialised":1,"subsociety":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Individual Concepts","s":"concepts/individual-concepts","secs":[{"h":"Individual Concepts","l":1,"t":"McCarthy-Church: the sense of a name — the *concept* of an individual distinct from the individual itself — needed for sentences about belief, knowledge, and identity across modal contexts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Sense and Denotation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"across":1,"an":1,"and":3,"belief":1,"church":1,"concept":1,"concepts":2,"contexts":1,"denotation":1,"distinct":1,"first":1,"for":1,"from":1,"identity":1,"in":1,"individual":4,"itself":1,"knowledge":1,"mccarthy":1,"modal":1,"name":1,"needed":1,"of":3,"order":1,"propositions":1,"sense":2,"sentences":1,"the":3,"theories":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"ASCENS","s":"concepts/ascens","secs":[{"h":"ASCENS","l":1,"t":"Autonomic Service-Component Ensembles — an EU FP7 project that proposed a science-of-ensembles framework in which large-scale collectives of components achieve goals through self-adaptation, self-expression, and self-awareness backed by formal language foundations (SCEL) and runtime support."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achieve":1,"adaptation":2,"adaptive":1,"an":1,"and":2,"ascens":2,"autonomic":1,"awareness":2,"backed":1,"by":1,"collectives":1,"component":1,"components":1,"ensembles":2,"eu":1,"expression":2,"formal":1,"foundations":1,"fp7":1,"framework":1,"goals":1,"in":2,"language":1,"large":1,"of":2,"project":1,"proposed":1,"runtime":1,"scale":1,"scel":1,"science":1,"self":7,"service":1,"support":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"through":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Push-Pull Gossip","s":"concepts/push-pull-gossip","secs":[{"h":"Push-Pull Gossip","l":1,"t":"A gossip variant in which each pairwise exchange both sends the initiator's state and retrieves the peer's state, accelerating convergence compared to pure push or pull schemes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accelerating":1,"aggregation":1,"and":1,"based":1,"both":1,"compared":1,"convergence":1,"dynamic":1,"each":1,"exchange":1,"gossip":4,"in":3,"initiator":1,"large":1,"networks":1,"or":1,"pairwise":1,"peer":1,"protocols":1,"pull":2,"pure":1,"push":2,"retrieves":1,"s":2,"schemes":1,"sends":1,"state":2,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"variant":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Sincerity Conditions","s":"concepts/sincerity-conditions","secs":[{"h":"Sincerity Conditions","l":1,"t":"In Searle and Vanderveken's illocutionary logic, the psychological state a speaker must be in for an illocutionary act to be non-defective (belief for assertions, intention for promises, desire for requests). The foundation of the \"sincerity\" preconditions in mentalistic ACL semantics and the source of the verifiability problem."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"act":2,"an":1,"and":2,"assertions":1,"be":2,"belief":1,"conditions":1,"defective":1,"desire":1,"for":4,"foundation":1,"foundations":1,"illocutionary":3,"in":4,"intention":1,"logic":2,"mentalistic":2,"must":1,"non":1,"of":3,"preconditions":1,"problem":1,"promises":1,"psychological":1,"requests":1,"s":1,"searle":1,"semantics":3,"sincerity":2,"source":1,"speaker":1,"speech":1,"state":1,"the":5,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vanderveken":1,"vault":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Refinement","s":"concepts/refinement","secs":[{"h":"Refinement","l":1,"t":"In formal methods (notably Event-B, Z), a correctness-preserving transformation from an abstract specification to a more concrete one, discharging proof obligations that ensure all concrete behaviours are permitted abstractions. The central technique for correctness-by-construction in the blockchain-interoperability paper."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"abstract":1,"abstractions":1,"all":1,"an":1,"are":1,"b":1,"behaviours":1,"blockchain":2,"by":1,"central":1,"concrete":2,"construction":1,"correctness":2,"discharging":1,"ensure":1,"event":1,"for":1,"formal":2,"formalise":1,"from":1,"in":3,"interoperability":2,"methods":1,"more":1,"notably":1,"obligations":1,"one":1,"paper":1,"patterns":1,"permitted":1,"preserving":1,"proof":1,"refinement":1,"specification":1,"technique":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"transformation":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"z":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Belief Revision","s":"concepts/belief-revision","secs":[{"h":"Belief Revision","l":1,"t":"AGM theory of rationally updating a belief set in light of new, possibly contradictory, information — backbone of ontology-change and agent-belief reasoning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[BDI]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agm":1,"and":2,"backbone":1,"bdi":1,"belief":3,"change":2,"classification":1,"contradictory":1,"in":2,"information":1,"light":1,"mental":1,"new":1,"of":3,"ontology":2,"possibly":1,"rationally":1,"reasoning":1,"revision":1,"set":1,"state":1,"survey":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"updating":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Variance Reduction","s":"concepts/variance-reduction","secs":[{"h":"Variance Reduction","l":1,"t":"The design goal, in gossip-based aggregation, of driving the spread of node estimates around the true global aggregate down to zero as quickly as possible. Push-sum and related protocols achieve geometric variance decay per round under mild connectivity assumptions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Push-Sum]] - [[Convergent Gossip]]"}],"tf":{"achieve":1,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":2,"and":1,"around":1,"as":2,"assumptions":1,"based":2,"connectivity":1,"convergent":1,"decay":1,"design":1,"down":1,"driving":1,"dynamic":1,"estimates":1,"geometric":1,"global":1,"goal":1,"gossip":3,"in":3,"large":1,"mild":1,"networks":1,"node":1,"of":2,"per":1,"possible":1,"protocols":1,"push":2,"quickly":1,"reduction":1,"related":1,"round":1,"spread":1,"sum":2,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"true":1,"under":1,"variance":2,"vault":1,"zero":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Execution Autonomy","s":"concepts/execution-autonomy","secs":[{"h":"Execution Autonomy","l":1,"t":"An agent's freedom to decide when and how to act on received messages, without being compelled by the ACL's semantics to particular internal state changes. Paired with design autonomy as a guiding ACL principle."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Design Autonomy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"act":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":1,"as":1,"autonomy":3,"being":1,"by":1,"changes":1,"communication":1,"compelled":1,"decide":1,"design":2,"execution":1,"freedom":1,"guiding":1,"how":1,"in":1,"internal":1,"languages":1,"messages":1,"on":1,"paired":1,"particular":1,"principle":1,"principles":1,"received":1,"rethinking":1,"s":2,"semantics":1,"state":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"when":1,"with":1,"without":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Investment Principle","s":"concepts/investment-principle","secs":[{"h":"Investment Principle","l":1,"t":"Minsky: once an agency has accumulated capability in one way of doing something, subsequent minds tend to elaborate that way rather than switch — because switching wastes the investment."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"accumulated":1,"agency":1,"an":1,"because":1,"capability":1,"doing":1,"elaborate":1,"has":1,"in":2,"investment":2,"mind":1,"minds":1,"minsky":1,"of":2,"once":1,"one":1,"principle":1,"rather":1,"society":1,"something":1,"subsequent":1,"switch":1,"switching":1,"tend":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"wastes":1,"way":2}},{"dl":51,"n":"Ontology Evolution","s":"concepts/ontology-evolution","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Evolution","l":1,"t":"The managed, traceable modification of an ontology over time in response to changes in the modelled domain, usage, or design intent, preserving consistency of dependent artifacts. A distinct ontology-change subfield with its own versioning and impact-analysis techniques."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Belief Revision]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":2,"artifacts":1,"belief":1,"change":2,"changes":1,"classification":1,"consistency":1,"dependent":1,"design":1,"distinct":1,"domain":1,"evolution":1,"impact":1,"in":3,"intent":1,"its":1,"managed":1,"modelled":1,"modification":1,"of":2,"ontology":4,"or":1,"over":1,"own":1,"preserving":1,"response":1,"revision":1,"subfield":1,"survey":1,"techniques":1,"the":2,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"traceable":1,"usage":1,"vault":1,"versioning":1,"with":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Bit Syntax","s":"concepts/bit-syntax","secs":[{"h":"Bit Syntax","l":1,"t":"Erlang's pattern-matching construct for binaries: expressions of the form `<<Field:Size/Type, ...>>` that both parse and construct bitstrings at arbitrary bit offsets. It makes network-protocol and file-format code declarative and safe."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"}],"tf":{"and":3,"arbitrary":1,"at":1,"binaries":1,"bit":2,"bitstrings":1,"both":1,"code":1,"construct":2,"declarative":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"expressions":1,"file":1,"for":1,"form":1,"format":1,"in":1,"it":1,"makes":1,"matching":1,"network":1,"of":1,"offsets":1,"parse":1,"pattern":1,"programming":1,"protocol":1,"s":1,"safe":1,"second":1,"syntax":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Agent Theory-Architecture-Language Triad","s":"concepts/agent-theory-architecture-language-triad","secs":[{"h":"Agent Theory/Architecture/Language Triad","l":1,"t":"Wooldridge and Jennings' tripartite division of agent research: *theories* specify what agents are, *architectures* specify how to build them, and *languages* give the notations for programming them. Each layer constrains and is constrained by the others."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[BDI]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"agent":3,"agents":2,"and":4,"architecture":1,"architectures":1,"are":1,"bdi":1,"build":1,"by":1,"constrained":1,"constrains":1,"division":1,"each":1,"for":1,"give":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"is":1,"jennings":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"layer":1,"notations":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"others":1,"practice":1,"programming":2,"research":1,"specify":2,"the":2,"them":2,"theories":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":1,"triad":1,"tripartite":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Extensionality","s":"concepts/extensionality","secs":[{"h":"Extensionality","l":1,"t":"Principle that a predicate's meaning is its extension (set of satisfying tuples); fails for propositional-attitude contexts, motivating McCarthy's first-order theory of individual concepts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"attitude":1,"concepts":2,"contexts":1,"extension":1,"extensionality":1,"fails":1,"first":2,"for":1,"in":1,"individual":2,"is":1,"its":1,"mccarthy":1,"meaning":1,"motivating":1,"of":3,"order":2,"predicate":1,"principle":1,"propositional":1,"propositions":1,"s":2,"satisfying":1,"set":1,"that":1,"theories":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"tuples":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Direct Experience","s":"concepts/direct-experience","secs":[{"h":"Direct Experience","l":1,"t":"In trust and reputation models, evidence an agent gathers from its own past interactions with a target — contrasted with indirect (witness) evidence — typically weighted more heavily because it is not subject to gossip distortion."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":3,"because":1,"computational":1,"contrasted":1,"direct":1,"distortion":1,"evidence":2,"experience":1,"from":1,"gathers":1,"gossip":1,"heavily":1,"in":2,"indirect":1,"interactions":1,"is":1,"it":1,"its":1,"models":2,"more":1,"not":1,"on":1,"own":1,"past":1,"reputation":3,"review":1,"subject":1,"target":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":3,"typically":1,"vault":1,"weighted":1,"with":2,"witness":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Difference-Engines","s":"concepts/difference-engines","secs":[{"h":"Difference-Engines","l":1,"t":"Minsky's agent type: compares current state to goal state and produces a differences-reducing action. Echoes GPS (Newell-Simon) but lives inside a society rather than the whole mind."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"action":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"but":1,"compares":1,"current":1,"difference":1,"differences":1,"echoes":1,"engines":1,"goal":1,"gps":1,"in":1,"inside":1,"lives":1,"mind":2,"minsky":1,"newell":1,"of":1,"produces":1,"rather":1,"reducing":1,"s":1,"simon":1,"society":2,"state":2,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"type":1,"vault":1,"whole":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"REST","s":"concepts/rest","secs":[{"h":"REST","l":1,"t":"Representational State Transfer: an architectural style for networked hypermedia systems, defined by constraints including client-server, statelessness, caching, uniform interface, layering, and code-on-demand. Defined by Fielding as the abstraction underlying the Web."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Architectural Styles]] - [[Hypermedia]]"}],"tf":{"abstraction":1,"an":1,"and":1,"architectural":2,"architecture":1,"as":1,"by":2,"caching":1,"client":1,"code":1,"constraints":1,"defined":2,"demand":1,"design":1,"fielding":1,"for":1,"hypermedia":2,"in":1,"including":1,"interface":1,"layering":1,"modern":1,"networked":1,"of":1,"on":1,"principled":1,"representational":1,"rest":1,"server":1,"state":1,"statelessness":1,"style":1,"styles":1,"systems":1,"the":3,"this":1,"transfer":1,"underlying":1,"uniform":1,"vault":1,"web":2}},{"dl":37,"n":"Agentic TCB","s":"concepts/agentic-tcb","secs":[{"h":"Agentic TCB","l":1,"t":"Trusted Computing Base for agentic AI: the subsystems (model, memory, tool runtime, policy engine) that must be correct for security guarantees to hold."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agentic":3,"ai":2,"attack":1,"base":1,"be":1,"computing":1,"correct":1,"engine":1,"for":2,"guarantees":1,"hold":1,"in":1,"memory":1,"model":1,"must":1,"of":1,"policy":1,"runtime":1,"security":2,"sok":1,"subsystems":1,"surface":1,"tcb":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"tool":1,"trusted":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Gradient Compression","s":"concepts/gradient-compression","secs":[{"h":"Gradient Compression","l":1,"t":"Techniques (quantisation, sparsification, sketching) for reducing the communication volume of gradient updates in distributed and federated training, trading reconstruction error against bandwidth. Essential at the edge where uplink is the bottleneck."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Federated Learning]] - [[DNN Splitting]]"}],"tf":{"against":1,"and":1,"at":1,"bandwidth":1,"bottleneck":1,"communication":1,"compression":1,"distributed":1,"dnn":1,"edge":2,"error":1,"essential":1,"federated":2,"for":1,"gradient":2,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"is":1,"learning":1,"of":1,"quantisation":1,"reconstruction":1,"reducing":1,"sketching":1,"sparsification":1,"splitting":1,"survey":1,"techniques":1,"the":3,"this":1,"trading":1,"training":1,"updates":1,"uplink":1,"vault":1,"volume":1,"where":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"FIRE","s":"concepts/fire","secs":[{"h":"FIRE","l":1,"t":"A trust and reputation model (Huynh, Jennings, Shadbolt) integrating four sources of trust information: interaction trust (direct experience), role-based trust, witness reputation, and certified reputation. A canonical multi-source model in the Sabater–Sierra survey."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":4,"based":1,"canonical":1,"certified":1,"computational":1,"direct":1,"experience":1,"fire":1,"four":1,"huynh":1,"in":2,"information":1,"integrating":1,"interaction":1,"jennings":1,"model":2,"models":1,"multi":1,"of":1,"on":1,"reputation":5,"review":1,"role":1,"sabater":1,"shadbolt":1,"sierra":1,"source":1,"sources":1,"survey":1,"the":1,"this":1,"trust":6,"vault":1,"witness":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Commitment","s":"concepts/commitment","secs":[{"h":"Commitment","l":1,"t":"A public, directed obligation from one agent to another to bring about some condition; commitments serve as the social-semantic alternative to mentalistic ACL semantics and ground protocol correctness in observable state rather than private beliefs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"acl":1,"agent":3,"alternative":1,"and":2,"another":1,"as":1,"based":1,"beliefs":1,"bring":1,"commitment":2,"commitments":1,"communication":1,"condition":1,"correctness":1,"directed":1,"from":1,"ground":1,"in":2,"institutional":1,"mentalistic":1,"obligation":1,"observable":1,"one":1,"oriented":1,"private":1,"programming":1,"protocol":1,"public":1,"rather":1,"reality":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":2,"serve":1,"social":1,"some":1,"state":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Rational Action Semantics","s":"concepts/rational-action-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Rational Action Semantics","l":1,"t":"Cohen-Levesque-style ACL semantics in which each speech act has a rational effect deducible from the sender's beliefs and goals — formal but famously unverifiable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[ARCOL]] - [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"act":1,"action":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"arcol":1,"art":1,"beliefs":1,"but":1,"cohen":1,"communication":1,"deducible":1,"each":1,"effect":1,"famously":1,"fipa":1,"formal":1,"from":1,"goals":1,"has":1,"in":3,"languages":1,"levesque":1,"of":1,"rational":2,"s":1,"semantics":3,"sender":1,"speech":1,"state":1,"style":1,"the":3,"this":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"which":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"PGP Authentication","s":"concepts/pgp-authentication","secs":[{"h":"PGP Authentication","l":1,"t":"Use of Pretty Good Privacy public-key signatures to bind a mobile agent (or its code) to an identity, so that a receiving host can apply identity-specific resource policies before execution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":1,"apply":1,"authentication":1,"before":1,"bind":1,"book":1,"can":1,"chapter":1,"code":1,"dagents":1,"execution":1,"flexible":1,"good":1,"host":1,"identity":2,"in":1,"its":1,"key":1,"mobile":2,"of":1,"or":1,"pgp":1,"policies":1,"pretty":1,"privacy":1,"public":1,"receiving":1,"resource":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"signatures":1,"so":1,"specific":1,"tcl":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":2,"use":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Dialect vs Idiolect","s":"concepts/dialect-vs-idiolect","secs":[{"h":"Dialect vs Idiolect","l":1,"t":"A dialect is a shared variant of a language used by a subcommunity; an idiolect is the idiosyncratic variant of a single speaker. In ACLs, dialects threaten interoperability while idiolects threaten mutual intelligibility entirely."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]"}],"tf":{"a":5,"acls":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"by":1,"communication":1,"dialect":2,"dialects":1,"entirely":1,"idiolect":2,"idiolects":1,"idiosyncratic":1,"in":2,"intelligibility":1,"interoperability":1,"is":2,"language":1,"languages":1,"mutual":1,"of":2,"principles":1,"rethinking":1,"shared":1,"single":1,"speaker":1,"subcommunity":1,"the":2,"this":1,"threaten":2,"used":1,"variant":2,"vault":1,"vs":1,"while":1}},{"dl":64,"n":"Circumscription","s":"concepts/circumscription","secs":[{"h":"Circumscription","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's non-monotonic inference rule: minimise the extension of a predicate subject to the given axioms, licensing 'unless told otherwise' defaults. Basis of common-sense reasoning in AI."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] — the 1980 original (predicate & domain circumscription). - [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] — the 1986 sequel (formula circumscription, abnormality predicate). - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]] - [[Default Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"1980":1,"1986":1,"a":2,"abnormality":1,"ai":1,"applications":1,"axioms":1,"basis":1,"circumscription":5,"common":2,"default":1,"defaults":1,"domain":1,"extension":1,"form":1,"formalizing":1,"formula":1,"given":1,"in":2,"inference":1,"knowledge":1,"licensing":1,"mccarthy":1,"minimise":1,"monotonic":2,"non":2,"nonmonotonic":1,"of":3,"original":1,"otherwise":1,"predicate":3,"reasoning":4,"rule":1,"s":1,"sense":2,"sequel":1,"subject":1,"the":4,"this":1,"to":2,"told":1,"unless":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"KIF","s":"concepts/kif","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Interchange Format","l":1,"t":"First-order-logic-based language (Genesereth) used as a neutral content language for KQML and Ontolingua."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"as":1,"based":1,"content":1,"first":1,"for":1,"format":1,"genesereth":1,"in":1,"interchange":1,"knowledge":1,"kqml":3,"language":3,"logic":1,"neutral":1,"ontolingua":2,"ontology":1,"order":1,"overview":1,"portable":1,"protocol":1,"specifications":1,"this":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Hot Standby","s":"concepts/hot-standby","secs":[{"h":"Hot Standby","l":1,"t":"A fault-tolerance pattern in which a replica continuously mirrors a primary component's state and can take over with minimal delay if the primary fails. A staple of dependable-systems architecture."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Fault Tolerance]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"and":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"can":1,"component":1,"continuously":1,"delay":1,"dependable":2,"fails":1,"fault":2,"for":1,"hot":1,"if":1,"in":2,"minimal":1,"mirrors":1,"of":1,"over":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"primary":2,"replica":1,"s":1,"software":1,"sol":1,"standby":1,"staple":1,"state":1,"systems":2,"take":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tolerance":2,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Ontology Matching","s":"concepts/ontology-matching","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Matching","l":1,"t":"The process of finding correspondences between entities in distinct ontologies to enable semantic interoperability. Required when agents using different ontologies must exchange content in a shared ACL."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Interoperability]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"agents":1,"between":1,"content":1,"correspondences":1,"different":1,"distinct":1,"enable":1,"entities":1,"exchange":1,"finding":1,"in":3,"interoperability":2,"kqml":1,"matching":1,"must":1,"of":1,"ontologies":3,"ontology":1,"overview":1,"process":1,"required":1,"semantic":1,"shared":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Embedded Languages","s":"concepts/embedded-languages","secs":[{"h":"Embedded Languages","l":1,"t":"DSLs implemented inside a host language by reusing its parser and evaluator (e.g., Lisp macros, Racket #lang); in contrast to standalone DSLs they inherit the host's tooling and composability."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"as":1,"by":1,"composability":1,"contrast":1,"domain":1,"dsls":2,"e":1,"embedded":1,"evaluator":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"g":1,"graham":1,"host":2,"implemented":1,"in":2,"inherit":1,"inside":1,"its":1,"lang":1,"language":3,"languages":2,"lisp":1,"macros":2,"parser":1,"racket":1,"reusing":1,"s":1,"specific":1,"standalone":1,"the":2,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tooling":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning","s":"concepts/multi-agent-reinforcement-learning","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning","l":1,"t":"Reinforcement learning in environments containing multiple simultaneously learning agents, so that each agent's optimal policy depends on the others' evolving policies. Cooperative MARL is the standard substrate for emergent-language experiments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"agent":4,"agents":1,"and":1,"communication":1,"compositional":1,"containing":1,"cooperation":1,"cooperative":1,"depends":1,"each":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":2,"environments":1,"evolving":1,"experiments":1,"for":1,"grounded":1,"in":3,"is":1,"language":3,"learning":3,"marl":1,"multi":3,"multiple":1,"natural":1,"of":2,"on":1,"optimal":1,"others":1,"policies":1,"policy":1,"populations":1,"reinforcement":2,"s":1,"simultaneously":1,"so":1,"standard":1,"substrate":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Problem-Solving Coherence","s":"concepts/problem-solving-coherence","secs":[{"h":"Problem-Solving Coherence","l":1,"t":"The degree to which a MAS's agents avoid conflict, redundant work, and deadlock while collectively solving a problem; one of Sycara's classic challenges for multi-agent coordination."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"avoid":1,"challenges":1,"classic":1,"coherence":1,"collectively":1,"conflict":1,"coordination":1,"deadlock":1,"degree":1,"for":1,"in":1,"mas":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"of":1,"one":1,"problem":2,"redundant":1,"s":2,"solving":2,"sycara":2,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"while":1,"work":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"A-ILTL","s":"concepts/a-iltl","secs":[{"h":"Attempto Interval Temporal Logic","l":1,"t":"Interval temporal logic variant used for runtime self-oversight rules in BDI agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Ethical Governor]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]]"}],"tf":{"agents":2,"and":1,"attempto":1,"bdi":1,"behaviour":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":2,"for":1,"governor":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"interval":2,"logic":2,"logical":1,"loop":1,"metacognitive":1,"oversight":1,"rules":1,"runtime":1,"self":1,"temporal":2,"this":1,"trustworthy":1,"used":1,"variant":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Division of Labour","s":"concepts/division-of-labour","secs":[{"h":"Division of Labour","l":1,"t":"Assignment of distinct roles, subtasks, or specialisations to different agents so that the collective achieves more than any single agent could, forming the basis for role-based multi-agent architectures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Roles]]"}],"tf":{"achieves":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":1,"any":1,"architectures":1,"assignment":1,"based":1,"basis":1,"collaboration":1,"collective":1,"could":1,"different":1,"distinct":1,"division":1,"for":1,"forming":1,"in":2,"labour":1,"more":1,"multi":2,"of":2,"or":1,"role":1,"roles":2,"single":1,"so":1,"specialisations":1,"subtasks":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"tunkel":1,"vault":1,"wasif":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Dual-Anchor Persistence","s":"concepts/dual-anchor-persistence","secs":[{"h":"Dual-Anchor Persistence","l":1,"t":"Persistence technique used by self-propagating LLM-agent worms: write malicious state in two independent storage locations so removing one leaves the other to reinfect."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":2,"anchor":1,"attacks":1,"by":1,"clawworm":1,"dual":1,"ecosystems":1,"in":2,"independent":1,"leaves":1,"llm":2,"locations":1,"malicious":1,"one":1,"other":1,"persistence":2,"propagating":2,"reinfect":1,"removing":1,"self":2,"so":1,"state":1,"storage":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"two":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"worms":1,"write":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Non-Owner Compliance","s":"concepts/non-owner-compliance","secs":[{"h":"Non-Owner Compliance","l":1,"t":"Failure mode where an LLM agent follows instructions from someone other than its delegated owner without proper authentication."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Delegated Authority]] - [[Owner Identity Spoofing]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"authentication":1,"authority":1,"chaos":1,"compliance":1,"delegated":2,"failure":1,"follows":1,"from":1,"identity":1,"in":1,"instructions":1,"its":1,"llm":1,"mode":1,"non":1,"of":1,"other":1,"owner":3,"proper":1,"someone":1,"spoofing":1,"than":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"without":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"MAST Taxonomy","s":"concepts/mast-taxonomy","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent System Taxonomy (MAST)","l":1,"t":"Empirically grounded 14-failure-mode taxonomy for LLM multi-agent systems, spanning specification, coordination, and verification."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]]"}],"tf":{"14":1,"agent":3,"and":1,"coordination":1,"do":1,"empirically":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"for":1,"grounded":1,"in":1,"llm":2,"mast":1,"mode":1,"multi":3,"spanning":1,"specification":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"taxonomy":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"why":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Society of Mind","s":"concepts/society-of-mind","secs":[{"h":"Society of Mind","l":1,"t":"Minsky's architectural thesis: mind is a society of small, specialist agents whose organised interactions produce intelligence. No single agent thinks, understands, or is conscious — these are properties of *agencies*."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Agents (Minsky)]] - [[Agencies]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agencies":2,"agent":2,"agents":2,"architectural":1,"are":1,"conscious":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"interactions":1,"is":2,"mind":3,"minsky":2,"multi":1,"no":1,"of":4,"or":1,"organised":1,"produce":1,"properties":1,"s":1,"single":1,"small":1,"society":3,"specialist":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"these":1,"thesis":1,"thinks":1,"this":1,"understands":1,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Cross-chain Smart Contracts","s":"concepts/cross-chain-smart-contracts","secs":[{"h":"Cross-chain Smart Contracts","l":1,"t":"Smart contracts whose execution spans two or more blockchains, typically via bridges, relayers, or hash-timelock mechanisms, requiring explicit interoperability patterns and proof obligations to preserve atomicity and safety."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"atomicity":1,"blockchain":1,"blockchains":1,"bridges":1,"chain":1,"contracts":3,"cross":1,"execution":1,"explicit":1,"formalise":1,"hash":1,"in":1,"interoperability":2,"mechanisms":1,"more":1,"obligations":1,"or":2,"patterns":2,"preserve":1,"proof":1,"relayers":1,"requiring":1,"safety":1,"smart":3,"spans":1,"this":1,"timelock":1,"to":1,"two":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Abstract Performative","s":"concepts/abstract-performative","secs":[{"h":"Abstract Performative","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's generalisation of Austin's performatives to include purely internal acts (e.g. a program's commitment to itself) whose content is independent of any outward expression — the program-as-speaker is the agent whether or not anyone hears."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"abstract":1,"acts":2,"agent":1,"any":1,"anyone":1,"as":1,"austin":1,"based":2,"commitment":2,"content":1,"e":1,"elephant":1,"expression":1,"g":1,"generalisation":1,"hears":1,"in":1,"include":1,"independent":1,"internal":1,"is":2,"itself":1,"language":1,"mccarthy":1,"not":1,"of":2,"on":1,"or":1,"outward":1,"performative":1,"performatives":2,"program":2,"programming":1,"purely":1,"s":3,"semantics":1,"speaker":1,"speech":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"whether":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Specification Issues","s":"concepts/specification-issues","secs":[{"h":"Specification Issues","l":1,"t":"The largest MAST category (~42%): failures arising from ambiguous, incomplete, or inconsistent task/role specifications given to LLM agents, rather than from coordination or verification errors."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]]"}],"tf":{"42":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"ambiguous":1,"arising":1,"category":1,"coordination":1,"do":1,"errors":1,"fail":1,"failures":1,"from":2,"given":1,"in":1,"incomplete":1,"inconsistent":1,"issues":1,"largest":1,"llm":2,"mast":2,"multi":1,"or":2,"rather":1,"role":1,"specification":1,"specifications":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"taxonomy":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"why":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Smart Contracts","s":"concepts/smart-contracts","secs":[{"h":"Smart Contracts","l":1,"t":"Programs executed on a blockchain whose code is the authoritative specification of the contract's behaviour — vulnerable to a semantic gap between developer intent and runtime semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"authoritative":1,"behaviour":1,"between":1,"blockchain":2,"code":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"developer":1,"executed":1,"formalise":1,"gap":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"interoperability":1,"is":1,"making":1,"of":1,"on":1,"patterns":1,"programs":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"smart":2,"smarter":1,"specification":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"vulnerable":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Declaratives","s":"concepts/declaratives","secs":[{"h":"Declaratives","l":1,"t":"Searle: speech acts that bring about institutional change by their very performance (declaring war, marrying, firing). Central to Singh's commitment-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"acl":1,"acts":2,"agent":1,"and":1,"based":1,"bring":1,"by":1,"central":1,"change":1,"commitment":1,"communication":1,"declaratives":1,"declaring":1,"firing":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":1,"institutional":3,"marrying":1,"of":1,"performance":1,"reality":2,"s":1,"searle":1,"semantics":1,"singh":1,"speech":1,"taxonomy":1,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"very":1,"war":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Server-Side Extensions","s":"concepts/server-side-extensions","secs":[{"h":"Server-Side Extensions","l":1,"t":"User-supplied code executed inside a coordination server (e.g., a tuple space) rather than by a client, turning the server into a programmable substrate for domain-specific coordination abstractions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Tuple Spaces]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"abstractions":1,"by":1,"client":1,"code":1,"coordination":3,"distributed":1,"domain":1,"e":1,"executed":1,"extensible":1,"extensions":1,"for":1,"g":1,"in":1,"inside":1,"into":1,"programmable":1,"rather":1,"server":3,"side":1,"space":1,"spaces":1,"specific":1,"substrate":1,"supplied":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tuple":2,"turning":1,"user":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Abstract Syntax","s":"concepts/abstract-syntax","secs":[{"h":"Abstract Syntax","l":1,"t":"Representation of programs as tree terms over constructors, separated from surface syntax — the object of study for compiler-correctness and language-semantics proofs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"abstract":1,"and":1,"arithmetic":1,"as":1,"compiler":2,"computation":1,"constructors":1,"correctness":2,"expressions":1,"for":2,"from":1,"in":1,"language":2,"mathematical":1,"object":1,"of":4,"over":1,"programs":1,"proofs":1,"representation":1,"science":1,"semantics":1,"separated":1,"spoofax":1,"study":1,"surface":1,"syntax":2,"terms":1,"the":2,"this":1,"towards":1,"tree":1,"vault":1,"workbench":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Fault Tolerance","s":"concepts/fault-tolerance","secs":[{"h":"Fault Tolerance","l":1,"t":"The capacity of a system to continue correct operation despite failures of components. Von Neumann's study of self-reproducing automata included early formal treatment of reliability from unreliable parts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] - [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"architectural":1,"automata":2,"capacity":1,"components":1,"continue":1,"correct":1,"dependable":1,"despite":1,"early":1,"failures":1,"fault":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"from":1,"in":1,"included":1,"neumann":1,"of":5,"operation":1,"parts":1,"patterns":1,"reliability":1,"reproducing":2,"s":1,"self":2,"software":1,"sol":1,"study":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tolerance":1,"treatment":1,"unreliable":1,"vault":1,"von":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Self-Organisation","s":"concepts/self-organisation","secs":[{"h":"Self-Organisation","l":1,"t":"The emergence of global structure in a system from local, decentralised interactions without a central controller; a core design principle for scalable and resilient MAS and overlay networks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Stigmergy]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":2,"central":1,"composite":1,"controller":1,"core":1,"decentralised":1,"design":1,"emergence":1,"for":1,"from":1,"fungi":1,"global":1,"in":3,"inspired":1,"interactions":1,"local":1,"mas":1,"mechanism":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":1,"organisation":2,"overlay":2,"principle":1,"resilient":1,"scalable":1,"self":2,"stigmergy":1,"structure":1,"superpeer":1,"system":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Situated Action","s":"concepts/situated-action","secs":[{"h":"Situated Action","l":1,"t":"Tradition emphasising that action is shaped by the concrete situation, not just by abstract plans."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]"}],"tf":{"abstract":1,"action":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"by":2,"common":1,"concrete":1,"emphasising":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"is":1,"just":1,"not":1,"plans":1,"practice":1,"programs":1,"sense":1,"shaped":1,"situated":1,"situation":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"tradition":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"Object Capability Security","s":"concepts/object-capability-security","secs":[{"h":"Object Capability Security (OCap)","l":1,"t":"Security model in which authority is conveyed exclusively by holding an unforgeable object reference. No ambient authority, no global mutable state, lexical scope as the capability kernel. Basis of E, Spritely, and Capsicum."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]] - [[Capability Security]] - [[Principle of Least Authority]] - [[Ambient Authority]]"}],"tf":{"ambient":2,"an":1,"and":2,"as":1,"authority":4,"basis":1,"by":1,"calculus":1,"capability":4,"capsicum":1,"conveyed":1,"distributed":1,"e":1,"exclusively":1,"global":1,"heart":1,"holding":1,"in":2,"is":1,"kernel":2,"lambda":1,"least":1,"lexical":1,"model":1,"mutable":1,"no":2,"object":2,"objects":1,"ocap":1,"of":3,"principle":1,"reference":1,"scope":1,"security":5,"spritely":2,"state":1,"the":2,"this":1,"unforgeable":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Representatives","s":"concepts/representatives","secs":[{"h":"Representatives","l":1,"t":"Searle's first illocutionary category (renamed 'assertives'): acts that commit the speaker to the truth of a proposition. Also called assertives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acts":2,"also":1,"assertives":2,"called":1,"category":1,"commit":1,"first":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":1,"of":2,"proposition":1,"renamed":1,"representatives":1,"s":1,"searle":1,"speaker":1,"taxonomy":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"truth":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Trust","s":"concepts/trust","secs":[{"h":"Trust","l":1,"t":"An agent's subjective expectation that another agent will behave as expected or committed, enabling delegation and cooperation under uncertainty. Computational trust models quantify and update this expectation from direct and indirect evidence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[ReGreT]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"an":1,"and":5,"another":1,"as":1,"behave":1,"committed":1,"computational":2,"cooperation":1,"delegation":1,"direct":1,"enabling":1,"evidence":1,"expectation":2,"expected":1,"from":1,"in":1,"indirect":1,"models":2,"on":1,"or":1,"quantify":1,"regret":1,"reputation":2,"review":1,"s":1,"subjective":1,"that":1,"this":2,"trust":4,"uncertainty":1,"under":1,"update":1,"vault":1,"will":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Contract Net Protocol","s":"concepts/contract-net-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Contract Net Protocol","l":1,"t":"Classic MAS coordination protocol: a manager announces a task, contractors bid, the manager awards the contract."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Negotiation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"announces":1,"awards":1,"bid":1,"classic":1,"contract":2,"contractors":1,"coordination":1,"in":1,"manager":2,"mas":1,"multiagent":1,"negotiation":1,"net":1,"protocol":2,"sycara":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":85,"n":"Stochastic CALM","s":"concepts/stochastic-calm","secs":[{"h":"Stochastic CALM","l":1,"t":"An open direction in the CALM paper (Hellerstein & Alvaro): can monotonicity-as-coordination-freeness be generalised from deterministic consistency to **stochastic** guarantees like convergence to a near-optimum? Hogwild!-style parallel SGD (Sa, Re, Ré) is the motivating example — its correctness proof, framed via super-martingales, has a monotonic-shrinkage flavour analogous to CALM's monotonic growth. Whether a unifying theorem connects the two is posed as future work."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Monotonic Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"alvaro":1,"an":1,"analogous":1,"as":2,"be":1,"calm":5,"can":1,"connects":1,"consistency":2,"convergence":1,"coordination":1,"correctness":1,"deterministic":1,"direction":1,"distributed":1,"easy":1,"example":1,"flavour":1,"framed":1,"freeness":1,"from":1,"future":1,"generalised":1,"growth":1,"guarantees":1,"has":1,"hellerstein":1,"hogwild":1,"in":2,"is":3,"its":1,"keeping":1,"like":1,"logic":1,"martingales":1,"monotonic":3,"monotonicity":1,"motivating":1,"near":1,"open":1,"optimum":1,"paper":1,"parallel":1,"posed":1,"proof":1,"re":1,"ré":1,"s":1,"sa":1,"sgd":1,"shrinkage":1,"stochastic":2,"style":1,"super":1,"the":3,"theorem":2,"this":1,"to":3,"two":1,"unifying":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"when":1,"whether":1,"work":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"OWL","s":"concepts/owl","secs":[{"h":"OWL","l":1,"t":"The Web Ontology Language: a W3C-standard family of knowledge-representation languages based on description logics, used to express classes, properties, and constraints on the Semantic Web. Successor to DAML+OIL."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Semantic Web]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"based":1,"classes":1,"constraints":1,"daml":1,"description":1,"express":1,"family":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"knowledge":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"logics":1,"of":1,"oil":1,"on":3,"ontologies":2,"ontology":1,"owl":1,"properties":1,"representation":1,"semantic":2,"standard":1,"successor":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"used":1,"vault":1,"w3c":1,"web":3}},{"dl":35,"n":"Defence in Depth","s":"concepts/defence-in-depth","secs":[{"h":"Defence in Depth","l":1,"t":"Layered security strategy: no single mechanism is relied upon, so failure of one layer does not compromise the whole system."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"agentic":1,"ai":1,"attack":1,"compromise":1,"defence":1,"depth":1,"distributed":1,"does":1,"failure":1,"in":2,"is":1,"layer":1,"layered":1,"mechanism":1,"no":1,"not":1,"of":2,"one":1,"relied":1,"security":2,"single":1,"so":1,"sok":1,"strategy":1,"surface":1,"system":1,"the":2,"this":1,"upon":1,"vault":1,"whole":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Unification","s":"concepts/unification","secs":[{"h":"Unification","l":1,"t":"The operation of finding a most general substitution that makes two terms syntactically identical. The computational core of logic-programming languages: in Lloyd's foundational treatment it is both the only pattern-matching primitive and the basis of SLD resolution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Prolog]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"basis":1,"both":1,"computational":1,"core":1,"finding":1,"foundational":1,"foundations":1,"general":1,"identical":1,"in":2,"is":1,"it":1,"languages":1,"lloyd":2,"logic":2,"makes":1,"matching":1,"most":1,"of":4,"only":1,"operation":1,"pattern":1,"primitive":1,"programming":2,"prolog":1,"resolution":1,"s":1,"sld":1,"substitution":1,"syntactically":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"treatment":1,"two":1,"unification":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Competence vs Performance","s":"concepts/competence-vs-performance","secs":[{"h":"Competence vs Performance","l":1,"t":"Chomsky's distinction carried into cognitive systems theory: what a system *could* do under ideal conditions (competence) versus what it *actually* does (performance). Newell uses it to separate knowledge-level and symbol-level descriptions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[Three Models for the Description of Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actually":1,"and":1,"carried":1,"chomsky":1,"cognitive":1,"competence":2,"conditions":1,"could":1,"description":1,"descriptions":1,"distinction":1,"do":1,"does":1,"for":1,"ideal":1,"in":1,"into":1,"it":2,"knowledge":2,"language":1,"level":3,"models":1,"newell":1,"of":1,"performance":2,"s":1,"separate":1,"symbol":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"three":1,"to":1,"under":1,"uses":1,"vault":1,"versus":1,"vs":1,"what":2}},{"dl":46,"n":"Prejudice","s":"concepts/prejudice","secs":[{"h":"Prejudice","l":1,"t":"In trust/reputation models, prior beliefs about an unknown agent based on group membership or stereotype rather than direct or witness evidence; a possible initial condition and a potential source of bias."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":3,"based":1,"beliefs":1,"bias":1,"computational":1,"condition":1,"direct":1,"evidence":1,"group":1,"in":2,"initial":1,"membership":1,"models":2,"of":1,"on":2,"or":2,"possible":1,"potential":1,"prejudice":1,"prior":1,"rather":1,"reputation":3,"review":1,"source":1,"stereotype":1,"than":1,"this":1,"trust":3,"unknown":1,"vault":1,"witness":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Constraint Trust","s":"concepts/constraint-trust","secs":[{"h":"Constraint Trust","l":1,"t":"Trust via technical limits on agent actions (sandboxing, least privilege, capability caps) — contains damage regardless of agent intent, but substitutes for trust rather than measuring it."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Capability Bounding]] - [[Sandboxing]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":3,"bounding":1,"but":1,"capability":2,"caps":1,"comparative":1,"constraint":1,"contains":1,"damage":1,"for":1,"in":1,"intent":1,"inter":1,"it":1,"least":1,"limits":1,"measuring":1,"models":1,"of":1,"on":1,"privilege":1,"rather":1,"regardless":1,"sandboxing":2,"study":1,"substitutes":1,"technical":1,"than":1,"this":1,"trust":4,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Game-Theoretic Trust","s":"concepts/game-theoretic-trust","secs":[{"h":"Game-Theoretic Trust","l":1,"t":"Models of trust in which agents choose to cooperate or defect based on expected utilities over repeated interactions, grounded in equilibrium analysis. Captures strategic incentives that purely statistical trust models miss."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"analysis":1,"and":1,"based":1,"captures":1,"choose":1,"computational":1,"cooperate":1,"defect":1,"equilibrium":1,"expected":1,"game":1,"grounded":1,"in":3,"incentives":1,"interactions":1,"miss":1,"models":3,"of":1,"on":2,"or":1,"over":1,"purely":1,"repeated":1,"reputation":1,"review":1,"statistical":1,"strategic":1,"that":1,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":5,"utilities":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Formal Verification","s":"concepts/formal-verification","secs":[{"h":"Formal Verification","l":1,"t":"Mathematical proof that a system meets its specification — via theorem proving, model checking, or refinement."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acls":1,"blockchain":1,"checking":1,"contracts":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"hoare":1,"in":1,"interoperability":1,"its":1,"logic":1,"making":1,"mathematical":1,"meets":1,"model":1,"or":1,"patterns":1,"proof":1,"proving":1,"refinement":1,"semantics":1,"smart":1,"smarter":1,"specification":1,"system":1,"that":1,"theorem":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":1,"via":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Verifiable Semantics","s":"concepts/verifiable-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Verifiable Semantics","l":1,"t":"ACL semantics whose conformance can be checked against observable agent program state — the key demand behind moving from mentalistic to public semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"acls":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"based":1,"be":1,"behind":1,"can":1,"checked":1,"commitment":1,"conformance":1,"demand":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":1,"key":1,"mentalistic":1,"moving":1,"observable":1,"principles":1,"program":1,"public":1,"rethinking":1,"semantics":5,"state":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":2,"whose":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Intentional Stance","s":"concepts/intentional-stance","secs":[{"h":"Intentional Stance","l":1,"t":"Dennett's strategy of predicting a system's behaviour by treating it as a rational agent with beliefs, desires and goals. Wooldridge and Jennings argue it is a legitimate abstraction for sufficiently complex software, licensing mentalistic design of agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Strong Agency]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"abstraction":1,"agency":1,"agent":1,"agents":2,"and":3,"argue":1,"as":1,"behaviour":1,"beliefs":1,"by":1,"complex":1,"dennett":1,"design":1,"desires":1,"for":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intentional":1,"is":1,"it":2,"jennings":1,"legitimate":1,"licensing":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"of":2,"practice":1,"predicting":1,"rational":1,"s":2,"software":1,"stance":1,"state":1,"strategy":1,"strong":1,"sufficiently":1,"system":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"treating":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":124,"n":"Safety Property","s":"concepts/safety-property","secs":[{"h":"Safety Property","l":1,"t":"A property of a program or distributed system asserting that \"**nothing bad ever happens**\" (Lamport 1977). Formally, a safety property is one whose violation can be witnessed by a *finite* execution prefix: once the bad state is entered, no future behaviour can undo it. Examples: mutual exclusion, partial correctness, absence of null-pointer dereference, \"contract balance never drops below escrowed amount.\" Dual: [[Liveness Property]] (\"something good eventually happens\"), whose violation requires an infinite trace. Safety is semantically rich: on arbitrary programs, non-trivial safety properties are undecidable ([[Rice's Theorem]]). This is why [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] argues that gas metering (a resource bound, decidable) cannot substitute for a safety guarantee (semantic, undecidable)."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"verification #distributed-systems #safety-liveness","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1977":1,"a":6,"absence":1,"amount":1,"an":1,"arbitrary":1,"are":1,"argues":1,"asserting":1,"bad":2,"balance":1,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"below":1,"bound":1,"by":1,"can":2,"cannot":1,"classic":1,"contract":1,"correctness":1,"decidable":1,"dereference":1,"distributed":2,"drops":1,"dual":1,"entered":1,"escrowed":1,"ethereum":1,"eventually":1,"ever":1,"examples":1,"exclusion":1,"execution":1,"finite":1,"for":1,"formally":1,"future":1,"gas":1,"good":1,"guarantee":1,"happens":2,"house":1,"in":1,"infinite":1,"is":4,"it":1,"lamport":1,"langsec":1,"liveness":2,"metering":1,"mutual":1,"never":1,"no":1,"non":1,"nothing":1,"null":1,"of":2,"on":2,"once":1,"one":1,"or":1,"partial":1,"pointer":1,"prefix":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"properties":1,"property":4,"requires":1,"resource":1,"rice":1,"rich":1,"rock":1,"s":1,"safety":6,"semantic":1,"semantically":1,"something":1,"state":1,"substitute":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":1,"theorem":1,"this":1,"trace":1,"trivial":1,"undecidable":2,"undo":1,"verification":1,"violation":2,"whose":2,"why":1,"witnessed":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Erlang Process","s":"concepts/erlang-process","secs":[{"h":"Erlang Process","l":1,"t":"A lightweight, isolated unit of concurrent execution in the Erlang language. Processes communicate exclusively through asynchronous message passing and are the foundation for Erlang's fault-tolerance model."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Actor Model]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actor":1,"and":1,"are":1,"asynchronous":1,"communicate":1,"concurrent":1,"edition":1,"erlang":4,"exclusively":1,"execution":1,"fault":1,"for":1,"foundation":1,"in":2,"isolated":1,"language":1,"lightweight":1,"message":1,"model":2,"of":1,"passing":1,"process":1,"processes":1,"programming":1,"s":1,"second":1,"the":2,"this":1,"through":1,"tolerance":1,"unit":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Deontic Logic","s":"concepts/deontic-logic","secs":[{"h":"Deontic Logic","l":1,"t":"Modal logic of obligation, permission, and prohibition — formal basis for reasoning about norms and ought-to-be in agent systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The BOID Architecture]] - [[Norms and Obligations]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"agent":2,"and":3,"architecture":1,"basis":1,"be":1,"boid":1,"deontic":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"in":2,"logic":2,"modal":1,"norms":2,"obligation":1,"obligations":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"ought":1,"permission":1,"programming":1,"prohibition":1,"reasoning":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Scale-Free Cognition","s":"concepts/scale-free-cognition","secs":[{"h":"Scale-Free Cognition","l":1,"t":"Levin's thesis that cognitive processes — perception, goal-directedness, memory — operate at every scale of biological organisation, from molecular networks and cells through tissues to organisms and collectives, using the same formal primitives at each level."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Cognitive Light Cone]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"at":2,"biological":1,"boundary":1,"cells":1,"cognition":1,"cognitive":2,"collectives":1,"computational":1,"cone":1,"directedness":1,"each":1,"every":1,"formal":1,"free":1,"from":1,"goal":1,"in":1,"level":1,"levin":1,"light":1,"memory":1,"molecular":1,"networks":1,"of":2,"operate":1,"organisation":1,"organisms":1,"perception":1,"primitives":1,"processes":1,"s":1,"same":1,"scale":2,"self":1,"that":1,"the":1,"thesis":1,"this":1,"through":1,"tissues":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"JaCaMo","s":"concepts/jacamo","secs":[{"h":"JaCaMo","l":1,"t":"An integrated multi-agent programming platform combining Jason (AgentSpeak BDI agents), CArtAgO (environments as artifacts), and Moise (organisational structures), instantiating the Agents & Artifacts metamodel. Cited as an interaction-oriented framework for open MAS."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Agents and Artifacts]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"agents":3,"agentspeak":1,"an":3,"and":2,"artifacts":3,"as":2,"bdi":2,"cartago":1,"cited":1,"combining":1,"environments":2,"for":2,"framework":2,"in":1,"instantiating":1,"integrated":1,"interaction":2,"jacamo":1,"jason":1,"mas":1,"metamodel":1,"moise":1,"multi":1,"open":2,"organisational":1,"oriented":2,"platform":1,"programming":1,"structures":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Guarded Transactions","s":"concepts/guarded-transactions","secs":[{"h":"Guarded Transactions","l":1,"t":"A smart-contract execution discipline in which each transaction is wrapped by explicit pre- and post-condition guards that abort on violation. The pattern makes invariants enforceable at the EVM boundary and prevents reentrancy and similar flaws."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[EVM]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abort":1,"and":3,"at":1,"boundary":1,"by":1,"condition":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"discipline":1,"each":1,"enforceable":1,"evm":2,"execution":1,"explicit":1,"flaws":1,"guarded":1,"guards":1,"in":2,"invariants":1,"is":1,"makes":1,"making":1,"on":1,"pattern":1,"post":1,"pre":1,"prevents":1,"reentrancy":1,"similar":1,"smart":2,"smarter":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transaction":1,"transactions":1,"vault":1,"violation":1,"which":1,"wrapped":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"E Language","s":"concepts/e-language","secs":[{"h":"E Language","l":1,"t":"Mark S. Miller's object capability language (1997+); origin of vats, promise pipelining, CapTP, and the modern OCap design vocabulary that Goblins / Spritely extend."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[CapTP]] - [[Promise Pipelining]] - [[Vat Model]] - [[Object Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"1997":1,"and":2,"capability":3,"captp":2,"design":1,"distributed":1,"e":1,"extend":1,"goblins":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"language":2,"mark":1,"miller":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"object":2,"objects":1,"ocap":1,"of":2,"origin":1,"pipelining":2,"promise":2,"s":2,"security":2,"spritely":2,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vat":1,"vats":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Agents (Minsky)","s":"concepts/agents-(minsky)","secs":[{"h":"Agents (Minsky)","l":1,"t":"In Minsky's Society of Mind: small processes each of which can only do a very simple thing. Intelligence emerges from how they are organised into agencies — not from the cleverness of individual agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Agencies]] - [[Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agencies":2,"agents":2,"are":1,"can":1,"cleverness":1,"do":1,"each":1,"emerges":1,"from":2,"how":1,"in":2,"individual":1,"intelligence":1,"into":1,"mind":3,"minsky":2,"not":1,"of":5,"only":1,"organised":1,"processes":1,"s":1,"simple":1,"small":1,"society":3,"the":2,"they":1,"thing":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"very":1,"which":1}},{"dl":72,"n":"Kolmogorov Structure Function","s":"concepts/kolmogorov-structure-function","secs":[{"h":"Kolmogorov Structure Function","l":1,"t":"For a string x and a complexity budget k, the minimal log-cardinality of a finite set S with x in S and K(S) at most k; separates the *structural* (model) part of x from its residual *random* part. The foundation of algorithmic statistics and of the Minimum Description Length principle's model-selection guarantees."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]] - [[Minimum Description Length]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"algorithmic":2,"and":3,"at":1,"budget":1,"cardinality":1,"complexity":2,"description":2,"finite":1,"for":1,"foundation":1,"from":1,"function":1,"grunwald":1,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"information":1,"its":1,"k":3,"kolmogorov":2,"length":2,"log":1,"minimal":1,"minimum":2,"model":2,"most":1,"of":4,"part":2,"principle":1,"random":1,"residual":1,"s":4,"selection":1,"separates":1,"set":1,"statistics":1,"string":1,"structural":1,"structure":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"with":1,"x":3}},{"dl":145,"n":"KEVM","s":"concepts/kevm","secs":[{"h":"KEVM","l":1,"t":"An executable formal semantics of the Ethereum Virtual Machine, written in the [[K Framework]] (Runtime Verification, Inc., 2017–). Unlike the Ethereum yellow paper (prose + informal pseudo-mathematics), KEVM is a machine-checkable specification: you can run a contract against KEVM and get the same result the semantics prescribes, byte-for-byte. Its value is twofold. (1) **Reference semantics** — disputes about \"what does this opcode do?\" can be resolved by running KEVM, not by re-reading English prose. (2) **Verification target** — contracts can be proved correct *against KEVM* using the K framework's symbolic execution and theorem-proving tools, rather than against an ad-hoc test suite. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] holds up KEVM as the remediation [[Ethereum Classic]] should adopt: replace the yellow paper with an executable semantics and give verification tools a standard target."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"ethereum #formal-semantics #verification #evm","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"2":1,"2017":1,"a":3,"about":1,"ad":1,"adopt":1,"against":3,"an":3,"and":3,"as":1,"be":2,"by":2,"byte":2,"can":3,"checkable":1,"classic":2,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"correct":1,"disputes":1,"do":1,"does":1,"english":1,"ethereum":5,"evm":1,"executable":2,"execution":1,"for":1,"formal":2,"framework":2,"get":1,"give":1,"hoc":1,"holds":1,"house":1,"in":2,"inc":1,"informal":1,"is":2,"its":1,"k":2,"kevm":6,"langsec":1,"machine":2,"mathematics":1,"not":1,"of":1,"on":1,"opcode":1,"paper":2,"prescribes":1,"prose":2,"proved":1,"proving":1,"pseudo":1,"rather":1,"re":1,"reading":1,"reference":1,"remediation":1,"replace":1,"resolved":1,"result":1,"rock":1,"run":1,"running":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"same":1,"semantics":5,"should":1,"specification":1,"standard":1,"suite":1,"symbolic":1,"tags":1,"target":2,"test":1,"than":1,"the":8,"theorem":1,"this":1,"tools":2,"twofold":1,"unlike":1,"up":1,"using":1,"value":1,"verification":4,"virtual":1,"what":1,"with":1,"written":1,"yellow":2,"you":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Identical-Interest Games","s":"concepts/identical-interest-games","secs":[{"h":"Identical-Interest Games","l":1,"t":"Cooperative settings in which all agents share the same payoff function; a tractable baseline for studying communication resilience because defection incentives are absent."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"absent":1,"agents":1,"all":1,"are":2,"baseline":1,"because":1,"communication":2,"cooperative":1,"defection":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"function":1,"games":1,"identical":1,"in":2,"incentives":1,"interest":1,"multiagent":1,"payoff":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"same":1,"settings":1,"share":1,"studying":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tractable":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Situation Calculus","s":"concepts/situation-calculus","secs":[{"h":"Situation Calculus","l":1,"t":"McCarthy & Hayes 1969 formalism: actions are functions from situations to situations, fluents are truth-values that depend on the situation. The logic-side scaffold for AI planning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Planning]] - [[Frame Problem]] - [[Fluent]]"}],"tf":{"1969":1,"actions":1,"ai":1,"are":2,"artificial":1,"calculus":1,"depend":1,"fluent":1,"fluents":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"frame":1,"from":2,"functions":1,"hayes":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"logic":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":1,"on":1,"philosophical":1,"planning":2,"problem":1,"problems":1,"scaffold":1,"side":1,"situation":2,"situations":2,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"truth":1,"values":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Rex Language","s":"concepts/rex-language","secs":[{"h":"Rex Language","l":1,"t":"Rosenschein-Kaelbling's compiler language that translates epistemic specifications into situated automata."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]]"}],"tf":{"automata":1,"compiler":1,"digital":1,"epistemic":2,"in":1,"into":1,"kaelbling":1,"language":2,"machines":1,"of":1,"properties":1,"provable":1,"rex":1,"rosenschein":1,"s":1,"situated":1,"specifications":1,"synthesis":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"translates":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Dirichlet Process","s":"concepts/dirichlet-process","secs":[{"h":"Dirichlet Process.","l":1,"t":"A nonparametric Bayesian prior over discrete probability distributions, permitting an unbounded but effectively sparse set of categories. Used in emergent-language models to allow vocabulary size to grow with observed experience."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"allow":1,"an":1,"bayesian":1,"but":1,"categories":1,"compositional":1,"dirichlet":1,"discrete":1,"distributions":1,"effectively":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"experience":1,"grounded":1,"grow":1,"in":3,"language":2,"models":1,"multi":1,"nonparametric":1,"observed":1,"of":2,"over":1,"permitting":1,"populations":1,"prior":1,"probability":1,"process":1,"set":1,"size":1,"sparse":1,"this":1,"to":2,"unbounded":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"with":1}},{"dl":130,"n":"Agent Communication Languages","s":"concepts/agent-communication-languages","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication Languages","l":1,"t":"A **concept hub** for agent communication languages (ACLs): languages whose speech acts let software agents exchange beliefs, goals, and commitments."},{"h":"Canonical Languages","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML]] — original knowledge-query language - [[FIPA-ACL]] — standardised successor"},{"h":"Surveys & Principles","l":9,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] — Singh, mental vs. social semantics - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]]"},{"h":"Semantics","l":18,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"},{"h":"Conversations & Protocols","l":24,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]]"},{"h":"Domain instances","l":29,"t":"- [[Common Business Communication Language]]"},{"h":"See also","l":32,"t":"- [[index]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":3,"acls":4,"acre":1,"act":1,"acts":1,"agent":9,"agents":3,"also":1,"and":2,"art":1,"automated":1,"automating":1,"beliefs":1,"business":1,"canonical":1,"commitments":1,"common":2,"communication":7,"competence":1,"concept":1,"conversation":1,"conversations":2,"coordinating":1,"description":1,"design":1,"domain":1,"engine":1,"evolution":2,"exchange":1,"fipa":1,"for":3,"foundations":1,"goals":1,"hub":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"index":1,"instances":1,"institutional":1,"knowledge":1,"kqml":1,"language":3,"languages":6,"let":1,"linguistic":1,"llm":1,"logic":1,"mental":1,"multi":1,"of":5,"ontology":1,"original":1,"patterns":1,"principles":3,"protocols":1,"query":1,"reality":1,"reasoning":1,"rethinking":2,"see":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":3,"singh":1,"social":1,"software":1,"speech":2,"standardised":1,"state":1,"successor":1,"surveys":1,"systems":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"trends":1,"using":1,"verifiable":1,"vs":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Colored Petri Nets","s":"concepts/colored-petri-nets","secs":[{"h":"Colored Petri Nets","l":1,"t":"Petri-net extension with typed tokens and arc expressions — common formalism for ACL conversation protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"acre":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"arc":1,"colored":1,"common":1,"conversation":2,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"engine":1,"expressions":1,"extension":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"in":1,"net":1,"nets":1,"petri":2,"protocols":1,"reasoning":1,"this":1,"tokens":1,"typed":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"ETS-DETS","s":"concepts/ets-dets","secs":[{"h":"ETS/DETS","l":1,"t":"Erlang Term Storage (in-memory) and Disk ETS — BEAM's built-in key-value tables providing constant-time concurrent access to shared Erlang terms, used when process-based state is inappropriate."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"}],"tf":{"access":1,"and":1,"based":1,"beam":1,"built":1,"concurrent":1,"constant":1,"dets":1,"disk":1,"edition":1,"erlang":3,"ets":2,"in":3,"inappropriate":1,"is":1,"key":1,"memory":1,"process":1,"programming":1,"providing":1,"s":1,"second":1,"shared":1,"state":1,"storage":1,"tables":1,"term":1,"terms":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"used":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Agent Network Protocol","s":"concepts/agent-network-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Agent Network Protocol","l":1,"t":"**ANP** — protocol stack for multi-agent networks. Discussed in: - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]"},{"h":"Related","l":9,"t":"- [[LLM Agents]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Model Context Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"agent":6,"agents":1,"ai":1,"anp":1,"context":1,"discussed":1,"for":1,"in":1,"interoperability":1,"llm":1,"model":1,"multi":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":2,"protocol":4,"protocols":2,"related":1,"stack":1,"survey":2,"to":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Overlay Construction","s":"concepts/overlay-construction","secs":[{"h":"Overlay Construction","l":1,"t":"The process by which nodes in a distributed system establish and maintain a logical network topology atop the underlying physical network. Gossip-based peer sampling is a common mechanism."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Peer Sampling Service]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"and":1,"atop":1,"based":1,"by":1,"common":1,"construction":1,"distributed":2,"establish":1,"gossip":1,"gossiping":1,"in":3,"is":1,"logical":1,"maintain":1,"mechanism":1,"network":2,"nodes":1,"overlay":1,"peer":2,"physical":1,"process":1,"sampling":2,"service":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":2,"this":1,"topology":1,"underlying":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Stored-Procedure Coordination","s":"concepts/stored-procedure-coordination","secs":[{"h":"Stored-Procedure Coordination","l":1,"t":"A coordination style in which agents invoke named, server-side procedures that execute atomically against shared state, reusing the database stored-procedure model for multi-agent interaction. It gives determinism and transactional semantics at the cost of extensibility."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Determinism]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"at":1,"atomically":1,"coordination":3,"cost":1,"database":1,"determinism":2,"distributed":1,"execute":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":1,"for":1,"gives":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"invoke":1,"it":1,"model":1,"multi":1,"named":1,"of":1,"procedure":2,"procedures":1,"reusing":1,"semantics":1,"server":1,"shared":1,"side":1,"state":1,"stored":2,"style":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transactional":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"Meta-rules","s":"concepts/meta-rules","secs":[{"h":"Meta-rules","l":1,"t":"Rules that quantify or reason over other rules — specifying, e.g., which object-level rules may fire, in what order, or under what ethical constraints. They are used to express trustworthiness and ethical policies on top of a logical agent's base programme."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[A-ILTL]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":2,"are":1,"base":1,"behaviour":1,"constraints":1,"e":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":3,"express":1,"fire":1,"g":1,"iltl":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"level":1,"logical":2,"may":1,"meta":1,"object":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":2,"order":1,"other":1,"over":1,"policies":1,"programme":1,"quantify":1,"reason":1,"rules":4,"s":1,"specifying":1,"that":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"top":1,"trustworthiness":1,"trustworthy":1,"under":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"what":2,"which":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Pattern Matching","s":"concepts/pattern-matching","secs":[{"h":"Pattern Matching","l":1,"t":"A language construct that dispatches on the structure of data by matching values against patterns and binding variables. Central to Erlang message handling and to functional languages generally."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"against":1,"and":2,"binding":1,"by":1,"central":1,"construct":1,"data":1,"dispatches":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"functional":1,"generally":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"matching":2,"message":1,"of":1,"on":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"programming":1,"second":1,"structure":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"values":1,"variables":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":27,"n":"Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)","s":"concepts/standard-operating-procedures-(sops)","secs":[{"h":"Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)","l":1,"t":"Symbolic plans — typically state graphs — that make LLM-agent behaviour declarative and controllable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":2,"al":1,"and":1,"behaviour":1,"controllable":1,"declarative":1,"et":1,"framework":1,"graphs":1,"in":1,"llm":2,"make":1,"operating":1,"plans":1,"procedures":1,"sops":1,"standard":1,"state":1,"symbolic":1,"that":1,"this":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"OTP","s":"concepts/otp","secs":[{"h":"OTP","l":1,"t":"Erlang's Open Telecom Platform: a library of behaviours (gen_server, gen_statem, supervisor, application) and design principles that codify fault-tolerant, concurrent systems construction. OTP bakes the \"let it crash\" philosophy and supervision trees into reusable templates."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Let It Crash]] - [[Supervision Tree]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"application":1,"bakes":1,"behaviours":1,"codify":1,"concurrent":1,"construction":1,"crash":2,"design":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"fault":1,"gen":2,"in":1,"into":1,"it":2,"let":2,"library":1,"of":1,"open":1,"otp":2,"philosophy":1,"platform":1,"principles":1,"programming":1,"reusable":1,"s":1,"second":1,"server":1,"statem":1,"supervision":2,"supervisor":1,"systems":1,"telecom":1,"templates":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tolerant":1,"tree":1,"trees":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":254,"n":"CALM Theorem","s":"concepts/calm-theorem","secs":[{"h":"CALM Theorem","l":1,"t":"**Consistency As Logical Monotonicity** (Hellerstein 2010 conjecture; Ameloot, Neven, Van den Bussche 2013 proof). A distributed program has a consistent, coordination-free implementation **if and only if** it is expressible in monotonic logic. Monotonic programs produce a set of outputs that only grows as inputs arrive (`S ⊆ T ⟹ P(S) ⊆ P(T)`). Such programs are **safe under missing information**: any conclusion reached on a subset of inputs remains valid when more arrive. Non-monotonic programs may *retract* earlier conclusions, so they must wait for \"all the news\" — which is what distributed coordination enforces. CALM is the *positive* counterpart to the **[[CAP Theorem]]**: it names the exact class of programs that can satisfy Consistency, Availability, and Partition-tolerance simultaneously."},{"h":"Why it matters","l":9,"t":"- Moves consistency from a property of storage (linearizability, serializability) to a property of *programs* — **[[Confluence]]**. - Tells programmers *what kinds of features are free* (monotonic: set union, counting up, set-containment) and *what must be paid for* (non-monotonic: set difference, strict aggregation, count-exact, deletions without tombstones). - Gives a design rule for coordination-free systems: build from monotonic primitives — [[CRDTs]], [[Immutable Data Structures]], [[Tombstones]], monotonic accumulators — and only add coordination at non-monotonic boundaries."},{"h":"Formal statement","l":14,"t":"Using **[[Relational Transducer]]** networks as the execution model and **[[Confluence]]** as the consistency criterion, Ameloot et al. prove: a query *Q* has a coordination-free distributed evaluation plan iff *Q* is monotone."},{"h":"In this vault","l":17,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] — the definitive survey - [[CAP Theorem]] - [[Confluence]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[Relational Transducer]] - [[Bloom Language]] - [[Dedalus]] - [[CRDTs]] - [[Non-monotonic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"2010":1,"2013":1,"a":9,"accumulators":1,"add":1,"aggregation":1,"al":1,"all":1,"ameloot":2,"and":5,"any":1,"are":2,"arrive":2,"as":4,"at":1,"availability":1,"avoidance":1,"be":1,"bloom":1,"boundaries":1,"build":1,"bussche":1,"calm":3,"can":1,"cap":2,"class":1,"conclusion":1,"conclusions":1,"confluence":3,"conjecture":1,"consistency":5,"consistent":1,"containment":1,"coordination":6,"count":1,"counterpart":1,"counting":1,"crdts":2,"criterion":1,"data":1,"dedalus":1,"definitive":1,"deletions":1,"den":1,"design":1,"difference":1,"distributed":4,"earlier":1,"easy":1,"enforces":1,"et":1,"evaluation":1,"exact":2,"execution":1,"expressible":1,"features":1,"for":3,"formal":1,"free":4,"from":2,"gives":1,"grows":1,"has":2,"hellerstein":1,"if":2,"iff":1,"immutable":1,"implementation":1,"in":2,"information":1,"inputs":2,"is":5,"it":3,"keeping":1,"kinds":1,"language":1,"linearizability":1,"logic":2,"logical":1,"matters":1,"may":1,"missing":1,"model":1,"monotone":1,"monotonic":10,"monotonicity":1,"more":1,"moves":1,"must":2,"names":1,"networks":1,"neven":1,"news":1,"non":4,"of":6,"on":1,"only":3,"outputs":1,"paid":1,"partition":1,"plan":1,"positive":1,"primitives":1,"produce":1,"program":1,"programmers":1,"programs":5,"proof":1,"property":2,"prove":1,"q":2,"query":1,"reached":1,"reasoning":1,"relational":2,"remains":1,"retract":1,"rule":1,"safe":1,"satisfy":1,"serializability":1,"set":4,"simultaneously":1,"so":1,"statement":1,"storage":1,"strict":1,"structures":1,"subset":1,"such":1,"survey":1,"systems":1,"tells":1,"that":2,"the":7,"theorem":3,"they":1,"this":1,"to":2,"tolerance":1,"tombstones":2,"transducer":2,"under":1,"union":1,"up":1,"using":1,"valid":1,"van":1,"vault":1,"wait":1,"what":3,"when":2,"which":1,"why":1,"without":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"K-Lines","s":"concepts/k-lines","secs":[{"h":"K-Lines","l":1,"t":"Minsky's theory of memory: a K-line is a wire-like structure that, when activated, re-arouses the set of agents whose joint activity earlier constituted the remembered experience. Memory is state-reinstatement, not record-retrieval."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"activated":1,"activity":1,"agents":1,"arouses":1,"constituted":1,"earlier":1,"experience":1,"in":1,"is":2,"joint":1,"k":2,"like":1,"line":1,"lines":1,"memory":2,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"not":1,"of":3,"re":1,"record":1,"reinstatement":1,"remembered":1,"retrieval":1,"s":1,"set":1,"society":1,"state":1,"structure":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"whose":1,"wire":1}},{"dl":25,"n":"Protocol Documents","s":"concepts/protocol-documents","secs":[{"h":"Protocol Documents","l":1,"t":"Agora's content-addressed, LLM-negotiated specifications of message formats between agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"addressed":1,"agents":1,"agora":1,"between":1,"communication":1,"content":1,"documents":1,"for":1,"formats":1,"in":1,"llm":1,"llms":1,"message":1,"negotiated":1,"networks":1,"of":2,"protocol":2,"s":1,"scalable":1,"specifications":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":67,"n":"Emergent Communication","s":"concepts/emergent-communication","secs":[{"h":"Emergent Communication","l":1,"t":"How communication arises between agents through interaction and learning. - [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] — Steels - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]"},{"h":"Related","l":12,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"acls":1,"act":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"and":2,"arises":1,"automated":1,"automating":1,"autonomous":1,"between":1,"communication":3,"competence":1,"compositional":1,"cooperation":1,"description":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":2,"evolution":2,"for":2,"games":1,"grounded":1,"how":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"language":4,"learning":1,"linguistic":1,"llm":1,"measuring":1,"models":1,"multi":2,"natural":1,"of":6,"on":1,"pitfalls":1,"populations":1,"related":1,"robots":1,"speech":1,"steels":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"three":1,"through":1,"toward":1,"towards":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Reputation Trust","s":"concepts/reputation-trust","secs":[{"h":"Reputation Trust","l":1,"t":"Trust derived from community feedback and interaction history (ratings, trust scores); adaptive and information-rich but susceptible to Sybil and collusion attacks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Trust and Reputation]] - [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":1,"and":5,"attacks":1,"but":1,"collusion":1,"community":1,"comparative":1,"computational":1,"derived":1,"feedback":1,"from":1,"history":1,"in":1,"information":1,"inter":1,"interaction":1,"models":2,"on":1,"ratings":1,"reputation":3,"review":1,"rich":1,"scores":1,"study":1,"susceptible":1,"sybil":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":6,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"DDoS","s":"concepts/ddos","secs":[{"h":"DDoS","l":1,"t":"Distributed Denial-of-Service: an attack in which many coordinated sources overwhelm a target's resources, exhausting bandwidth, memory, or compute. Language-based defences restrict the protocols or computations attackers can express."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"an":1,"approach":1,"attack":1,"attackers":1,"bandwidth":1,"based":2,"can":1,"computations":1,"compute":1,"coordinated":1,"ddos":2,"defences":1,"denial":1,"distributed":1,"exhausting":1,"express":1,"in":2,"language":2,"many":1,"memory":1,"of":1,"or":2,"overwhelm":1,"prevent":1,"protocols":1,"resources":1,"restrict":1,"s":1,"service":1,"sources":1,"target":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Logicist AI","s":"concepts/logicist-ai","secs":[{"h":"Logicist AI","l":1,"t":"Research tradition — originated by McCarthy — holding that intelligent behaviour can be achieved by an agent maintaining a logical theory and drawing conclusions from it."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programs with Common Sense]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achieved":1,"agent":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":1,"artificial":2,"ascribing":1,"be":1,"behaviour":1,"by":2,"can":1,"common":1,"conclusions":1,"drawing":1,"epistemological":1,"from":1,"generality":1,"holding":1,"in":2,"intelligence":2,"intelligent":1,"it":1,"logical":1,"logicist":1,"machines":1,"maintaining":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":1,"of":1,"originated":1,"problems":1,"programs":1,"qualities":1,"research":1,"sense":1,"that":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tradition":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Counterfactual","s":"concepts/counterfactual","secs":[{"h":"Counterfactual","l":1,"t":"A statement about what would have happened had things been otherwise; central to causal reasoning and to McCarthy's programme of representing actions formally."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"actions":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"been":1,"causal":1,"central":1,"counterfactual":1,"formally":1,"from":1,"had":1,"happened":1,"have":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":2,"otherwise":1,"philosophical":1,"problems":1,"programme":1,"reasoning":1,"representing":1,"s":1,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"statement":1,"the":1,"things":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"what":1,"would":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Cognitive Light Cone","s":"concepts/cognitive-light-cone","secs":[{"h":"Cognitive Light Cone","l":1,"t":"Levin: the spatiotemporal region over which a goal-directed system can sense, model, and act — its computational surface defining what counts as that self."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"act":1,"and":1,"as":1,"boundary":1,"can":1,"cognitive":1,"computational":2,"cone":1,"counts":1,"defining":1,"directed":1,"goal":1,"in":1,"its":1,"levin":1,"light":1,"model":1,"of":1,"over":1,"region":1,"self":2,"sense":1,"spatiotemporal":1,"surface":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"which":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Domain-Specific Languages","s":"concepts/domain-specific-languages","secs":[{"h":"Domain-Specific Languages","l":1,"t":"Languages tailored to a narrow problem domain, often delivered as an embedded DSL in a host language."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"an":1,"as":1,"creating":1,"delivered":1,"domain":2,"dsl":1,"embedded":1,"extensible":1,"graham":1,"host":1,"in":3,"language":4,"languages":3,"narrow":1,"often":1,"problem":1,"racket":1,"specific":1,"spoofax":1,"tailored":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Compiler Correctness","s":"concepts/compiler-correctness","secs":[{"h":"Compiler Correctness","l":1,"t":"The property that a compiled program exhibits the same observable behaviour as its source. First mechanised by McCarthy-Painter 1967 for arithmetic expressions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"1967":1,"a":3,"arithmetic":2,"as":1,"behaviour":1,"by":1,"compiled":1,"compiler":2,"computation":1,"correctness":2,"exhibits":1,"expressions":2,"first":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"in":1,"its":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"mechanised":1,"observable":1,"of":2,"painter":1,"program":1,"property":1,"same":1,"science":1,"source":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"towards":1,"vault":1,"verification":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Scheme 48","s":"concepts/scheme-48","secs":[{"h":"Scheme 48","l":1,"t":"A byte-coded implementation of the Scheme programming language designed with a small, auditable core and module system. Used as a substrate for research on security kernels and capability-based systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Kernel Lambda Calculus]]"}],"tf":{"48":1,"a":3,"and":2,"as":1,"auditable":1,"based":1,"byte":1,"calculus":1,"capability":1,"coded":1,"core":1,"designed":1,"for":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"kernel":1,"kernels":1,"lambda":1,"language":1,"module":1,"of":1,"on":1,"programming":1,"research":1,"scheme":2,"security":2,"small":1,"substrate":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":143,"n":"Parity Multisig","s":"concepts/parity-multisig","secs":[{"h":"Parity Multisig","l":1,"t":"Two infamous 2017 incidents involving the Parity Wallet multisig contract on [[Ethereum]]: **July 2017 — the \"hack\"** (~$30M): a flaw in the wallet's `initWallet` function allowed any caller to re-initialise the contract and claim ownership, because `initWallet` had no access control and could be invoked after deployment via [[Delegatecall]]. **November 2017 — the \"freeze\"** (~$280M): a security researcher experimenting with the library contract used `initWallet` to take ownership of the *shared library*, then invoked `selfdestruct` on it. Every deployed wallet that delegated to that library was instantaneously bricked, freezing ~$280M of ETH across hundreds of multisig deployments. Both incidents turn on the same confluence: [[Delegatecall]] as naked `eval`, missing access controls, and [[Solidity]]'s default method visibility. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] cites them as emblematic of the language-design failures the [[LangSec]] approach is meant to prevent."},{"h":"Tags","l":11,"t":""},{"h":"ethereum #smart-contracts #security-incident","l":12,"t":""}],"tf":{"2017":3,"280m":2,"30m":1,"a":2,"access":2,"across":1,"after":1,"allowed":1,"and":3,"any":1,"approach":1,"as":2,"be":1,"because":1,"both":1,"bricked":1,"caller":1,"cites":1,"claim":1,"classic":1,"confluence":1,"contract":3,"contracts":1,"control":1,"controls":1,"could":1,"default":1,"delegatecall":2,"delegated":1,"deployed":1,"deployment":1,"deployments":1,"design":1,"emblematic":1,"eth":1,"ethereum":3,"every":1,"experimenting":1,"failures":1,"flaw":1,"freeze":1,"freezing":1,"function":1,"hack":1,"had":1,"house":1,"hundreds":1,"in":2,"incident":1,"incidents":2,"infamous":1,"initialise":1,"instantaneously":1,"invoked":2,"involving":1,"is":1,"it":1,"july":1,"langsec":2,"language":1,"library":3,"meant":1,"method":1,"missing":1,"multisig":3,"naked":1,"no":1,"november":1,"of":4,"on":4,"ownership":2,"parity":2,"prevent":1,"re":1,"researcher":1,"rock":1,"s":2,"same":1,"security":2,"shared":1,"smart":1,"solidity":1,"tags":1,"take":1,"that":2,"the":10,"them":1,"then":1,"to":4,"turn":1,"two":1,"used":1,"via":1,"visibility":1,"wallet":3,"was":1,"with":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Self-Adaptation","s":"concepts/self-adaptation","secs":[{"h":"Self-Adaptation","l":1,"t":"A system's capability to modify its own behaviour or structure at runtime in response to internal or environmental change, without external intervention. It is typically implemented as a MAPE-K loop (Monitor-Analyse-Plan-Execute over a Knowledge base)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Meta-Adaptation]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"adaptation":3,"adaptive":1,"analyse":1,"as":1,"ascens":1,"at":1,"awareness":1,"base":1,"behaviour":1,"capability":1,"change":1,"environmental":1,"execute":1,"expression":1,"external":1,"implemented":1,"in":2,"internal":1,"intervention":1,"is":1,"it":1,"its":1,"k":1,"knowledge":1,"loop":1,"mape":1,"meta":1,"modify":1,"monitor":1,"or":2,"over":1,"own":1,"plan":1,"response":1,"runtime":1,"s":1,"self":5,"structure":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":2,"typically":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Relation Adaptation","s":"concepts/relation-adaptation","secs":[{"h":"Relation Adaptation","l":1,"t":"Local, self-organising adjustment of the links between agents in a network — rewiring, strengthening or severing ties — in response to observed interaction quality. It is a building block of composite self-organisation mechanisms for agent networks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Self-Organising Topology]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"adaptation":1,"adjustment":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":1,"between":1,"block":1,"building":1,"composite":2,"for":1,"in":4,"interaction":1,"is":1,"it":1,"links":1,"local":1,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"network":2,"networks":1,"observed":1,"of":2,"or":1,"organisation":2,"organising":2,"quality":1,"relation":1,"response":1,"rewiring":1,"self":4,"severing":1,"strengthening":1,"the":1,"this":1,"ties":1,"to":1,"topology":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Ontology Mapping","s":"concepts/ontology-mapping","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Mapping","l":1,"t":"The process (and resulting artefact) of establishing semantic correspondences between entities in two or more ontologies, supporting translation of instances and queries across them. It is a core enabler of interoperability among heterogeneous knowledge sources."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Interoperability]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"among":1,"and":3,"artefact":1,"between":1,"change":1,"classification":1,"core":1,"correspondences":1,"enabler":1,"entities":1,"establishing":1,"heterogeneous":1,"in":2,"instances":1,"interoperability":2,"is":1,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"mapping":1,"more":1,"of":3,"ontologies":2,"ontology":2,"or":1,"process":1,"queries":1,"resulting":1,"semantic":1,"sources":1,"supporting":1,"survey":1,"the":1,"them":1,"this":1,"translation":1,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Axiomatic Semantics","s":"concepts/axiomatic-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Axiomatic Semantics","l":1,"t":"A style of program semantics in which meaning is given by logical assertions (preconditions and postconditions) about program states. Introduced by Hoare and Floyd, it underpins program verification via proof rules for each construct."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"and":2,"assertions":1,"assigning":1,"axiomatic":1,"by":2,"construct":1,"each":1,"floyd":1,"for":1,"given":1,"hoare":2,"in":2,"introduced":1,"is":1,"it":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"meaning":1,"meanings":1,"of":1,"postconditions":1,"preconditions":1,"program":3,"programs":1,"proof":1,"rules":1,"semantics":2,"states":1,"style":1,"this":1,"to":1,"underpins":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"via":1,"which":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Pidgin Emergence","s":"concepts/pidgin-emergence","secs":[{"h":"Pidgin Emergence","l":1,"t":"The formation of simplified, shared communicative codes among agents (or humans) lacking a common language, typically with reduced grammar and limited vocabulary. Studied in artificial-language evolution experiments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":1,"among":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"automating":1,"codes":1,"common":1,"communication":1,"communicative":1,"competence":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"evolution":2,"experiments":1,"formation":1,"grammar":1,"humans":1,"in":2,"lacking":1,"language":2,"limited":1,"linguistic":1,"of":2,"or":1,"pidgin":1,"reduced":1,"shared":1,"simplified":1,"studied":1,"the":2,"this":1,"towards":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"with":1}},{"dl":73,"n":"KQML","s":"concepts/kqml","secs":[{"h":"KQML","l":1,"t":"**Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language** — one of the first ACLs, developed in the early 1990s by the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort. Performative-based, separating content language from communication."},{"h":"Primary sources","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML as an Agent Communication Language]] - [[KQML Language And Protocol]]"},{"h":"Related","l":10,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] — the standardised successor - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] — companion Knowledge Sharing Effort project - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"1990s":1,"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":3,"act":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":2,"arpa":1,"as":1,"based":1,"by":1,"common":1,"communication":3,"companion":1,"content":1,"developed":1,"early":1,"effort":2,"fipa":1,"first":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":1,"knowledge":3,"kqml":4,"language":4,"languages":1,"manipulation":1,"of":2,"one":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontology":2,"overview":1,"performative":1,"portable":1,"primary":1,"project":1,"protocol":1,"query":1,"related":1,"semantics":1,"separating":1,"sharing":2,"sources":1,"specifications":1,"speech":1,"standardised":1,"successor":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Decentralized Identifiers","s":"concepts/decentralized-identifiers","secs":[{"h":"Decentralized Identifiers","l":1,"t":"W3C-standardised globally resolvable identifiers (DIDs) that are created, owned and controlled by their subject without a central registry. Each DID resolves to a DID Document containing public keys and service endpoints, supporting self-sovereign agent identity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"and":2,"are":1,"by":1,"central":1,"containing":1,"controlled":1,"created":1,"decentralized":1,"did":2,"dids":1,"document":1,"each":1,"endpoints":1,"globally":1,"identifiers":2,"identity":1,"in":1,"interoperability":1,"keys":1,"network":1,"of":1,"owned":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"public":1,"registry":1,"resolvable":1,"resolves":1,"self":1,"service":1,"sovereign":1,"standardised":1,"subject":1,"supporting":1,"survey":1,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"w3c":1,"without":1}},{"dl":63,"n":"Language Agents","s":"concepts/language-agents","secs":[{"h":"Language Agents","l":1,"t":"Autonomous agents whose planning, memory, tool use, and communication are driven primarily by an underlying LLM, as instantiated by frameworks such as AGENTS (Zhou et al.), AutoGPT, and LangChain. The term emphasises natural language as the substrate for both reasoning and inter-agent coordination."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":6,"ai":1,"al":2,"an":1,"and":3,"are":1,"as":3,"autogpt":1,"autonomous":1,"both":1,"by":2,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"coordination":1,"driven":1,"emphasises":1,"et":2,"for":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"human":1,"in":2,"instantiated":1,"inter":1,"langchain":1,"language":3,"llm":2,"memory":1,"natural":1,"planning":1,"primarily":1,"reasoning":1,"substrate":1,"such":1,"term":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tool":1,"underlying":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"why":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":42,"n":"Ontology Merging","s":"concepts/ontology-merging","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Merging","l":1,"t":"Producing a single unified ontology from two or more input ontologies covering overlapping domains, typically via alignment + conflict resolution. Output is a new ontology rather than a set of correspondences."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontology Alignment]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"alignment":2,"and":1,"change":1,"classification":1,"conflict":1,"correspondences":1,"covering":1,"domains":1,"from":1,"in":1,"input":1,"is":1,"merging":1,"more":1,"new":1,"of":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":5,"or":1,"output":1,"overlapping":1,"producing":1,"rather":1,"resolution":1,"set":1,"single":1,"survey":1,"than":1,"this":1,"two":1,"typically":1,"unified":1,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Conway's Law","s":"concepts/conway's-law","secs":[{"h":"Conway's Law","l":1,"t":"\"Organisations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organisations.\" — a homomorphism claim between product architecture and team structure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[System Homomorphism]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"are":2,"between":1,"claim":1,"committees":1,"communication":1,"constrained":1,"conway":1,"copies":1,"design":1,"designs":1,"do":1,"homomorphism":2,"how":1,"in":1,"invent":1,"law":1,"of":2,"organisations":2,"produce":1,"product":1,"s":1,"structure":1,"structures":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"team":1,"the":1,"these":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":2}},{"dl":53,"n":"Language Game","s":"concepts/language-game","secs":[{"h":"Language Game","l":1,"t":"Wittgenstein's concept of a rule-governed, situated activity in which linguistic signs acquire meaning through use. Steels operationalises it as a repeated interaction episode between two robots (e.g. naming, guessing, discrimination) used to bootstrap a shared lexicon."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Language Games]] - [[Lexicon Convergence]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"acquire":1,"activity":1,"as":1,"autonomous":1,"between":1,"bootstrap":1,"concept":1,"convergence":1,"discrimination":1,"e":1,"episode":1,"for":1,"g":1,"game":1,"games":2,"governed":1,"guessing":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"it":1,"language":3,"lexicon":2,"linguistic":1,"meaning":1,"naming":1,"of":1,"operationalises":1,"repeated":1,"robots":2,"rule":1,"s":1,"shared":1,"signs":1,"situated":1,"steels":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"two":1,"use":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"wittgenstein":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Ontological Commitment","s":"concepts/ontological-commitment","secs":[{"h":"Ontological Commitment","l":1,"t":"An agreement by an agent to use a shared vocabulary and conceptualisation consistently when communicating about a domain. Gruber's formulation grounds ontology sharing without requiring identical internal representations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Conceptualization]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"agent":1,"agreement":1,"an":2,"and":1,"by":1,"commitment":1,"communicating":1,"conceptualisation":1,"conceptualization":1,"consistently":1,"domain":1,"formulation":1,"grounds":1,"gruber":1,"identical":1,"in":1,"internal":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontological":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":2,"portable":1,"representations":1,"requiring":1,"s":1,"shared":1,"sharing":1,"specifications":1,"this":1,"to":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"when":1,"without":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Intent Gap","s":"concepts/intent-gap","secs":[{"h":"Intent Gap","l":1,"t":"Semantic distance between what a user means and what a program actually does — the central reliability bottleneck amplified by agentic AI-generated code."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"actually":1,"agentic":1,"ai":1,"amplified":1,"and":1,"between":1,"bottleneck":1,"by":1,"central":1,"challenge":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"distance":1,"does":1,"for":1,"formalization":1,"gap":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"in":1,"intent":2,"means":1,"program":1,"reliability":1,"reliable":1,"semantic":1,"the":1,"this":1,"user":1,"vault":1,"what":2}},{"dl":41,"n":"Information Cascades","s":"concepts/information-cascades","secs":[{"h":"Information Cascades","l":1,"t":"A phenomenon in which agents, observing earlier agents' actions, rationally ignore their own private signals and imitate, leading to herd behaviour that may propagate errors. Relevant to ripple-effect dynamics in agent networks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ripple Effect Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":1,"agents":2,"and":1,"behaviour":1,"cascades":1,"dynamics":1,"earlier":1,"effect":2,"errors":1,"herd":1,"ignore":1,"imitate":1,"in":3,"information":1,"leading":1,"may":1,"networks":1,"observing":1,"own":1,"phenomenon":1,"private":1,"propagate":1,"protocol":1,"rationally":1,"relevant":1,"ripple":2,"signals":1,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":76,"n":"FIPA-ACL","s":"concepts/fipa-acl","secs":[{"h":"FIPA-ACL","l":1,"t":"The **Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents** Agent Communication Language — a standardised successor to [[KQML]], defining performatives with mentalistic semantics (beliefs/intentions of sender and receiver)."},{"h":"Discussed in","l":5,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]]"},{"h":"Related","l":14,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":3,"acls":1,"acre":1,"act":1,"agent":7,"agents":2,"and":1,"art":1,"beliefs":1,"communication":5,"conversation":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"defining":1,"discussed":1,"engine":1,"fipa":1,"for":2,"foundation":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"intentions":1,"kqml":1,"language":2,"languages":3,"mentalistic":1,"multi":1,"of":2,"performatives":1,"physical":1,"principles":2,"reasoning":1,"receiver":1,"related":1,"rethinking":2,"semantics":2,"sender":1,"speech":1,"standardised":1,"state":1,"successor":1,"systems":1,"the":4,"theory":1,"to":1,"trends":1,"using":1,"verifiable":1,"with":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Illocutionary Specification","s":"concepts/illocutionary-specification","secs":[{"h":"Illocutionary Specification","l":1,"t":"Specification of what a program *says* — its input-output behaviour expressed as performative acts (answers, promises, accepts). Intrinsic to the program text; verifiable purely from program semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Perlocutionary Specification]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"accepts":1,"act":1,"acts":2,"answers":1,"as":1,"based":1,"behaviour":1,"elephant":1,"expressed":1,"from":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":1,"input":1,"intrinsic":1,"its":1,"language":1,"of":1,"on":1,"output":1,"performative":1,"perlocutionary":1,"program":3,"programming":1,"promises":1,"purely":1,"says":1,"semantics":1,"specification":3,"speech":2,"text":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"what":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"B-brains","s":"concepts/b-brains","secs":[{"h":"B-brains","l":1,"t":"Minsky: higher-order agencies that watch the activity of lower-order (A-)brains rather than the world; the architectural substrate of introspection, planning, and self-regulation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]] - [[Ethical Governor]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"activity":1,"agencies":1,"and":1,"architectural":1,"b":1,"brains":2,"ethical":1,"governor":1,"higher":1,"in":1,"introspection":1,"loop":1,"lower":1,"metacognitive":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"of":3,"order":2,"planning":1,"rather":1,"regulation":1,"self":1,"society":1,"substrate":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"vault":1,"watch":1,"world":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Interoperability","s":"concepts/interoperability","secs":[{"h":"Interoperability","l":1,"t":"Property of systems from different origins to communicate, exchange data, and invoke each other's services without prior agreement."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"agent":2,"agreement":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"communicate":1,"data":1,"different":1,"each":1,"exchange":1,"from":1,"in":1,"interoperability":2,"invoke":1,"of":3,"origins":1,"other":1,"principles":1,"prior":1,"property":1,"protocols":2,"rethinking":1,"s":1,"services":1,"survey":2,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Type Preservation","s":"concepts/type-preservation","secs":[{"h":"Type Preservation","l":1,"t":"The metatheoretic property that a well-typed term reduces only to well-typed terms of the same type. Together with progress, yields type soundness for a language's operational semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Metatheoretic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"approach":1,"extensible":1,"for":2,"in":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"metatheoretic":3,"modular":1,"of":1,"only":1,"operational":1,"preservation":1,"progress":1,"property":1,"reasoning":2,"reduces":1,"s":1,"same":1,"semantics":1,"soundness":1,"term":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"together":1,"type":3,"typed":2,"vault":1,"well":2,"with":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Minimal Model","s":"concepts/minimal-model","secs":[{"h":"Minimal Model","l":1,"t":"A model of a theory that minimises the extension of certain predicates — the semantic counterpart of circumscription."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Circumscription]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"certain":1,"circumscription":3,"counterpart":1,"extension":1,"form":1,"in":1,"minimal":1,"minimises":1,"model":2,"nonmonotonic":1,"of":4,"predicates":1,"reasoning":1,"semantic":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":71,"n":"Retrieval-Augmented Generation","s":"concepts/retrieval-augmented-generation","secs":[{"h":"Retrieval-Augmented Generation","l":1,"t":"A pattern in which an LLM is conditioned at inference time on documents fetched from an external corpus by a retriever, so that generation is grounded in up-to-date, citable knowledge without retraining. RAG is the default means by which LLM agents access long-term memory and shared knowledge bases."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"access":1,"agent":1,"agents":3,"ai":1,"al":1,"an":2,"and":1,"at":1,"augmented":1,"bases":1,"by":2,"citable":1,"collaboration":1,"conditioned":1,"corpus":1,"date":1,"default":1,"documents":1,"et":1,"external":1,"fetched":1,"framework":1,"from":1,"generation":2,"grounded":1,"in":4,"inference":1,"is":3,"knowledge":2,"llm":3,"long":1,"means":1,"memory":1,"multi":1,"on":1,"pattern":1,"rag":1,"retraining":1,"retrieval":1,"retriever":1,"shared":1,"so":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"tunkel":1,"up":1,"vault":1,"wasif":1,"which":2,"without":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Grounded Semantics","s":"concepts/grounded-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Grounded Semantics","l":1,"t":"ACL semantics defined over externally observable conditions (message histories, social states) rather than agents' unverifiable mental states, so that conformance can actually be checked. Contrasts with mentalistic semantics of the FIPA tradition."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"acls":1,"actually":1,"agents":1,"based":1,"be":1,"can":1,"checked":1,"commitment":1,"conditions":1,"conformance":1,"contrasts":1,"defined":1,"externally":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"grounded":1,"histories":1,"in":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":2,"message":1,"observable":1,"of":1,"over":1,"rather":1,"semantics":6,"so":1,"social":1,"states":2,"than":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tradition":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"with":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Scaled Dot-Product Attention","s":"concepts/scaled-dot-product-attention","secs":[{"h":"Scaled Dot-Product Attention","l":1,"t":"Vaswani et al.: attention weights = softmax(QK^T / √d_k) V. The single-head primitive underlying multi-head attention."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Self-Attention]]"}],"tf":{"al":1,"all":1,"attention":5,"d":1,"dot":1,"et":1,"head":2,"in":1,"is":1,"k":1,"multi":1,"need":1,"primitive":1,"product":1,"qk":1,"scaled":1,"self":1,"single":1,"softmax":1,"t":1,"the":1,"this":1,"underlying":1,"v":1,"vaswani":1,"vault":1,"weights":1,"you":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Dialects and Idiolects","s":"concepts/dialects-and-idiolects","secs":[{"h":"Dialects and Idiolects","l":1,"t":"In ACL practice, *dialects* are community-level variants of a language (e.g. a KQML profile used by a particular project), while *idiolects* are single-agent idiosyncrasies. Rethinking ACL principles argues both must be accommodated rather than forbidden, since they arise inevitably from open deployment."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"accommodated":1,"acl":3,"agent":2,"and":1,"are":2,"argues":1,"arise":1,"be":1,"both":1,"by":1,"communication":1,"community":1,"deployment":1,"dialects":2,"e":1,"forbidden":1,"from":1,"g":1,"idiolects":2,"idiosyncrasies":1,"in":2,"inevitably":1,"kqml":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"level":1,"must":1,"of":1,"open":1,"particular":1,"practice":1,"principles":3,"profile":1,"project":1,"rather":1,"rethinking":3,"since":1,"single":1,"than":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"used":1,"variants":1,"vault":1,"while":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"RDF","s":"concepts/rdf","secs":[{"h":"RDF","l":1,"t":"Resource Description Framework — the W3C subject-predicate-object triple model underpinning the Semantic Web, serving as a common substrate for ontology languages like RDFS and OWL."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Semantic Web]] - [[Ontology]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"as":1,"common":1,"description":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"languages":1,"like":1,"model":1,"object":1,"on":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":2,"owl":1,"predicate":1,"rdf":1,"rdfs":1,"resource":1,"semantic":2,"serving":1,"subject":1,"substrate":1,"the":2,"this":1,"triple":1,"underpinning":1,"vault":1,"w3c":1,"web":2}},{"dl":34,"n":"Interaction Protocols","s":"concepts/interaction-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Interaction Protocols","l":1,"t":"Specifications of legal conversation patterns (e.g. as Petri nets or state machines) above the message level."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"above":1,"acl":1,"acre":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"as":1,"conversation":3,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"e":1,"engine":1,"g":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"legal":1,"level":1,"machines":1,"message":1,"nets":1,"of":1,"or":1,"patterns":1,"petri":1,"policy":1,"protocols":1,"reasoning":1,"specifications":1,"state":1,"the":1,"this":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":129,"n":"Coordination Avoidance","s":"concepts/coordination-avoidance","secs":[{"h":"Coordination Avoidance","l":1,"t":"The design discipline of eliminating synchronisation (locks, quorums, consensus rounds) wherever a computation can be proved correct without it. The **[[CALM Theorem]]** makes this precise: coordination is avoidable exactly for monotonic programs. Practical techniques: - Build from monotonic primitives ([[CRDTs]], set unions, counters-up-only) - Use [[Immutable Data Structures]] and [[Tombstones]] to convert mutation into monotonic history - Isolate the non-monotonic boundary (e.g. a shopping-cart *checkout*) and coordinate there only - Program in a language like [[Bloom Language]] that makes monotonicity syntactically checkable Contrasts with storage-consistency work (linearizability, serializability) which enforces coordination *inside* the storage layer regardless of program shape."},{"h":"In this vault","l":13,"t":"- [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Confluence]] - [[CRDTs]] - [[CAP Theorem]] - [[Bloom Language]] - [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"aggregate":1,"and":2,"avoidable":1,"avoidance":1,"based":1,"be":1,"bloom":2,"boundary":1,"build":1,"calm":3,"can":1,"cap":1,"cart":1,"checkable":1,"checkout":1,"computation":2,"confluence":1,"consensus":1,"consistency":2,"contrasts":1,"convert":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":3,"correct":1,"counters":1,"crdts":2,"data":1,"design":1,"discipline":1,"distributed":1,"e":1,"easy":1,"eliminating":1,"enforces":1,"exactly":1,"for":1,"from":1,"g":1,"gossip":1,"history":1,"immutable":1,"in":2,"information":1,"inside":1,"into":1,"is":2,"isolate":1,"it":1,"keeping":1,"language":3,"layer":1,"like":1,"linearizability":1,"locks":1,"logic":1,"makes":2,"monotonic":5,"monotonicity":1,"mutation":1,"non":1,"of":3,"only":2,"practical":1,"precise":1,"primitives":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"proved":1,"quorums":1,"regardless":1,"rounds":1,"serializability":1,"set":1,"shape":1,"shopping":1,"storage":2,"structures":1,"synchronisation":1,"syntactically":1,"techniques":1,"that":1,"the":4,"theorem":3,"there":1,"this":2,"to":1,"tombstones":1,"unions":1,"up":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"wherever":1,"which":1,"with":1,"without":1,"work":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Event-B","s":"concepts/event-b","secs":[{"h":"Event-B","l":1,"t":"A formal method for modelling and refining discrete systems as sets of guarded events operating over state variables, supported by the Rodin platform with automated proof obligations for invariants and refinements. It is used to verify cross-chain interoperability and protocol patterns."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":3,"as":1,"automated":1,"b":1,"blockchain":1,"by":1,"chain":1,"cross":1,"discrete":1,"event":1,"events":1,"for":2,"formal":2,"formalise":1,"guarded":1,"in":1,"interoperability":2,"invariants":1,"is":1,"it":1,"method":1,"modelling":1,"obligations":1,"of":1,"operating":1,"over":1,"patterns":2,"platform":1,"proof":1,"protocol":1,"refinements":1,"refining":1,"rodin":1,"sets":1,"state":1,"supported":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"variables":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"verify":1,"with":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Prefix Codes","s":"concepts/prefix-codes","secs":[{"h":"Prefix Codes","l":1,"t":"Codes in which no codeword is a proper prefix of another, enabling unambiguous decoding from a stream without separators and satisfying Kraft's inequality. Used to define prefix Kolmogorov complexity K(x), which underpins the algorithmic-statistics/MDL apparatus."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]] - [[Shannon Information]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"algorithmic":2,"and":1,"another":1,"apparatus":1,"codes":2,"codeword":1,"complexity":2,"decoding":1,"define":1,"enabling":1,"from":1,"grunwald":1,"in":2,"inequality":1,"information":2,"is":1,"k":1,"kolmogorov":2,"kraft":1,"mdl":1,"no":1,"of":1,"prefix":3,"proper":1,"s":1,"satisfying":1,"separators":1,"shannon":1,"statistics":1,"stream":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unambiguous":1,"underpins":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"which":2,"without":1,"x":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"LOGOS","s":"concepts/logos","secs":[{"h":"LOGOS","l":1,"t":"An agent communication language, surveyed by the \"State of the Art in ACLs\", designed for legal and institutional discourse with explicit representation of deontic operators. It is cited as an example of a domain-specialised ACL beyond the KQML/FIPA mainstream."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"agent":3,"an":2,"and":1,"art":2,"as":1,"beyond":1,"by":1,"cited":1,"communication":3,"deontic":1,"designed":1,"discourse":1,"domain":1,"example":1,"explicit":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"in":3,"institutional":1,"is":1,"it":1,"kqml":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"legal":1,"logos":1,"mainstream":1,"of":4,"operators":1,"representation":1,"specialised":1,"state":2,"surveyed":1,"the":5,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Layered Architecture","s":"concepts/layered-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Layered Architecture","l":1,"t":"An agent architecture in which control is decomposed into vertically or horizontally stacked layers operating at different levels of abstraction (e.g. reactive, planning, social). Each layer's outputs constrain or are arbitrated with those of the others."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"abstraction":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":1,"arbitrated":1,"architecture":2,"are":1,"at":1,"bdi":1,"constrain":1,"control":1,"decomposed":1,"different":1,"e":1,"each":1,"g":1,"horizontally":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"into":1,"is":1,"layer":1,"layered":1,"layers":1,"levels":1,"of":2,"operating":1,"or":2,"others":1,"outputs":1,"planning":1,"practice":1,"reactive":1,"s":1,"social":1,"stacked":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"those":1,"vault":1,"vertically":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Agent Self-Monitoring","s":"concepts/agent-self-monitoring","secs":[{"h":"Agent Self-Monitoring","l":1,"t":"An agent's capability to observe its own actions, detect competence boundaries, and escalate when it exceeds them — largely absent in current LLM agents per Mirsky's L2 level."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]]"}],"tf":{"absent":1,"actions":1,"agent":2,"agents":3,"an":1,"and":2,"behaviour":1,"boundaries":1,"capability":1,"chaos":1,"competence":1,"current":1,"detect":1,"ensuring":1,"escalate":1,"ethical":1,"exceeds":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"it":1,"its":1,"l2":1,"largely":1,"level":1,"llm":1,"logical":1,"loop":1,"metacognitive":1,"mirsky":1,"monitoring":1,"observe":1,"of":1,"own":1,"per":1,"s":2,"self":1,"them":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trustworthy":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Fluent","s":"concepts/fluent","secs":[{"h":"Fluent","l":1,"t":"A property of the world that varies from situation to situation (e.g. `On(A,B)`). In situation calculus, fluents are predicates taking an extra situation argument."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Situation Calculus]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"are":1,"argument":1,"artificial":1,"calculus":2,"e":1,"extra":1,"fluent":1,"fluents":1,"from":2,"g":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"of":2,"philosophical":1,"predicates":1,"problems":1,"property":1,"situation":5,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"taking":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"varies":1,"vault":1,"world":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Meta-Methods","s":"concepts/meta-methods","secs":[{"h":"Meta-Methods","l":1,"t":"General-purpose methods that build structure from computation rather than encoding it. Contrasted with human-knowledge-engineering."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Bitter Lesson]] - [[Generality]]"}],"tf":{"bitter":1,"build":1,"computation":1,"contrasted":1,"encoding":1,"engineering":1,"from":1,"general":1,"generality":1,"human":1,"in":1,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"lesson":1,"meta":1,"methods":2,"purpose":1,"rather":1,"structure":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Declarative Specification","s":"concepts/declarative-specification","secs":[{"h":"Declarative Specification","l":1,"t":"A description of *what* a system should do rather than *how*; in language workbenches, declarative meta-specifications (grammar, name binding, types, semantics) are compiled into parsers, checkers, and editors."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"are":1,"binding":1,"checkers":1,"compiled":1,"declarative":2,"description":1,"do":1,"editors":1,"grammar":1,"how":1,"in":2,"into":1,"language":3,"meta":1,"name":1,"of":1,"parsers":1,"rather":1,"semantics":1,"should":1,"specification":1,"specifications":1,"spoofax":1,"system":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"types":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":2}},{"dl":62,"n":"Individuality","s":"concepts/individuality","secs":[{"h":"Individuality","l":1,"t":"In Levin's computational-boundary-of-a-self framework, the degree to which a system pursues goals at a given level of organisation, defining where one cognitive agent ends and another begins. Operationalised through the cognitive light cone — the spatiotemporal extent of goals a system can represent and act on."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Cognitive Light Cone]]"}],"tf":{"a":5,"act":1,"agent":1,"and":2,"another":1,"at":1,"begins":1,"boundary":2,"can":1,"cognitive":3,"computational":2,"cone":2,"defining":1,"degree":1,"ends":1,"extent":1,"framework":1,"given":1,"goals":2,"in":2,"individuality":1,"level":1,"levin":1,"light":2,"of":4,"on":1,"one":1,"operationalised":1,"organisation":1,"pursues":1,"represent":1,"s":1,"self":2,"spatiotemporal":1,"system":2,"the":3,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"which":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Lisp","s":"concepts/lisp","secs":[{"h":"Lisp","l":1,"t":"A family of homoiconic functional languages whose programs are s-expressions, prized for macros and REPL-driven, bottom-up extensibility as championed by Graham."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Bottom-up Programming]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"are":1,"as":2,"bottom":2,"by":1,"championed":1,"driven":1,"expressions":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"family":1,"for":1,"functional":1,"graham":2,"homoiconic":1,"in":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"lisp":1,"macros":2,"of":1,"prized":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"repl":1,"s":1,"the":1,"this":1,"up":2,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Vat Model","s":"concepts/vat-model","secs":[{"h":"Vat Model","l":1,"t":"E/Goblins execution model: a *vat* is an isolated synchronous event-loop context containing objects; vats communicate only asynchronously. Local turns are transactional, simplifying distributed error handling."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[E Language]] - [[Actor Model]] - [[Turn (Goblins)]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actor":1,"an":1,"and":1,"are":1,"asynchronously":1,"capability":1,"communicate":1,"containing":1,"context":1,"distributed":2,"e":2,"error":1,"event":1,"execution":1,"goblins":2,"handling":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"is":1,"isolated":1,"language":1,"local":1,"loop":1,"model":3,"objects":2,"of":1,"only":1,"security":1,"simplifying":1,"spritely":1,"synchronous":1,"the":1,"this":1,"transactional":1,"turn":1,"turns":1,"vat":2,"vats":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Polynemes","s":"concepts/polynemes","secs":[{"h":"Polynemes","l":1,"t":"Minsky: signals that simultaneously arouse many different agents across different agencies — carrying the combinatorial richness of a concept."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Pronomes]] - [[Isonomes]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agencies":1,"agents":1,"arouse":1,"carrying":1,"combinatorial":1,"concept":1,"different":2,"in":1,"isonomes":1,"many":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"of":2,"polynemes":1,"pronomes":1,"richness":1,"signals":1,"simultaneously":1,"society":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Statelessness","s":"concepts/statelessness","secs":[{"h":"Statelessness","l":1,"t":"A REST architectural constraint requiring each request from a client to contain all information needed to service it, with no session state held on the server. Enables scalability, visibility, and reliability at the cost of duplicated per-request context."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Resources]] - [[Representations]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"all":1,"and":1,"architectural":1,"architecture":1,"at":1,"client":1,"constraint":1,"contain":1,"context":1,"cost":1,"design":1,"duplicated":1,"each":1,"enables":1,"from":1,"held":1,"in":1,"information":1,"it":1,"modern":1,"needed":1,"no":1,"of":2,"on":1,"per":1,"principled":1,"reliability":1,"representations":1,"request":2,"requiring":1,"resources":1,"rest":1,"scalability":1,"server":1,"service":1,"session":1,"state":1,"statelessness":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"visibility":1,"web":1,"with":1}},{"dl":25,"n":"Expressives","s":"concepts/expressives","secs":[{"h":"Expressives","l":1,"t":"Searle: speech acts that express a psychological state about a state of affairs (thanking, apologising, congratulating)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"about":1,"acts":2,"affairs":1,"apologising":1,"congratulating":1,"express":1,"expressives":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":1,"of":2,"psychological":1,"searle":1,"speech":1,"state":2,"taxonomy":1,"thanking":1,"that":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Conversational AI","s":"concepts/conversational-ai","secs":[{"h":"Conversational AI","l":1,"t":"Artificial intelligence systems designed to hold multi-turn natural-language dialogues with humans, ranging from task-oriented assistants to open-domain social chatbots. Modern systems combine retrieval, generation, and dialogue management."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"assistants":1,"chatbots":2,"combine":1,"conversational":1,"designed":1,"dialogue":1,"dialogues":1,"domain":1,"eliza":1,"from":2,"generation":1,"hold":1,"humans":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"language":1,"llm":1,"management":1,"modern":1,"multi":1,"natural":1,"open":1,"oriented":1,"ranging":1,"retrieval":1,"social":2,"systems":2,"task":1,"this":1,"to":3,"turn":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"xiaoice":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Ethereum","s":"concepts/ethereum","secs":[{"h":"Ethereum","l":1,"t":"A programmable blockchain providing a Turing-complete virtual machine (EVM) over an account-based ledger; the canonical platform for smart-contract research, including formal-verification and symbolic-execution tools."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"account":1,"an":1,"and":1,"based":1,"blockchain":1,"canonical":1,"complete":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"ethereum":1,"evm":1,"execution":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"in":1,"including":1,"ledger":1,"machine":1,"making":1,"over":1,"platform":1,"programmable":1,"providing":1,"research":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"symbolic":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tools":1,"turing":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"virtual":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Speech Act Theory","s":"concepts/speech-act-theory","secs":[{"h":"Speech Act Theory","l":1,"t":"Philosophy-of-language framework (Austin, Searle, Vanderveken) in which utterances perform actions (illocutionary acts) — the semantic backbone of most [[Agent Communication Languages]]."},{"h":"Sources","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] — Searle & Vanderveken - [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] — Chomsky, foundations - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]]"},{"h":"Applied in","l":10,"t":"- [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"acls":1,"act":1,"actions":1,"acts":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"applied":1,"austin":1,"backbone":1,"chomsky":1,"communication":2,"description":1,"fipa":1,"for":2,"foundations":2,"framework":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":2,"institutional":1,"kqml":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"logic":1,"models":1,"most":1,"of":4,"perform":1,"philosophy":1,"principles":1,"reality":1,"rethinking":1,"searle":2,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"sources":1,"speech":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"three":1,"utterances":1,"vanderveken":2,"verifiable":1,"which":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Flat Context Trust Model","s":"concepts/flat-context-trust-model","secs":[{"h":"Flat Context Trust Model","l":1,"t":"Design pattern in which all content loaded into an LLM-agent's context is treated as equally authoritative — the root enabler of indirect prompt injection."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Indirect Prompt Injection]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":2,"all":1,"an":1,"as":1,"attacks":1,"authoritative":1,"clawworm":1,"content":1,"context":2,"design":1,"ecosystems":1,"enabler":1,"equally":1,"flat":1,"in":2,"indirect":2,"injection":2,"into":1,"is":1,"llm":2,"loaded":1,"model":1,"of":1,"pattern":1,"prompt":2,"propagating":1,"root":1,"s":1,"self":1,"the":1,"this":1,"treated":1,"trust":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Self-Organising Topology","s":"concepts/self-organising-topology","secs":[{"h":"Self-Organising Topology","l":1,"t":"An overlay whose graph structure is not centrally controlled but emerges from local rules followed by each node (e.g. preferential attachment to high-capacity peers). Myconet's fungi-inspired scheme yields a robust superpeer topology under churn and load changes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Relation Adaptation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adaptation":1,"an":1,"and":1,"attachment":1,"but":1,"by":1,"capacity":1,"centrally":1,"changes":1,"churn":1,"controlled":1,"e":1,"each":1,"emerges":1,"followed":1,"from":1,"fungi":2,"g":1,"graph":1,"high":1,"in":1,"inspired":2,"is":1,"load":1,"local":1,"myconet":2,"node":1,"not":1,"organising":1,"overlay":3,"peers":1,"preferential":1,"relation":1,"robust":1,"rules":1,"s":1,"scheme":1,"self":1,"structure":1,"superpeer":3,"this":1,"to":1,"topology":2,"under":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":130,"n":"Gas Mechanism","s":"concepts/gas-mechanism","secs":[{"h":"Gas Mechanism","l":1,"t":"Ethereum's metering system: every EVM opcode has a fixed gas cost; a transaction's sender prepays gas, execution halts when the limit is reached, and miners collect the fees regardless. The stated purpose ([[Ethereum]] yellow paper) is to \"sidestep the inevitable issues stemming from Turing completeness.\" [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] argues this conflates a *resource bound* (non-semantic, decidable) with a *safety guarantee* (semantic, undecidable per [[Rice's Theorem]]). Gas can show that a contract eventually halts; it cannot show that it behaves correctly. Worse, the accounting is itself adversarial: attackers are rewarded for gas-griefing or out-of-gas-reverting, and honest authors face perverse pressure to remove runtime sanity checks ([[Perverse Incentives]]) because conditionals cost gas."},{"h":"Tags","l":7,"t":""},{"h":"ethereum #smart-contracts #gas #langsec","l":8,"t":""}],"tf":{"a":5,"accounting":1,"adversarial":1,"and":2,"are":1,"argues":1,"attackers":1,"authors":1,"because":1,"behaves":1,"bound":1,"can":1,"cannot":1,"checks":1,"classic":1,"collect":1,"completeness":1,"conditionals":1,"conflates":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"correctly":1,"cost":2,"decidable":1,"ethereum":4,"eventually":1,"every":1,"evm":1,"execution":1,"face":1,"fees":1,"fixed":1,"for":1,"from":1,"gas":8,"griefing":1,"guarantee":1,"halts":2,"has":1,"honest":1,"house":1,"in":1,"incentives":1,"inevitable":1,"is":3,"issues":1,"it":2,"itself":1,"langsec":2,"limit":1,"mechanism":1,"metering":1,"miners":1,"non":1,"of":1,"on":1,"opcode":1,"or":1,"out":1,"paper":1,"per":1,"perverse":2,"prepays":1,"pressure":1,"purpose":1,"reached":1,"regardless":1,"remove":1,"resource":1,"reverting":1,"rewarded":1,"rice":1,"rock":1,"runtime":1,"s":3,"safety":1,"sanity":1,"semantic":2,"sender":1,"show":2,"sidestep":1,"smart":1,"stated":1,"stemming":1,"system":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":5,"theorem":1,"this":1,"to":2,"transaction":1,"turing":1,"undecidable":1,"when":1,"with":1,"worse":1,"yellow":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Layered Systems","s":"concepts/layered-systems","secs":[{"h":"Layered Systems","l":1,"t":"An architectural constraint in which components are organised into hierarchical layers, each using only services of the layer below. In REST, it permits intermediaries such as proxies and caches without breaking client-server semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[REST]] - [[Architectural Styles]]"}],"tf":{"an":1,"and":1,"architectural":2,"architecture":1,"are":1,"as":1,"below":1,"breaking":1,"caches":1,"client":1,"components":1,"constraint":1,"design":1,"each":1,"hierarchical":1,"in":3,"intermediaries":1,"into":1,"it":1,"layer":1,"layered":1,"layers":1,"modern":1,"of":2,"only":1,"organised":1,"permits":1,"principled":1,"proxies":1,"rest":2,"semantics":1,"server":1,"services":1,"styles":1,"such":1,"systems":1,"the":2,"this":1,"using":1,"vault":1,"web":1,"which":1,"without":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"Lewis Signalling Games","s":"concepts/lewis-signalling-games","secs":[{"h":"Lewis Signalling Games","l":1,"t":"David Lewis's two-player coordination games (sender observes a state and sends a signal; receiver observes the signal and picks an action) that establish conditions under which arbitrary signals acquire stable meaning. The minimal theoretical model underlying most emergent-communication research."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Referential Games]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acquire":1,"action":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":3,"arbitrary":1,"communication":2,"conditions":1,"cooperation":1,"coordination":1,"david":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"establish":1,"games":3,"in":1,"language":1,"lewis":2,"meaning":1,"minimal":1,"model":1,"most":1,"multi":1,"natural":1,"observes":2,"of":1,"picks":1,"player":1,"receiver":1,"referential":1,"research":1,"s":1,"sender":1,"sends":1,"signal":2,"signalling":1,"signals":1,"stable":1,"state":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theoretical":1,"this":1,"two":1,"under":1,"underlying":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Turn (Goblins)","s":"concepts/turn-(goblins)","secs":[{"h":"Turn (Goblins / E)","l":1,"t":"An atomic event-loop iteration inside a vat: receive one message, run synchronous code, possibly send messages, commit. Errors roll back the turn's local state — turns serve as lightweight transactions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Vat Model]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"and":1,"as":1,"atomic":1,"back":1,"capability":1,"code":1,"commit":1,"distributed":1,"e":1,"errors":1,"event":1,"goblins":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"inside":1,"iteration":1,"lightweight":1,"local":1,"loop":1,"message":1,"messages":1,"model":1,"objects":1,"of":1,"one":1,"possibly":1,"receive":1,"roll":1,"run":1,"s":1,"security":1,"send":1,"serve":1,"spritely":1,"state":1,"synchronous":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transactions":1,"turn":2,"turns":1,"vat":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Frame Problem","s":"concepts/frame-problem","secs":[{"h":"Frame Problem","l":1,"t":"McCarthy & Hayes 1969: how to represent the fact that *most* properties of the world are *unchanged* by a given action, without enumerating them all. Central to situation calculus, default reasoning, and circumscription."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Situation Calculus]] - [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]] - [[Qualification Problem]]"}],"tf":{"1969":1,"a":1,"action":1,"all":1,"and":1,"applications":1,"are":1,"artificial":1,"by":1,"calculus":2,"central":1,"circumscription":2,"common":1,"default":1,"enumerating":1,"fact":1,"formalizing":1,"frame":1,"from":1,"given":1,"hayes":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"knowledge":1,"mccarthy":1,"most":1,"of":2,"philosophical":1,"problem":2,"problems":1,"properties":1,"qualification":1,"reasoning":1,"represent":1,"sense":1,"situation":2,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"that":1,"the":3,"them":1,"this":1,"to":3,"unchanged":1,"vault":1,"without":1,"world":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Grounding in Human Language","s":"concepts/grounding-in-human-language","secs":[{"h":"Grounding in Human Language","l":1,"t":"Anchoring an emergent or artificial communication system to natural-language data so that learned tokens align with human-interpretable meanings, usually via auxiliary supervised or contrastive objectives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"align":1,"an":1,"anchoring":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"auxiliary":1,"communication":2,"contrastive":1,"cooperation":1,"data":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"grounding":1,"human":2,"in":2,"interpretable":1,"language":3,"learned":1,"meanings":1,"multi":1,"natural":2,"objectives":1,"of":1,"or":2,"so":1,"supervised":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tokens":1,"usually":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"with":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Rule of Conjecture","s":"concepts/rule-of-conjecture","secs":[{"h":"Rule of Conjecture","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's meta-rule for adding circumscriptive assumptions to a theory when the base axioms are too weak to draw the expected common-sense conclusion."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning]] - [[Circumscription]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adding":1,"are":1,"assumptions":1,"axioms":1,"base":1,"circumscription":2,"circumscriptive":1,"common":1,"conclusion":1,"conjecture":1,"draw":1,"expected":1,"for":1,"form":1,"in":1,"mccarthy":1,"meta":1,"nonmonotonic":1,"of":2,"reasoning":1,"rule":2,"s":1,"sense":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":2,"too":1,"vault":1,"weak":1,"when":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Levels of Description","s":"concepts/levels-of-description","secs":[{"h":"Levels of Description","l":1,"t":"Organising computing systems into strata (knowledge / symbol / register-transfer / device) each with its own medium and laws. Newell's contribution parallels Marr's three-level framework in vision."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[Knowledge Level]] - [[Symbol Level]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"computing":1,"contribution":1,"description":1,"device":1,"each":1,"framework":1,"in":2,"into":1,"its":1,"knowledge":3,"laws":1,"level":4,"levels":1,"marr":1,"medium":1,"newell":1,"of":1,"organising":1,"own":1,"parallels":1,"register":1,"s":2,"strata":1,"symbol":2,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"three":1,"transfer":1,"vault":1,"vision":1,"with":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Projection Relations","s":"concepts/projection-relations","secs":[{"h":"Projection Relations","l":1,"t":"Relations between terms or judgements of an extended language and those of a base language, used to transfer metatheoretic properties modularly. Key technical device in modular language extension proofs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Modular Proofs]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"an":1,"and":1,"approach":1,"base":1,"between":1,"device":1,"extended":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"for":1,"in":2,"judgements":1,"key":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"metatheoretic":2,"modular":3,"modularly":1,"of":2,"or":1,"projection":1,"proofs":2,"properties":1,"reasoning":1,"relations":2,"technical":1,"terms":1,"this":1,"those":1,"to":2,"transfer":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Norms and Obligations","s":"concepts/norms-and-obligations","secs":[{"h":"Norms and Obligations","l":1,"t":"Deontic-logic concepts: norms are rules governing conduct; obligations are their modal counterparts an agent is required to satisfy — BOID gives them first-class status alongside beliefs and desires."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The BOID Architecture]] - [[Deontic Logic]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"alongside":1,"an":1,"and":2,"architecture":1,"are":2,"beliefs":1,"boid":2,"class":1,"concepts":1,"conduct":1,"counterparts":1,"deontic":2,"desires":1,"first":1,"gives":1,"governing":1,"in":1,"is":1,"logic":2,"modal":1,"norms":2,"obligations":2,"required":1,"rules":1,"satisfy":1,"status":1,"the":1,"their":1,"them":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Grounded Compositional Language","s":"concepts/grounded-compositional-language","secs":[{"h":"Grounded Compositional Language","l":1,"t":"A learned communication system whose symbols refer to entities in a shared environment and whose combinations compose predictably — a central target for emergent-communication research."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]] - [[Compositionality]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":1,"and":1,"central":1,"combinations":1,"communication":2,"compose":1,"compositional":2,"compositionality":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":1,"entities":1,"environment":1,"for":1,"grounded":2,"grounding":1,"in":3,"language":2,"learned":1,"multi":1,"of":1,"populations":1,"predictably":1,"problem":1,"refer":1,"research":1,"shared":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"system":1,"target":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"whose":2}},{"dl":43,"n":"Chinese Room Argument","s":"concepts/chinese-room-argument","secs":[{"h":"Chinese Room Argument","l":1,"t":"Searle's thought experiment against strong AI: manipulating symbols by rule does not constitute understanding. A persistent counterpoint to intention-ascription in the vault's agent-theory papers."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Minds Brains and Science]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"ai":1,"and":1,"argument":1,"ascribing":1,"ascription":1,"brains":1,"by":1,"chinese":1,"constitute":1,"counterpoint":1,"does":1,"experiment":1,"in":2,"intention":1,"machines":1,"manipulating":1,"mental":1,"minds":1,"not":1,"papers":1,"persistent":1,"qualities":1,"room":1,"rule":1,"s":2,"science":1,"searle":1,"strong":1,"symbols":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"thought":1,"to":2,"understanding":1,"vault":2}},{"dl":37,"n":"Preconditions and Postconditions","s":"concepts/preconditions-and-postconditions","secs":[{"h":"Preconditions and Postconditions","l":1,"t":"Contract-style specifications: preconditions must hold on entry, postconditions guaranteed on exit — basis of ACL performative semantics and program-verification contracts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Semantics and Conversations for an ACL]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Code Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"an":1,"and":3,"basis":1,"code":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"conversations":1,"entry":1,"exit":1,"for":1,"guaranteed":1,"hoare":1,"hold":1,"in":1,"logic":1,"must":1,"of":1,"on":2,"performative":1,"postconditions":2,"preconditions":2,"program":1,"semantics":2,"specifications":1,"style":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Chomsky Hierarchy","s":"concepts/chomsky-hierarchy","secs":[{"h":"Chomsky Hierarchy","l":1,"t":"Four-level classification of formal languages (regular / context-free / context-sensitive / recursively-enumerable) by the grammars that generate them. Central in language theory and LangSec."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"babel":1,"by":1,"central":1,"chomsky":1,"classification":1,"context":2,"description":1,"enumerable":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"four":1,"free":1,"generate":1,"grammars":1,"halting":1,"hierarchy":1,"in":2,"insecurity":1,"langsec":2,"language":2,"languages":1,"level":1,"models":1,"network":1,"of":4,"problems":1,"recursively":1,"regular":1,"sensitive":1,"seven":1,"stack":1,"that":1,"the":3,"them":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"three":1,"turrets":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Mechanism vs Policy","s":"concepts/mechanism-vs-policy","secs":[{"h":"Mechanism vs Policy","l":1,"t":"A systems-design principle separating the *mechanism* that enforces constraints (e.g. access checks, sandboxes) from the *policy* that decides what the constraints should be. The separation lets a single mechanism support many policies and lets policies evolve without touching trusted code."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Sandboxing]] - [[Coordination-Security Separation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"access":1,"and":1,"be":1,"book":1,"chapter":1,"checks":1,"code":1,"constraints":2,"coordination":1,"dagents":1,"decides":1,"design":1,"e":1,"enforces":1,"evolve":1,"from":1,"g":1,"in":1,"lets":2,"many":1,"mechanism":3,"policies":2,"policy":2,"principle":1,"sandboxes":1,"sandboxing":1,"security":2,"separating":1,"separation":2,"should":1,"single":1,"support":1,"systems":1,"that":2,"the":4,"this":1,"touching":1,"trusted":1,"vault":1,"vs":1,"what":1,"without":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Mental Attitudes","s":"concepts/mental-attitudes","secs":[{"h":"Mental Attitudes","l":1,"t":"The propositional attitudes (belief, desire, intention, knowledge) that agents hold toward content in the mentalistic tradition of ACL semantics. In Singh's common ontology of ACLs they are formalised as the private substrate against which \"sincerity\"-style preconditions are unverifiable without introspection."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":2,"against":1,"agents":1,"are":2,"as":1,"attitudes":2,"belief":1,"common":2,"content":1,"desire":1,"formalised":1,"hold":1,"in":3,"intention":1,"introspection":1,"knowledge":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":2,"of":3,"ontology":2,"preconditions":1,"private":1,"propositional":1,"s":1,"semantics":2,"sincerity":1,"singh":1,"state":1,"style":1,"substrate":1,"that":1,"the":3,"they":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"tradition":1,"unverifiable":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"without":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Performatives","s":"concepts/performatives","secs":[{"h":"Performatives","l":1,"t":"Austin/Searle speech-act tags (inform, request, promise, declare, …) that name the illocutionary force of a message."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"act":2,"austin":1,"declare":1,"fipa":1,"force":1,"foundations":1,"illocutionary":2,"in":1,"inform":1,"kqml":1,"logic":1,"message":1,"name":1,"of":2,"performatives":1,"promise":1,"request":1,"searle":1,"speech":2,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"OpenClaw","s":"concepts/openclaw","secs":[{"h":"OpenClaw","l":1,"t":"Open-source agent runtime used in Agents of Chaos: markdown-file-based configuration, persistent memory, file-based tool use, heartbeat loop."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":2,"based":2,"chaos":2,"configuration":1,"file":2,"heartbeat":1,"in":2,"loop":1,"markdown":1,"memory":1,"of":2,"open":1,"openclaw":1,"persistent":1,"runtime":1,"source":1,"this":1,"tool":1,"use":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":25,"n":"Directives","s":"concepts/directives","secs":[{"h":"Directives","l":1,"t":"Searle: speech acts whose point is to get the hearer to do something (requests, commands, questions)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acts":2,"commands":1,"directives":1,"do":1,"get":1,"hearer":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":1,"is":1,"of":1,"point":1,"questions":1,"requests":1,"searle":1,"something":1,"speech":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Agent Communication Trilemma","s":"concepts/agent-communication-trilemma","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication Trilemma","l":1,"t":"The claim that agent communication design faces three competing demands — expressiveness, efficiency, and interoperability — and that any protocol can satisfy at most two strongly. LLM-based agent frameworks often surface this as a tension between natural-language richness, token cost, and machine-checkable structure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":3,"any":1,"as":1,"at":1,"based":1,"between":1,"can":1,"checkable":1,"claim":1,"communicate":1,"communication":3,"competing":1,"cost":1,"demands":1,"design":1,"efficiency":1,"expressiveness":1,"faces":1,"for":1,"frameworks":1,"human":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"language":2,"llm":1,"llms":1,"machine":1,"most":1,"natural":1,"networks":1,"of":1,"often":1,"protocol":2,"richness":1,"satisfy":1,"scalable":1,"strongly":1,"structure":1,"surface":1,"tension":1,"that":2,"the":1,"this":2,"three":1,"token":1,"trilemma":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"why":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Proof Trust","s":"concepts/proof-trust","secs":[{"h":"Proof Trust","l":1,"t":"Trust underwritten by cryptographic proofs of actions or state (signatures, zero-knowledge proofs, TEE attestations); high-assurance but computationally expensive."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Zero-Knowledge Proofs]] - [[TEE Attestations]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":1,"assurance":1,"attestations":2,"but":1,"by":1,"comparative":1,"computationally":1,"cryptographic":1,"expensive":1,"high":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"knowledge":2,"models":1,"of":1,"or":1,"proof":1,"proofs":3,"signatures":1,"state":1,"study":1,"tee":2,"this":1,"trust":3,"underwritten":1,"vault":1,"zero":2}},{"dl":30,"n":"Metaphrase","s":"concepts/metaphrase","secs":[{"h":"Metaphrase","l":1,"t":"Standish's category of extensibility where programmers add new meanings via interpretation changes — the hardest and least delivered."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[Paraphrase]] - [[Orthophrase]]"}],"tf":{"add":1,"and":1,"category":1,"changes":1,"delivered":1,"design":1,"extensibility":2,"hardest":1,"in":2,"interpretation":1,"language":1,"least":1,"meanings":1,"metaphrase":1,"new":1,"of":1,"orthophrase":1,"paraphrase":1,"programmers":1,"programming":1,"s":1,"standish":2,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"where":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Futures","s":"concepts/futures","secs":[{"h":"Futures","l":1,"t":"Placeholders for values that are not yet computed: operations on a future block or schedule asynchronously until the value arrives. In language-based DDoS defence they serve as explicit resource-bounded abstractions for pending client work."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"abstractions":1,"approach":1,"are":1,"arrives":1,"as":1,"asynchronously":1,"based":2,"block":1,"bounded":1,"client":1,"computed":1,"ddos":2,"defence":1,"explicit":1,"for":2,"future":1,"futures":1,"in":2,"language":2,"not":1,"on":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"pending":1,"placeholders":1,"prevent":1,"resource":1,"schedule":1,"serve":1,"that":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"until":1,"value":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"work":1,"yet":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Whitewashing","s":"concepts/whitewashing","secs":[{"h":"Whitewashing","l":1,"t":"Attack on reputation systems: a misbehaving agent abandons its identity and re-enters under a fresh one to shed bad reputation; countered by Sybil-resistance and identity persistence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Sybil Resistance]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"abandons":1,"agent":2,"and":2,"attack":1,"bad":1,"by":1,"comparative":1,"countered":1,"enters":1,"fresh":1,"identity":2,"in":1,"inter":1,"its":1,"misbehaving":1,"models":1,"on":1,"one":1,"persistence":1,"re":1,"reputation":2,"resistance":2,"shed":1,"study":1,"sybil":2,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"whitewashing":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"S-expressions","s":"concepts/s-expressions","secs":[{"h":"S-expressions","l":1,"t":"Symbolic expressions with a uniform parenthesised prefix-list syntax, originating in Lisp. Their homoiconicity makes them a natural medium for extensible languages and for data-exchange formats such as early KQML and CBCL."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Common Business Communication Language]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Code as Data]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":2,"as":2,"business":1,"cbcl":1,"code":1,"common":1,"communication":1,"data":2,"early":1,"exchange":1,"expressions":2,"extensible":2,"for":2,"formats":1,"graham":1,"homoiconicity":1,"in":2,"kqml":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"lisp":1,"list":1,"makes":1,"medium":1,"natural":1,"originating":1,"parenthesised":1,"prefix":1,"s":1,"such":1,"symbolic":1,"syntax":1,"the":1,"their":1,"them":1,"this":1,"uniform":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Unique Names Hypothesis","s":"concepts/unique-names-hypothesis","secs":[{"h":"Unique Names Hypothesis","l":1,"t":"Assumption that syntactically distinct constants denote distinct individuals. Often circumscribed as a default."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Circumscription - Applications to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"applications":1,"as":1,"assumption":1,"circumscribed":1,"circumscription":1,"common":1,"constants":1,"default":1,"denote":1,"distinct":2,"formalizing":1,"hypothesis":1,"in":1,"individuals":1,"knowledge":1,"names":1,"often":1,"sense":1,"syntactically":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"unique":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Owner Identity Spoofing","s":"concepts/owner-identity-spoofing","secs":[{"h":"Owner Identity Spoofing","l":1,"t":"Attack in which a third party impersonates an agent's owner to issue authoritative instructions — exploits the absence of strong delegator authentication."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Non-Owner Compliance]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"absence":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"attack":1,"authentication":1,"authoritative":1,"chaos":1,"compliance":1,"delegator":1,"exploits":1,"identity":1,"impersonates":1,"in":2,"instructions":1,"issue":1,"non":1,"of":2,"owner":3,"party":1,"s":1,"spoofing":1,"strong":1,"the":1,"third":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Prompt Injection","s":"concepts/prompt-injection","secs":[{"h":"Prompt Injection","l":1,"t":"Attack where adversary-controlled text inside an LLM's input context is interpreted as instructions — classic LangSec parser-differential in a natural-language setting."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adversary":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"as":1,"attack":1,"attacks":1,"classic":1,"context":1,"controlled":1,"differential":1,"in":2,"injection":1,"input":1,"inside":1,"instructions":1,"interpreted":1,"is":1,"langsec":1,"language":1,"llm":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"natural":1,"parser":1,"prompt":1,"s":1,"security":1,"setting":1,"text":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"tool":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Push-Sum","s":"concepts/push-sum","secs":[{"h":"Push-Sum","l":1,"t":"Kempe-Dobra-Gehrke gossip primitive: each node forwards half its (sum, weight) pair to a random peer; ratios converge exponentially to the network average while conserving mass."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":1,"average":1,"based":2,"computation":1,"conserving":1,"converge":1,"dobra":1,"dynamic":1,"each":1,"exponentially":1,"forwards":1,"gehrke":1,"gossip":4,"half":1,"in":2,"information":1,"its":1,"kempe":1,"large":1,"mass":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"node":1,"of":1,"pair":1,"peer":1,"primitive":1,"protocols":1,"push":1,"random":1,"ratios":1,"sum":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"weight":1,"while":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Regulative Rules","s":"concepts/regulative-rules","secs":[{"h":"Regulative Rules","l":1,"t":"Searlean rules that regulate already-existing behaviour by permitting, obliging, or forbidding actions; in Mercurio they layer over constitutive rules to govern legal interaction sequences in open MAS."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"actions":1,"agent":1,"already":1,"an":1,"behaviour":1,"by":1,"constitutive":1,"environments":1,"existing":1,"for":1,"forbidding":1,"framework":1,"govern":1,"in":3,"institutional":1,"interaction":2,"layer":1,"legal":1,"mas":1,"mercurio":1,"obliging":1,"open":2,"or":1,"oriented":1,"over":1,"permitting":1,"reality":1,"regulate":1,"regulative":1,"rules":3,"searlean":1,"sequences":1,"that":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Computational Surface","s":"concepts/computational-surface","secs":[{"h":"Computational Surface","l":1,"t":"The boundary across which a cognitive or living system distinguishes self from non-self for the purposes of information processing, measurement, and goal-directed control. Levin argues it is gradient and observer-relative rather than fixed."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Cognitive Light Cone]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"and":2,"argues":1,"boundary":2,"cognitive":2,"computational":2,"cone":1,"control":1,"directed":1,"distinguishes":1,"fixed":1,"for":1,"from":1,"goal":1,"gradient":1,"in":1,"information":1,"is":1,"it":1,"levin":1,"light":1,"living":1,"measurement":1,"non":1,"observer":1,"of":2,"or":1,"processing":1,"purposes":1,"rather":1,"relative":1,"self":3,"surface":1,"system":1,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":64,"n":"Task Allocation Network","s":"concepts/task-allocation-network","secs":[{"h":"Task Allocation Network","l":1,"t":"A multi-agent organisational structure in which agents maintain weighted peer-to-peer and superior-subordinate relationships, with subtasks routed to partners chosen by trust-fused candidate selection. The substrate on which DSmT-based trust fusion and multi-agent Q-learning drive self-organisation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Trust Fusion]] - [[Contract Net Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"agents":1,"allocation":1,"an":1,"and":2,"based":1,"by":1,"candidate":1,"chosen":1,"composite":1,"contract":1,"drive":1,"dsmt":1,"fused":1,"fusion":2,"in":3,"learning":1,"maintain":1,"mechanism":1,"multi":2,"net":1,"network":2,"on":1,"organisation":2,"organisational":1,"partners":1,"peer":2,"protocol":1,"q":1,"relationships":1,"routed":1,"selection":1,"self":2,"structure":1,"subordinate":1,"substrate":1,"subtasks":1,"superior":1,"task":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"trust":3,"vault":1,"weighted":1,"which":2,"with":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Attack Papers","s":"concepts/attack-papers","secs":[{"h":"Attack Papers","l":1,"t":"Class of LangSec-relevant papers that disclose novel input-handling exploits by carefully parsing real-world protocols — foundational to the field's empirical grounding."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"attack":1,"buffer":1,"by":1,"carefully":1,"class":1,"disclose":1,"empirical":1,"exploit":1,"exploits":1,"field":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"grounding":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"input":1,"langsec":2,"machines":1,"novel":1,"of":1,"overflows":1,"papers":2,"parsing":1,"programming":1,"protocols":1,"real":1,"relevant":1,"s":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"weird":1,"world":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Heterogeneity Resolution","s":"concepts/heterogeneity-resolution","secs":[{"h":"Heterogeneity Resolution","l":1,"t":"The general problem, central to the ontology-change literature, of reconciling differences across ontologies at multiple levels: lexical, structural, semantic, and pragmatic. Subsumes alignment, matching, mapping, merging, and translation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontology Alignment]] - [[Ontology Merging]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"alignment":2,"and":3,"at":1,"central":1,"change":2,"classification":1,"differences":1,"general":1,"heterogeneity":1,"in":1,"levels":1,"lexical":1,"literature":1,"mapping":1,"matching":1,"merging":2,"multiple":1,"of":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":4,"pragmatic":1,"problem":1,"reconciling":1,"resolution":1,"semantic":1,"structural":1,"subsumes":1,"survey":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"translation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Agent Discovery","s":"concepts/agent-discovery","secs":[{"h":"Agent Discovery","l":1,"t":"The problem and mechanisms by which agents in an open network locate peers with required capabilities. Approaches range from centralised facilitators/matchmakers (OAA, KQML) through capability descriptors (A2A Agent Cards) to decentralised identifier systems (ANP's DIDs with JSON-LD)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Facilitators]]"}],"tf":{"a2a":1,"agent":4,"agents":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"and":1,"anp":1,"approaches":1,"by":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":1,"cards":1,"centralised":1,"decentralised":1,"descriptors":1,"dids":1,"discovery":1,"facilitators":2,"from":1,"identifier":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"json":1,"kqml":1,"ld":1,"locate":1,"matchmakers":1,"mechanisms":1,"network":1,"oaa":1,"of":2,"open":1,"peers":1,"problem":1,"protocols":2,"range":1,"required":1,"s":1,"survey":2,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":2}},{"dl":56,"n":"BDI Architecture","s":"concepts/bdi-architecture","secs":[{"h":"BDI Architecture","l":1,"t":"The Belief-Desire-Intention model of practical reasoning: an agent maintains beliefs about the world, desires (goals) it would like to achieve, and intentions (committed plans) that drive its behaviour, typically executed via a sense-deliberate-act loop over a plan library."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[BDI]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"achieve":1,"act":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":2,"architecture":1,"bdi":2,"behaviour":1,"belief":1,"beliefs":1,"committed":1,"deliberate":1,"desire":1,"desires":1,"drive":1,"executed":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intention":1,"intentions":1,"it":1,"its":1,"library":1,"like":1,"loop":1,"maintains":1,"model":1,"multiagent":1,"of":1,"over":1,"plan":1,"plans":1,"practical":1,"practice":1,"reasoning":1,"sense":1,"sycara":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"world":1,"would":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Explicit Command Stack","s":"concepts/explicit-command-stack","secs":[{"h":"Explicit Command Stack","l":1,"t":"Agent Tcl's design choice to expose the interpreter's current execution stack as a first-class reified value. Captured stacks can be migrated, checkpointed or inspected, enabling transparent process migration for mobile agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"as":1,"be":1,"can":1,"captured":1,"checkpointed":1,"choice":1,"class":1,"command":1,"current":1,"design":1,"enabling":1,"execution":1,"explicit":1,"expose":1,"first":1,"flexible":1,"for":1,"in":1,"inspected":1,"interpreter":1,"migrated":1,"migration":1,"mobile":2,"or":1,"process":1,"reified":1,"s":2,"secure":1,"stack":2,"stacks":1,"tcl":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transparent":1,"value":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Supervision Tree","s":"concepts/supervision-tree","secs":[{"h":"Supervision Tree","l":1,"t":"Erlang/OTP pattern: processes are organised into a tree where supervisors restart failed children according to declared strategies."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Let It Crash]] - [[Actor Model]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"according":1,"actor":1,"are":1,"children":1,"crash":1,"declared":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"failed":1,"in":1,"into":1,"it":1,"let":1,"model":1,"organised":1,"otp":1,"pattern":1,"processes":1,"programming":1,"restart":1,"second":1,"strategies":1,"supervision":1,"supervisors":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tree":2,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Herbrand Universe","s":"concepts/herbrand-universe","secs":[{"h":"Herbrand Universe","l":1,"t":"The set of all ground terms formable from the function symbols and constants of a first-order language. It provides the canonical domain over which Herbrand interpretations of logic programs are defined."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Logic Programming]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"all":1,"and":1,"are":1,"canonical":1,"constants":1,"defined":1,"domain":1,"first":1,"formable":1,"foundations":1,"from":1,"function":1,"ground":1,"herbrand":2,"in":1,"interpretations":1,"it":1,"language":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"of":4,"order":1,"over":1,"programming":2,"programs":1,"provides":1,"set":1,"symbols":1,"terms":1,"the":3,"this":1,"universe":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":26,"n":"Practical Reasoning","s":"concepts/practical-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Practical Reasoning","l":1,"t":"Reasoning directed toward action, not truth — Bratman: the philosophical substrate of the BDI approach to agency."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"agency":1,"approach":1,"bdi":2,"bratman":1,"directed":1,"faces":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"not":1,"of":2,"philosophical":1,"practical":1,"reasoning":2,"substrate":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"truth":1,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Language-oriented Programming","s":"concepts/language-oriented-programming","secs":[{"h":"Language-oriented Programming","l":1,"t":"A development methodology (Ward; Felleisen et al.) in which each significant sub-problem is solved by designing a small domain-specific language, rather than by extending a single general-purpose language. Racket's macro/module stack is a canonical substrate for LOP."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"al":1,"by":2,"canonical":1,"creating":1,"designing":1,"development":1,"domain":2,"each":1,"et":1,"extending":1,"felleisen":1,"for":1,"general":1,"in":3,"is":2,"language":4,"languages":2,"lop":1,"macro":1,"methodology":1,"module":1,"oriented":1,"problem":1,"programming":1,"purpose":1,"racket":2,"rather":1,"s":1,"significant":1,"single":1,"small":1,"solved":1,"specific":2,"stack":1,"sub":1,"substrate":1,"than":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"ward":1,"which":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Strong Agency","s":"concepts/strong-agency","secs":[{"h":"Strong Agency","l":1,"t":"Wooldridge's stronger notion: agents ascribed mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions) and intentional-stance explanations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Weak Agency]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"agency":2,"agents":2,"and":2,"ascribed":1,"bdi":1,"beliefs":1,"desires":1,"explanations":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intentional":1,"intentions":1,"mental":1,"notion":1,"practice":1,"s":1,"stance":1,"states":1,"strong":1,"stronger":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"weak":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":27,"n":"Federated Learning","s":"concepts/federated-learning","secs":[{"h":"Federated Learning","l":1,"t":"Distributed training where clients compute updates on local data and send only aggregated parameters — privacy-preserving and bandwidth-aware."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]]"}],"tf":{"aggregated":1,"and":2,"aware":1,"bandwidth":1,"clients":1,"compute":1,"data":1,"distributed":1,"edge":1,"federated":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"learning":1,"local":1,"on":1,"only":1,"parameters":1,"preserving":1,"privacy":1,"send":1,"survey":1,"this":1,"training":1,"updates":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Coherence","s":"concepts/coherence","secs":[{"h":"Coherence","l":1,"t":"In multi-agent systems, the degree to which the agents' individual actions combine into a sensible, non-conflicting global behaviour. Sycara lists coherence together with coordination as the two central problems of MAS design."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"as":1,"behaviour":1,"central":1,"coherence":2,"combine":1,"conflicting":1,"coordination":2,"degree":1,"design":1,"global":1,"in":2,"individual":1,"into":1,"lists":1,"mas":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"non":1,"of":1,"problems":1,"sensible":1,"sycara":2,"systems":2,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"together":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Belief-Desire-Intention","s":"concepts/belief-desire-intention","secs":[{"h":"Belief-Desire-Intention","l":1,"t":"Alternative spelling of the BDI agent architecture; see [[BDI]] for the canonical entry."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[BDI]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"alternative":1,"architecture":1,"bdi":3,"belief":1,"canonical":1,"choice":1,"commitment":1,"desire":1,"entry":1,"for":1,"in":1,"intention":2,"is":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"programming":1,"see":1,"spelling":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Static Analysis","s":"concepts/static-analysis","secs":[{"h":"Static Analysis","l":1,"t":"Examination of a program without executing it to derive properties (types, flow, resource usage); used, e.g., in language-based DDoS prevention to prove bounded resource consumption before deployment."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"analysis":1,"approach":1,"based":2,"before":1,"bounded":1,"consumption":1,"ddos":2,"deployment":1,"derive":1,"e":1,"examination":1,"executing":1,"flow":1,"g":1,"in":2,"it":1,"language":2,"of":1,"prevent":1,"prevention":1,"program":1,"properties":1,"prove":1,"resource":2,"static":1,"this":1,"to":3,"types":1,"usage":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Design Patterns","s":"concepts/design-patterns","secs":[{"h":"Design Patterns","l":1,"t":"Named, reusable solutions to recurring design problems in a given domain; in agent systems and blockchain interoperability, patterns formalise common structural and protocol arrangements together with their applicability conditions and trade-offs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"and":3,"applicability":1,"arrangements":1,"blockchain":2,"common":1,"conditions":1,"description":1,"design":3,"domain":1,"for":1,"formalise":2,"given":1,"in":3,"interoperability":2,"named":1,"offs":1,"patterns":4,"problems":1,"protocol":1,"recurring":1,"reusable":1,"semantic":1,"solutions":1,"structural":1,"systems":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"together":1,"trade":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":88,"n":"CAP Theorem","s":"concepts/cap-theorem","secs":[{"h":"CAP Theorem","l":1,"t":"Brewer (2000); proved Gilbert & Lynch (2002). A replicated storage system cannot simultaneously provide all three of: **Consistency** (linearizable reads), **Availability** (every request gets a response), **Partition tolerance** (continues operating under network partitions). Under a partition, the system must choose between C and A. CAP is a **negative** result about *storage*. The **[[CALM Theorem]]** is its positive counterpart about *programs*: the subclass of programs achieving all three is exactly the monotonic ones."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[Confluence]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"2002":1,"a":5,"about":2,"achieving":1,"all":2,"and":1,"availability":1,"avoidance":1,"between":1,"brewer":1,"c":1,"calm":3,"cannot":1,"cap":2,"choose":1,"confluence":1,"consistency":2,"continues":1,"coordination":1,"counterpart":1,"distributed":1,"easy":1,"every":1,"exactly":1,"gets":1,"gilbert":1,"in":1,"is":4,"its":1,"keeping":1,"linearizable":1,"lynch":1,"monotonic":1,"must":1,"negative":1,"network":1,"of":2,"ones":1,"operating":1,"partition":2,"partitions":1,"positive":1,"programs":2,"proved":1,"provide":1,"reads":1,"replicated":1,"request":1,"response":1,"result":1,"simultaneously":1,"storage":2,"subclass":1,"system":2,"the":4,"theorem":3,"this":1,"three":2,"tolerance":1,"under":2,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Reification","s":"concepts/reification","secs":[{"h":"Reification","l":1,"t":"Turning a predicate, function, or modality into a first-order object so it can be quantified over and reasoned about explicitly. McCarthy's technique for attitudes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"and":2,"attitudes":1,"be":1,"can":1,"concepts":1,"explicitly":1,"first":2,"for":1,"function":1,"in":1,"individual":1,"into":1,"it":1,"mccarthy":1,"modality":1,"object":1,"of":1,"or":1,"order":2,"over":1,"predicate":1,"propositions":1,"quantified":1,"reasoned":1,"reification":1,"s":1,"so":1,"technique":1,"theories":1,"this":1,"turning":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Let It Crash","s":"concepts/let-it-crash","secs":[{"h":"Let It Crash","l":1,"t":"Erlang design philosophy: do not defensively handle every local failure; crash the process and let a supervisor restart it from a known-good state."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Supervision Tree]] - [[Actor Model]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"actor":1,"and":1,"crash":2,"defensively":1,"design":1,"do":1,"edition":1,"erlang":2,"every":1,"failure":1,"from":1,"good":1,"handle":1,"in":1,"it":2,"known":1,"let":2,"local":1,"model":1,"not":1,"philosophy":1,"process":1,"programming":1,"restart":1,"second":1,"state":1,"supervision":1,"supervisor":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tree":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Cloud-Edge-Device Hierarchy","s":"concepts/cloud-edge-device-hierarchy","secs":[{"h":"Cloud-Edge-Device Hierarchy","l":1,"t":"A three-tier computational topology in which centralised cloud resources, intermediate edge nodes, and endpoint devices cooperate. Computation and data are allocated across tiers to balance latency, bandwidth, privacy, and compute."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Edge Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"allocated":1,"and":3,"are":1,"balance":1,"bandwidth":1,"centralised":1,"cloud":2,"computation":1,"computational":1,"compute":1,"cooperate":1,"data":1,"device":1,"devices":1,"edge":4,"endpoint":1,"hierarchy":1,"in":2,"intelligence":2,"intermediate":1,"latency":1,"nodes":1,"privacy":1,"resources":1,"survey":1,"this":1,"three":1,"tier":1,"tiers":1,"to":1,"topology":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Audit Trail","s":"concepts/audit-trail","secs":[{"h":"Audit Trail","l":1,"t":"A tamper-evident log of agent actions and communications used post-hoc to detect policy violations, attribute responsibility, and satisfy accountability requirements in mobile-agent and distributed systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accountability":1,"actions":1,"agent":3,"and":3,"attribute":1,"audit":1,"book":1,"chapter":1,"communications":1,"dagents":1,"detect":1,"distributed":1,"evident":1,"hoc":1,"in":2,"log":1,"mobile":1,"of":1,"policy":1,"post":1,"requirements":1,"responsibility":1,"satisfy":1,"security":2,"systems":1,"tamper":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trail":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"violations":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Machine Ethics","s":"concepts/machine-ethics","secs":[{"h":"Machine Ethics","l":1,"t":"The field concerned with designing artificial agents that reason about and act in accordance with ethical principles. Approaches range from deontological rule encoding to consequentialist utility models and hybrid logical agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Ethical Governor]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"accordance":1,"act":1,"agents":3,"and":3,"approaches":1,"artificial":1,"behaviour":1,"concerned":1,"consequentialist":1,"deontological":1,"designing":1,"encoding":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":3,"ethics":1,"field":1,"from":1,"governor":1,"hybrid":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"logical":2,"machine":1,"models":1,"principles":1,"range":1,"reason":1,"rule":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trustworthy":1,"utility":1,"vault":1,"with":2}},{"dl":36,"n":"Cooperative Principle","s":"concepts/cooperative-principle","secs":[{"h":"Cooperative Principle","l":1,"t":"Grice: the over-arching rule that participants in a conversation cooperate — contribute what is required, when required, at the required level of quality, relevance, and clarity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]] - [[Gricean Maxims]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":2,"arching":1,"at":1,"clarity":1,"contribute":1,"conversation":2,"cooperate":1,"cooperative":1,"grice":1,"gricean":1,"in":2,"is":1,"level":1,"logic":1,"maxims":1,"of":1,"over":1,"participants":1,"principle":1,"quality":1,"relevance":1,"required":3,"rule":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"what":1,"when":1}},{"dl":93,"n":"LLM Agents","s":"concepts/llm-agents","secs":[{"h":"LLM Agents","l":1,"t":"Large-language-model-powered agents: natural-language coordination, tool use, multi-agent orchestration."},{"h":"Surveys & frameworks","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Survey Of AI Agent Protocols]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]"},{"h":"Protocols & communication","l":11,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]"},{"h":"Failures & threats","l":17,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]]"},{"h":"Lineage","l":22,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":7,"agents":5,"ai":4,"al":1,"attacks":1,"chatbots":1,"collaboration":1,"communicate":1,"communication":3,"coordination":1,"do":1,"effect":1,"eliza":1,"et":1,"fail":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"from":1,"human":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"large":1,"levels":1,"lineage":1,"llm":2,"llms":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"model":1,"multi":4,"natural":1,"networks":1,"of":4,"orchestration":2,"powered":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":3,"ripple":1,"scalable":1,"social":2,"survey":2,"surveys":1,"systems":2,"threat":1,"threats":1,"to":1,"tool":2,"tunkel":1,"under":1,"use":1,"wasif":1,"why":2,"xiaoice":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Negotiated Protocols","s":"concepts/negotiated-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Negotiated Protocols","l":1,"t":"In Agora (Marro et al.), communication protocols that pairs of LLM agents agree upon on demand — typically bootstrapped via natural-language meta-negotiation and crystallised into a hash-identified Protocol Document. Negotiation decouples design-time standardisation from runtime interoperability."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Protocol Documents]] - [[Negotiation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agents":1,"agora":1,"agree":1,"al":1,"and":1,"bootstrapped":1,"communication":2,"crystallised":1,"decouples":1,"demand":1,"design":1,"document":1,"documents":1,"et":1,"for":1,"from":1,"hash":1,"identified":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"into":1,"language":1,"llm":1,"llms":1,"marro":1,"meta":1,"natural":1,"negotiated":1,"negotiation":3,"networks":1,"of":2,"on":1,"pairs":1,"protocol":3,"protocols":2,"runtime":1,"scalable":1,"standardisation":1,"that":1,"this":1,"time":1,"typically":1,"upon":1,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Nash Equilibrium","s":"concepts/nash-equilibrium","secs":[{"h":"Nash Equilibrium","l":1,"t":"A strategy profile from which no player can gain by unilaterally deviating. In multi-agent systems with communication failures, the set of Nash equilibria reached by best-response dynamics can include arbitrarily poor outcomes — the core negative result of the Gopalakrishnan et al. resilience analysis."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Best-Response Dynamics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"al":1,"analysis":1,"arbitrarily":1,"are":1,"best":2,"by":2,"can":2,"communication":2,"core":1,"deviating":1,"dynamics":2,"equilibria":1,"equilibrium":1,"et":1,"failures":2,"from":1,"gain":1,"gopalakrishnan":1,"in":2,"include":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"nash":2,"negative":1,"no":1,"of":2,"outcomes":1,"player":1,"poor":1,"profile":1,"reached":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"response":2,"result":1,"set":1,"strategy":1,"systems":2,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"unilaterally":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Flat Namespace","s":"concepts/flat-namespace","secs":[{"h":"Flat Namespace","l":1,"t":"Agent Tcl's choice (inherited from Tcl) of a single global variable/procedure namespace shared across an agent's execution, simplifying state capture for migration but complicating isolation — motivating Safe Tcl's dual trusted/untrusted interpreter design."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[Safe Tcl]] - [[Sandboxing]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"an":1,"but":1,"capture":1,"choice":1,"complicating":1,"design":1,"dual":1,"execution":1,"flat":1,"flexible":1,"for":1,"from":1,"global":1,"in":1,"inherited":1,"interpreter":1,"isolation":1,"migration":1,"mobile":1,"motivating":1,"namespace":2,"of":1,"procedure":1,"s":3,"safe":2,"sandboxing":1,"secure":1,"shared":1,"simplifying":1,"single":1,"state":1,"tcl":5,"this":1,"trusted":1,"untrusted":1,"variable":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Promise Pipelining","s":"concepts/promise-pipelining","secs":[{"h":"Promise Pipelining","l":1,"t":"CapTP technique: chain method invocations on a promise before its value arrives, reducing network round-trips. Crucial for latency-tolerant distributed object programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[CapTP]] - [[OCapN]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"arrives":1,"before":1,"capability":1,"captp":2,"chain":1,"crucial":1,"distributed":2,"for":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"invocations":1,"its":1,"latency":1,"method":1,"network":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"ocapn":1,"of":1,"on":1,"pipelining":1,"programming":1,"promise":2,"reducing":1,"round":1,"security":1,"spritely":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tolerant":1,"trips":1,"value":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Autonomic Service Component Ensembles","s":"concepts/autonomic-service-component-ensembles","secs":[{"h":"Autonomic Service Component Ensembles","l":1,"t":"The ASCENS notion of dynamically formed, goal-driven collectives of service components that jointly exhibit self-adaptation, self-expression and self-awareness. Ensembles are first-class runtime entities with their own membership, policies and adaptation loops."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]]"}],"tf":{"adaptation":3,"adaptive":1,"and":2,"are":1,"ascens":2,"autonomic":1,"awareness":2,"class":1,"collectives":1,"component":1,"components":1,"driven":1,"dynamically":1,"ensembles":2,"entities":1,"exhibit":1,"expression":2,"first":1,"formed":1,"goal":1,"in":1,"jointly":1,"loops":1,"membership":1,"notion":1,"of":2,"own":1,"policies":1,"runtime":1,"self":7,"service":2,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Goal-Directedness","s":"concepts/goal-directedness","secs":[{"h":"Goal-Directedness","l":1,"t":"The capacity of a system to pursue distal targets despite perturbations — treated in Levin's framework as a spectrum correlated with the cognitive \"light cone\" of a self, and a defining feature of agency at any scale."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Strong Agency]]"}],"tf":{"a":5,"agency":2,"and":1,"any":1,"as":1,"at":1,"boundary":1,"capacity":1,"cognitive":1,"computational":1,"cone":1,"correlated":1,"defining":1,"despite":1,"directedness":1,"distal":1,"feature":1,"framework":1,"goal":1,"in":2,"levin":1,"light":1,"of":4,"perturbations":1,"pursue":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"self":2,"spectrum":1,"strong":1,"system":1,"targets":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"treated":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Synchronous Language","s":"concepts/synchronous-language","secs":[{"h":"Synchronous Language","l":1,"t":"A programming language (e.g., Esterel, Lustre) based on the synchronous hypothesis that reactions are instantaneous relative to the environment. Used to build dependable, deterministic reactive and safety-critical systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"architectural":1,"are":1,"based":1,"build":1,"critical":1,"dependable":2,"deterministic":1,"e":1,"environment":1,"esterel":1,"for":1,"g":1,"hypothesis":1,"in":1,"instantaneous":1,"language":2,"lustre":1,"on":1,"patterns":1,"programming":1,"reactions":1,"reactive":1,"relative":1,"safety":1,"software":1,"sol":1,"synchronous":2,"systems":2,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":2,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Speaker Consistency","s":"concepts/speaker-consistency","secs":[{"h":"Speaker Consistency","l":1,"t":"A causal metric for emergent communication (Lowe et al.) measuring whether a speaker uses the same message in the same observation/intent context. Part of the decomposition of communication into positive signalling and positive listening that replaces entropy-based surface metrics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[On the Pitfalls of Measuring Emergent Communication]] - [[Positive Signalling]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"al":1,"and":1,"based":1,"causal":1,"communication":4,"consistency":1,"context":1,"decomposition":1,"emergent":3,"entropy":1,"et":1,"for":1,"in":2,"intent":1,"into":1,"listening":1,"lowe":1,"measuring":2,"message":1,"metric":1,"metrics":1,"observation":1,"of":3,"on":1,"part":1,"pitfalls":1,"positive":3,"replaces":1,"same":2,"signalling":2,"speaker":2,"surface":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"uses":1,"vault":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Communication Failures","s":"concepts/communication-failures","secs":[{"h":"Communication Failures","l":1,"t":"Disruptions of the messaging channel in a multi-agent system — message loss, delay, duplication, or corruption — whose impact on coordination quality distinguishes resilient from brittle MAS designs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"are":1,"brittle":1,"channel":1,"communication":2,"coordination":1,"corruption":1,"delay":1,"designs":1,"disruptions":1,"distinguishes":1,"duplication":1,"failures":2,"from":1,"impact":1,"in":2,"loss":1,"mas":1,"message":1,"messaging":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"quality":1,"resilient":2,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Decision-Theoretic ACL","s":"concepts/decision-theoretic-acl","secs":[{"h":"Decision-Theoretic ACL","l":1,"t":"An approach to agent communication in which utterance choice and interpretation are governed by expected-utility reasoning over outcomes, rather than by fixed speech-act definitions. Supports adaptation and evolution of communicative competence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"act":1,"adaptation":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":2,"approach":1,"are":1,"automating":1,"by":2,"choice":1,"communication":1,"communicative":1,"competence":2,"decision":1,"definitions":1,"evolution":2,"expected":1,"fixed":1,"governed":1,"in":2,"interpretation":1,"linguistic":1,"of":2,"outcomes":1,"over":1,"rather":1,"reasoning":1,"speech":1,"supports":1,"than":1,"the":1,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"to":1,"towards":1,"utility":1,"utterance":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Declarations","s":"concepts/declarations","secs":[{"h":"Declarations","l":1,"t":"In Searle's taxonomy, illocutionary acts whose successful utterance changes institutional reality (pronouncing marriage, declaring war). In agent-communication frameworks they are the linguistic mechanism through which counts-as rules fire to create or discharge public commitments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Counts-as Rules]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"act":1,"acts":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"are":1,"as":2,"changes":1,"commitments":1,"communication":2,"counts":2,"create":1,"declarations":1,"declaring":1,"discharge":1,"fire":1,"frameworks":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":3,"institutional":3,"linguistic":1,"marriage":1,"mechanism":1,"or":1,"pronouncing":1,"public":1,"reality":3,"rules":2,"s":1,"searle":1,"speech":1,"successful":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"they":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"utterance":1,"vault":1,"war":1,"which":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Convergence Factor","s":"concepts/convergence-factor","secs":[{"h":"Convergence Factor","l":1,"t":"In gossip-based aggregation, the network-size-independent geometric rate at which the variance of local estimates shrinks per round; a small convergence factor certifies rapid distributed agreement."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"aggregation":2,"agreement":1,"at":1,"based":2,"certifies":1,"convergence":2,"distributed":1,"dynamic":1,"estimates":1,"factor":2,"geometric":1,"gossip":3,"in":3,"independent":1,"large":1,"local":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":1,"per":1,"protocols":1,"rapid":1,"rate":1,"round":1,"shrinks":1,"size":1,"small":1,"the":2,"this":1,"variance":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Individual Rationality","s":"concepts/individual-rationality","secs":[{"h":"Individual Rationality","l":1,"t":"Game-theoretic constraint: an agent will only enter an agreement if the outcome is at least as good for it as the no-agreement alternative."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Deals Among Rational Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"agreement":2,"alternative":1,"among":1,"an":2,"as":2,"at":1,"constraint":1,"deals":1,"enter":1,"for":1,"game":1,"good":1,"if":1,"in":1,"individual":1,"is":1,"it":1,"least":1,"no":1,"only":1,"outcome":1,"rational":1,"rationality":1,"the":2,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"will":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Epistemic S5","s":"concepts/epistemic-s5","secs":[{"h":"Epistemic S5","l":1,"t":"Standard modal logic of knowledge: knowledge is truthful (T), positively introspective (4) and negatively introspective (5)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] - [[Epistemic Logic]]"}],"tf":{"4":1,"5":1,"and":1,"digital":1,"epistemic":3,"in":1,"introspective":2,"is":1,"knowledge":2,"logic":2,"machines":1,"modal":1,"negatively":1,"of":2,"positively":1,"properties":1,"provable":1,"s5":1,"standard":1,"synthesis":1,"t":1,"the":1,"this":1,"truthful":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"S-expression","s":"concepts/s-expression","secs":[{"h":"S-expression","l":1,"t":"Lisp's symbolic expression: either an atom or a parenthesised list of S-expressions. McCarthy's choice to make code and data share this representation is the root of Lisp's metaprogramming power."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Code as Data]] - [[Homoiconicity]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"and":2,"as":1,"atom":1,"by":1,"choice":1,"code":2,"computation":1,"data":2,"either":1,"expression":2,"expressions":2,"extensible":1,"functions":1,"graham":1,"homoiconicity":1,"in":1,"is":1,"language":1,"lisp":2,"list":1,"machine":1,"make":1,"mccarthy":1,"metaprogramming":1,"of":3,"or":1,"parenthesised":1,"power":1,"recursive":1,"representation":1,"root":1,"s":5,"share":1,"symbolic":2,"the":2,"their":1,"this":2,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"TEE Attestations","s":"concepts/tee-attestations","secs":[{"h":"TEE Attestations","l":1,"t":"Cryptographic attestations from a Trusted Execution Environment (Intel SGX, AMD SEV, AWS Nitro Enclaves) proving that a particular computation ran in a known, unmodified enclave."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Proof Trust]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"agent":1,"amd":1,"attestations":2,"aws":1,"comparative":1,"computation":1,"cryptographic":1,"enclave":1,"enclaves":1,"environment":1,"execution":1,"from":1,"in":2,"intel":1,"inter":1,"known":1,"models":1,"nitro":1,"particular":1,"proof":1,"proving":1,"ran":1,"sev":1,"sgx":1,"study":1,"tee":1,"that":1,"this":1,"trust":2,"trusted":1,"unmodified":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"SLD Resolution","s":"concepts/sld-resolution","secs":[{"h":"SLD Resolution","l":1,"t":"Selective Linear resolution for Definite clauses: the goal-directed inference procedure that underpins Prolog. Complete for Horn-clause logic under a fair search strategy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Logic Programming]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"clause":1,"clauses":1,"complete":1,"definite":1,"directed":1,"fair":1,"for":2,"foundations":1,"goal":1,"horn":1,"in":1,"inference":1,"linear":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"of":1,"procedure":1,"programming":2,"prolog":1,"resolution":2,"search":1,"selective":1,"sld":1,"strategy":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"under":1,"underpins":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Transformer","s":"concepts/transformer","secs":[{"h":"Transformer","l":1,"t":"Vaswani et al. 2017 neural-network architecture built solely from attention and feed-forward layers (no recurrence or convolution). The backbone of every modern LLM."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Self-Attention]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"2017":1,"agents":1,"al":1,"all":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"attention":3,"backbone":1,"built":1,"convolution":1,"et":1,"every":1,"feed":1,"forward":1,"from":1,"in":1,"is":1,"layers":1,"llm":2,"modern":1,"need":1,"network":1,"neural":1,"no":1,"of":1,"or":1,"recurrence":1,"self":1,"solely":1,"the":1,"this":1,"transformer":1,"vaswani":1,"vault":1,"you":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Claim Trust","s":"concepts/claim-trust","secs":[{"h":"Claim Trust","l":1,"t":"Trust in agents' self-proclaimed descriptions (AgentCards, profiles); lightweight but unverified — vulnerable to prompt-tampering and impersonation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[AgentCards]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agentcards":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"but":1,"claim":1,"comparative":1,"descriptions":1,"impersonation":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"lightweight":1,"models":1,"proclaimed":1,"profiles":1,"prompt":1,"self":1,"study":1,"tampering":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":3,"unverified":1,"vault":1,"vulnerable":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Branching Time","s":"concepts/branching-time","secs":[{"h":"Branching Time","l":1,"t":"Temporal logic where the future branches (CTL-style). Rao & Georgeff use it to represent BDI agents' options over alternative futures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":2,"alternative":1,"architecture":1,"bdi":3,"branches":1,"branching":1,"ctl":1,"future":1,"futures":1,"georgeff":1,"in":1,"it":1,"logic":1,"modeling":1,"options":1,"over":1,"rao":1,"rational":1,"represent":1,"style":1,"temporal":1,"the":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"within":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Interface","s":"concepts/interface","secs":[{"h":"Interface","l":1,"t":"In Conway's analysis, a boundary between two subsystems corresponding to a coordination/communication channel between the subgroups that designed them; interfaces are where system homomorphism is pinned to organisational structure."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[Conway's Law]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"analysis":1,"are":1,"between":2,"boundary":1,"channel":1,"committees":1,"communication":1,"conway":2,"coordination":1,"corresponding":1,"designed":1,"do":1,"homomorphism":1,"how":1,"in":2,"interface":1,"interfaces":1,"invent":1,"is":1,"law":1,"organisational":1,"pinned":1,"s":2,"structure":1,"subgroups":1,"subsystems":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":1,"them":1,"this":1,"to":2,"two":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Benevolent Agent Assumption","s":"concepts/benevolent-agent-assumption","secs":[{"h":"Benevolent Agent Assumption","l":1,"t":"Classical MAS simplification: agents help each other when asked. Rosenschein-Genesereth replace this with self-interested rational cooperation via deals."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Deals Among Rational Agents]] - [[Negotiation]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":2,"among":1,"asked":1,"assumption":1,"benevolent":1,"classical":1,"cooperation":1,"deals":2,"each":1,"genesereth":1,"help":1,"in":1,"interested":1,"mas":1,"negotiation":1,"other":1,"rational":2,"replace":1,"rosenschein":1,"self":1,"simplification":1,"this":2,"vault":1,"via":1,"when":1,"with":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Blockchain Interoperability","s":"concepts/blockchain-interoperability","secs":[{"h":"Blockchain Interoperability","l":1,"t":"The ability of distinct blockchain systems to exchange information, assets, or invoke operations across chain boundaries. Realised through patterns such as relays, atomic swaps, notary schemes, and cross-chain messaging protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"ability":1,"across":1,"and":1,"as":1,"assets":1,"atomic":1,"blockchain":3,"boundaries":1,"chain":2,"contracts":1,"cross":1,"distinct":1,"exchange":1,"formalise":1,"in":1,"information":1,"interoperability":2,"invoke":1,"messaging":1,"notary":1,"of":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"patterns":2,"protocols":1,"realised":1,"relays":1,"schemes":1,"smart":1,"such":1,"swaps":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Transaction-Ordering Dependence","s":"concepts/transaction-ordering-dependence","secs":[{"h":"Transaction-Ordering Dependence","l":1,"t":"A smart-contract vulnerability in which the outcome of a transaction depends on the order in which it is mined relative to others, enabling front-running and miner manipulation. Identified in early surveys of Ethereum bugs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Smart Contracts]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"bugs":1,"contract":1,"contracts":2,"dependence":1,"depends":1,"early":1,"enabling":1,"ethereum":1,"front":1,"identified":1,"in":4,"is":1,"it":1,"making":1,"manipulation":1,"mined":1,"miner":1,"of":2,"on":1,"order":1,"ordering":1,"others":1,"outcome":1,"relative":1,"running":1,"smart":3,"smarter":1,"surveys":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"transaction":2,"vault":1,"vulnerability":1,"which":2}},{"dl":62,"n":"Attribute Grammars","s":"concepts/attribute-grammars","secs":[{"h":"Attribute Grammars","l":1,"t":"A formalism extending context-free grammars with semantic *attributes* attached to nonterminals and *equations* defining them from children/parent attributes, used to specify compositional static semantics. They underpin extensible-language frameworks (Silver, Extensibella) where new syntax contributes its own attribute equations modularly."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"approach":1,"attached":1,"attribute":2,"attributes":2,"children":1,"compositional":1,"context":1,"contributes":1,"defining":1,"equations":2,"extending":1,"extensibella":1,"extensible":2,"for":1,"formalism":1,"frameworks":1,"free":1,"from":1,"grammars":2,"in":1,"its":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"metatheoretic":1,"modular":1,"modularly":1,"new":1,"nonterminals":1,"own":1,"parent":1,"reasoning":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"silver":1,"specify":1,"spoofax":1,"static":1,"syntax":1,"the":1,"them":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":3,"underpin":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"with":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Resource Manager Agent","s":"concepts/resource-manager-agent","secs":[{"h":"Resource Manager Agent","l":1,"t":"In D'Agents security, a stationary agent that mediates all access to a host-side resource (file system, printer, sensor). It enforces site policy and accounting on behalf of visiting mobile agents, isolating the resource's mechanism from the admin's policy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Mechanism vs Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"access":1,"accounting":1,"admin":1,"agent":2,"agents":2,"all":1,"and":1,"behalf":1,"book":1,"chapter":1,"d":1,"dagents":1,"enforces":1,"file":1,"from":1,"host":1,"in":2,"isolating":1,"it":1,"manager":1,"mechanism":2,"mediates":1,"mobile":1,"of":1,"on":1,"policy":3,"printer":1,"resource":3,"s":2,"security":2,"sensor":1,"side":1,"site":1,"stationary":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"visiting":1,"vs":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Perlocutionary Specification","s":"concepts/perlocutionary-specification","secs":[{"h":"Perlocutionary Specification","l":1,"t":"Specification of what a program *accomplishes* in the world (e.g. \"no aircraft collide\"). Requires an axiomatic theory of the environment to connect program behaviour to real-world effects."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Illocutionary Specification]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"accomplishes":1,"act":1,"acts":1,"aircraft":1,"an":1,"axiomatic":1,"based":1,"behaviour":1,"collide":1,"connect":1,"e":1,"effects":1,"elephant":1,"environment":1,"g":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"language":1,"no":1,"of":2,"on":1,"perlocutionary":1,"program":2,"programming":1,"real":1,"requires":1,"specification":3,"speech":2,"the":2,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"what":1,"world":2}},{"dl":46,"n":"Random Walks on Graphs","s":"concepts/random-walks-on-graphs","secs":[{"h":"Random Walks on Graphs","l":1,"t":"Stochastic processes in which a token moves to a uniformly-random neighbour at each step; their mixing time and stationary distributions underpin the analysis of push-sum and gossip aggregation protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":1,"aggregation":1,"analysis":1,"and":2,"at":1,"based":1,"computation":1,"distributions":1,"each":1,"gossip":3,"graphs":1,"in":2,"information":1,"mixing":1,"moves":1,"neighbour":1,"of":2,"on":1,"processes":1,"protocols":2,"push":1,"random":2,"stationary":1,"step":1,"stochastic":1,"sum":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"token":1,"underpin":1,"uniformly":1,"vault":1,"walks":1,"which":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Meta-circular Evaluator","s":"concepts/meta-circular-evaluator","secs":[{"h":"Meta-circular Evaluator","l":1,"t":"An interpreter written in the same language it interprets — Lisp's classic self-definition, foundational to understanding reflection and language-oriented programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[eval apply]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]]"}],"tf":{"an":1,"and":2,"apply":1,"by":1,"circular":1,"classic":1,"computation":1,"definition":1,"eval":1,"evaluator":1,"expressions":1,"extensible":1,"foundational":1,"functions":1,"graham":1,"in":2,"interpreter":1,"interprets":1,"it":1,"language":3,"lisp":1,"machine":1,"meta":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"programming":1,"recursive":1,"reflection":1,"s":1,"same":1,"self":1,"symbolic":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"understanding":1,"vault":1,"written":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Ambient Authority","s":"concepts/ambient-authority","secs":[{"h":"Ambient Authority","l":1,"t":"Authority that code acquires by virtue of the context it runs in (e.g. Unix processes inheriting user privilege), rather than by explicit reference. Root cause of the confused-deputy problem."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Confused Deputy]] - [[Object Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"acquires":1,"ambient":1,"and":1,"authority":2,"by":2,"capability":2,"cause":1,"code":1,"confused":2,"context":1,"deputy":2,"distributed":1,"e":1,"explicit":1,"g":1,"heart":1,"in":2,"inheriting":1,"it":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"of":3,"privilege":1,"problem":1,"processes":1,"rather":1,"reference":1,"root":1,"runs":1,"security":2,"spritely":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"unix":1,"user":1,"vault":1,"virtue":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Multi-Agent Q-Learning","s":"concepts/multi-agent-q-learning","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Q-Learning","l":1,"t":"Extension of single-agent Q-learning to multiple simultaneous learners, each updating action-values from shared or local rewards; used to adapt weighted-relation policies in agent-network self-organisation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"action":1,"adapt":1,"agent":4,"an":1,"composite":1,"each":1,"extension":1,"from":1,"in":3,"learners":1,"learning":2,"local":1,"mechanism":1,"multi":1,"multiple":1,"network":2,"of":1,"or":1,"organisation":2,"policies":1,"q":2,"relation":1,"rewards":1,"self":2,"shared":1,"simultaneous":1,"single":1,"this":1,"to":2,"updating":1,"used":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"weighted":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Occam's Razor","s":"concepts/occam's-razor","secs":[{"h":"Occam's Razor","l":1,"t":"The methodological preference for the simplest hypothesis consistent with the data; formalised in algorithmic information theory as the Minimum Description Length principle."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]] - [[Minimum Description Length]]"}],"tf":{"algorithmic":2,"as":1,"complexity":1,"consistent":1,"data":1,"description":2,"for":1,"formalised":1,"grunwald":1,"hypothesis":1,"in":2,"information":2,"kolmogorov":1,"length":2,"methodological":1,"minimum":2,"occam":1,"preference":1,"principle":1,"razor":1,"s":1,"simplest":1,"the":4,"theory":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"with":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Differentiable Protocols","s":"concepts/differentiable-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Differentiable Protocols","l":1,"t":"Inter-agent communication channels through which gradients can flow during training — contrast with lossy natural-language channels."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"can":1,"channels":2,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"contrast":1,"differentiable":1,"during":1,"flow":1,"gradients":1,"human":1,"in":2,"inter":1,"language":2,"levels":1,"lossy":1,"natural":1,"of":1,"orchestration":1,"protocols":1,"social":1,"this":1,"through":1,"training":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"why":1,"with":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Jason","s":"concepts/jason","secs":[{"h":"Jason","l":1,"t":"An open-source Java interpreter for an extended AgentSpeak(L), providing a BDI programming language with plans, beliefs, goals, and support for multi-agent infrastructure. It is a common platform for enacting commitment- and organisation-based interaction frameworks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[BDI]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"agentspeak":1,"an":3,"and":2,"based":1,"bdi":2,"beliefs":1,"commitment":1,"common":1,"enacting":1,"environments":1,"extended":1,"for":4,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"infrastructure":1,"interaction":2,"interpreter":1,"is":1,"it":1,"jason":1,"java":1,"l":1,"language":1,"multi":1,"open":2,"organisation":1,"oriented":2,"plans":1,"platform":1,"programming":2,"providing":1,"source":1,"support":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":158,"n":"Miller's 7±2","s":"concepts/miller's-7±2","secs":[{"h":"Miller's 7±2","l":1,"t":"George A. Miller, \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two\" (*Psychological Review*, 1956): working memory can hold approximately 7 ± 2 independent chunks at a time. The result is one of the most-cited findings in cognitive psychology, though modern refinements (Cowan 2001: ~4 chunks) suggest Miller's estimate was generous. The implication for system and language design: interfaces, specifications, and protocols that require a reader to track many independent elements simultaneously will be misread. A developer cannot hold in working memory every possible control-flow path of a Solidity contract when there are implicit behaviours ([[Fallback Method]], [[Delegatecall]]) lurking at the call site. [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] invokes 7±2 alongside [[Processing Fluency]] to argue that the EVM's contract model overruns the developer's cognitive budget — hidden state changes, implicit sends, and reentrancy opportunities cannot all be tracked simultaneously, so bugs slip through."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"cognitive-psychology #working-memory #usability","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1956":1,"2":3,"2001":1,"4":1,"7":3,"a":5,"all":1,"alongside":1,"and":3,"approximately":1,"are":1,"argue":1,"at":2,"be":2,"behaviours":1,"budget":1,"bugs":1,"call":1,"can":1,"cannot":2,"changes":1,"chunks":2,"cited":1,"classic":1,"cognitive":3,"contract":2,"control":1,"cowan":1,"delegatecall":1,"design":1,"developer":2,"elements":1,"estimate":1,"ethereum":1,"every":1,"evm":1,"fallback":1,"findings":1,"flow":1,"fluency":1,"for":1,"generous":1,"george":1,"hidden":1,"hold":2,"house":1,"implication":1,"implicit":2,"in":3,"independent":2,"interfaces":1,"invokes":1,"is":1,"langsec":1,"language":1,"lurking":1,"magical":1,"many":1,"memory":3,"method":1,"miller":3,"minus":1,"misread":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"most":1,"number":1,"of":2,"on":1,"one":1,"opportunities":1,"or":1,"overruns":1,"path":1,"plus":1,"possible":1,"processing":1,"protocols":1,"psychological":1,"psychology":2,"reader":1,"reentrancy":1,"refinements":1,"require":1,"result":1,"review":1,"rock":1,"s":4,"sends":1,"seven":1,"simultaneously":2,"site":1,"slip":1,"so":1,"solidity":1,"specifications":1,"state":1,"suggest":1,"system":1,"tags":1,"that":2,"the":7,"there":1,"though":1,"through":1,"time":1,"to":2,"track":1,"tracked":1,"two":1,"usability":1,"was":1,"when":1,"will":1,"working":3}},{"dl":33,"n":"Isonomes","s":"concepts/isonomes","secs":[{"h":"Isonomes","l":1,"t":"Minsky: signals that have the same effect in different agencies — e.g. a generic 'compare' command realised by comparison-agents in multiple sensory domains."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Polynemes]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agencies":1,"agents":1,"by":1,"command":1,"compare":1,"comparison":1,"different":1,"domains":1,"e":1,"effect":1,"g":1,"generic":1,"have":1,"in":3,"isonomes":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"multiple":1,"of":1,"polynemes":1,"realised":1,"same":1,"sensory":1,"signals":1,"society":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":61,"n":"Certificate Authorities","s":"concepts/certificate-authorities","secs":[{"h":"Certificate Authorities","l":1,"t":"Entities in a Public Key Infrastructure that issue X.509 certificates binding public keys to identities. CAs are a single point of trust whose aggregation of implementation-dependent parsing, naming, and OID choices has produced a long tail of signature-transfer, name-confusion, and EKU-bypass attacks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"509":1,"a":3,"aggregation":1,"and":2,"are":1,"attacks":1,"authorities":1,"binding":1,"bypass":1,"cake":1,"cas":1,"certificate":1,"certificates":1,"choices":1,"confusion":1,"dependent":1,"differential":1,"eku":1,"entities":1,"has":1,"identities":1,"implementation":1,"in":2,"infrastructure":1,"issue":1,"kaminsky":1,"key":1,"keys":1,"langsec":1,"layer":1,"long":1,"name":1,"naming":1,"of":3,"oid":1,"parser":1,"parsing":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"point":1,"produced":1,"public":2,"sassaman":1,"signature":1,"single":1,"tail":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transfer":1,"trust":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"x":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Representations","s":"concepts/representations","secs":[{"h":"Representations","l":1,"t":"In REST (Fielding), the transferred form of a resource's state — a media-typed byte sequence (JSON, HTML, image/png) — not the resource itself. Resources are identified by URIs; representations are what clients and servers actually exchange."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[Resources]] - [[Statelessness]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"actually":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"are":2,"by":1,"byte":1,"clients":1,"design":1,"exchange":1,"fielding":1,"form":1,"html":1,"identified":1,"image":1,"in":2,"itself":1,"json":1,"media":1,"modern":1,"not":1,"of":2,"png":1,"principled":1,"representations":2,"resource":2,"resources":2,"rest":1,"s":1,"sequence":1,"servers":1,"state":1,"statelessness":1,"the":3,"this":1,"transferred":1,"typed":1,"uris":1,"vault":1,"web":1,"what":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Cryptographic Wrapper","s":"concepts/cryptographic-wrapper","secs":[{"h":"Cryptographic Wrapper","l":1,"t":"A thin layer that transparently encrypts, authenticates and integrity-protects messages passing between distributed language runtimes, preserving the source-level semantics of communication primitives while providing end-to-end security guarantees."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[Marshalling]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"authenticates":1,"between":1,"communication":1,"communications":1,"cryptographic":1,"distributed":2,"encrypts":1,"end":2,"for":1,"guarantees":1,"in":1,"integrity":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"layer":1,"level":1,"marshalling":1,"messages":1,"of":1,"passing":1,"preserving":1,"primitives":1,"processing":1,"protects":1,"providing":1,"runtimes":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"semantics":1,"source":1,"that":1,"the":1,"thin":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transparently":1,"vault":1,"while":1,"wrapper":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Coordination","s":"concepts/coordination","secs":[{"h":"Coordination","l":1,"t":"The management of dependencies among activities performed by multiple agents so that their joint work produces a coherent outcome. It spans task allocation, synchronisation, conflict resolution and information sharing."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Coherence]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"activities":1,"agents":1,"allocation":1,"among":1,"and":1,"by":1,"coherence":1,"coherent":1,"committees":1,"conflict":1,"coordination":1,"dependencies":1,"do":1,"how":1,"in":1,"information":1,"invent":1,"it":1,"joint":1,"management":1,"multiagent":1,"multiple":1,"of":1,"outcome":1,"performed":1,"produces":1,"resolution":1,"sharing":1,"so":1,"spans":1,"sycara":1,"synchronisation":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"work":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Metaphysical Adequacy","s":"concepts/metaphysical-adequacy","secs":[{"h":"Metaphysical Adequacy","l":1,"t":"McCarthy-Hayes: a representation is *metaphysically* adequate if the world it describes could in principle support the facts we want to express."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Epistemological Adequacy]] - [[Heuristic Adequacy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adequacy":3,"adequate":1,"artificial":1,"could":1,"describes":1,"epistemological":1,"express":1,"facts":1,"from":1,"hayes":1,"heuristic":1,"if":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"is":1,"it":1,"mccarthy":1,"metaphysical":1,"metaphysically":1,"of":1,"philosophical":1,"principle":1,"problems":1,"representation":1,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"support":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"want":1,"we":1,"world":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"SDF","s":"concepts/sdf","secs":[{"h":"SDF","l":1,"t":"Syntax Definition Formalism: a declarative grammar formalism used by the Spoofax language workbench that combines lexical and context-free rules, supports modular composition, and compiles to scannerless generalised-LR parsers tolerating ambiguity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Attribute Grammars]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"ambiguity":1,"and":2,"attribute":1,"by":1,"combines":1,"compiles":1,"composition":1,"context":1,"declarative":1,"definition":1,"formalism":2,"free":1,"generalised":1,"grammar":1,"grammars":1,"in":1,"language":3,"lexical":1,"lr":1,"modular":1,"parsers":1,"rules":1,"scannerless":1,"sdf":1,"spoofax":2,"supports":1,"syntax":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"tolerating":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"workbench":2,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Human Connectivity Barrier","s":"concepts/human-connectivity-barrier","secs":[{"h":"Human Connectivity Barrier","l":1,"t":"The roughly 1500-person scaling limit on the number of other individuals a human can meaningfully coordinate with, used in the Levels of Social Orchestration framework as the ceiling that agent-mediated orchestration must pierce to reach societal scale."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] - [[Large Population Models]]"}],"tf":{"1500":1,"a":1,"agent":1,"as":1,"barrier":1,"can":1,"ceiling":1,"connectivity":1,"coordinate":1,"framework":1,"human":2,"in":2,"individuals":1,"large":1,"levels":2,"limit":1,"meaningfully":1,"mediated":1,"models":1,"must":1,"number":1,"of":3,"on":1,"orchestration":3,"other":1,"person":1,"pierce":1,"population":1,"reach":1,"roughly":1,"scale":1,"scaling":1,"social":2,"societal":1,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Data-Driven Coordination","s":"concepts/data-driven-coordination","secs":[{"h":"Data-Driven Coordination","l":1,"t":"Coordination style in which agents synchronise indirectly by reading and writing shared data structures (e.g., tuple spaces) rather than by directly addressing each other, enabling generative, anonymous, and asynchronous interaction."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Tuple Spaces]]"}],"tf":{"addressing":1,"agents":2,"and":2,"anonymous":1,"asynchronous":1,"by":2,"coordination":2,"data":3,"directly":1,"driven":2,"e":1,"each":1,"enabling":1,"g":1,"generative":1,"in":3,"indirectly":1,"interaction":2,"languages":1,"other":1,"rather":1,"reading":1,"secure":1,"shared":1,"spaces":2,"structures":1,"style":1,"synchronise":1,"than":1,"this":1,"tuple":2,"vault":1,"which":1,"writing":1}},{"dl":28,"n":"Positional Encoding","s":"concepts/positional-encoding","secs":[{"h":"Positional Encoding","l":1,"t":"Additive (sinusoidal or learned) signal that injects sequence-position information into an otherwise permutation-equivariant attention layer."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Transformer]]"}],"tf":{"additive":1,"all":1,"an":1,"attention":2,"encoding":1,"equivariant":1,"in":1,"information":1,"injects":1,"into":1,"is":1,"layer":1,"learned":1,"need":1,"or":1,"otherwise":1,"permutation":1,"position":1,"positional":1,"sequence":1,"signal":1,"sinusoidal":1,"that":1,"this":1,"transformer":1,"vault":1,"you":1}},{"dl":29,"n":"Mental State","s":"concepts/mental-state","secs":[{"h":"Mental State","l":1,"t":"Formally specified beliefs, desires, intentions, and commitments attributed to an agent as its program state."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":2,"as":1,"attributed":1,"bdi":1,"beliefs":1,"commitments":1,"desires":1,"formally":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"intentions":1,"its":1,"mental":1,"oriented":1,"practice":1,"program":1,"programming":1,"specified":1,"state":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Structural Definitions","s":"concepts/structural-definitions","secs":[{"h":"Structural Definitions","l":1,"t":"McCarthy distinction: definitions in terms of a system's internal structure, as opposed to behavioural (input/output) definitions; ascribing mental qualities often requires structural stances."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"as":1,"ascribing":2,"behavioural":1,"definitions":3,"distinction":1,"in":2,"input":1,"internal":1,"machines":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":2,"of":1,"often":1,"opposed":1,"output":1,"qualities":2,"requires":1,"s":1,"stances":1,"structural":2,"structure":1,"system":1,"terms":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Price of Anarchy","s":"concepts/price-of-anarchy","secs":[{"h":"Price of Anarchy","l":1,"t":"The ratio between the social cost of the worst Nash equilibrium and that of the social optimum. Quantifies welfare loss from decentralised, self-interested decision making in multi-agent systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Potential Games]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"anarchy":1,"and":1,"are":1,"between":1,"communication":1,"cost":1,"decentralised":1,"decision":1,"equilibrium":1,"failures":1,"from":1,"games":1,"in":2,"interested":1,"loss":1,"making":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"nash":1,"of":3,"optimum":1,"potential":1,"price":1,"quantifies":1,"ratio":1,"resilient":1,"self":1,"social":2,"systems":2,"that":1,"the":4,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"welfare":1,"worst":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Self-Adaptive Systems","s":"concepts/self-adaptive-systems","secs":[{"h":"Self-Adaptive Systems","l":1,"t":"Systems that monitor and modify their own behaviour: self-organisation, self-expression, self-awareness. - [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Computational Boundary of a Self]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]"},{"h":"Related","l":11,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adaptation":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":1,"ascens":1,"automata":1,"awareness":2,"behaviour":1,"boundary":1,"composite":1,"computational":1,"expression":2,"fungi":1,"gossip":1,"in":1,"inspired":1,"mechanism":1,"modify":1,"monitor":1,"multi":1,"myconet":1,"network":1,"of":2,"organisation":2,"overlay":1,"own":1,"protocols":1,"related":1,"reproducing":1,"self":10,"superpeer":1,"systems":3,"that":1,"their":1,"theory":1}},{"dl":24,"n":"Conceptualization","s":"concepts/conceptualization","secs":[{"h":"Conceptualization","l":1,"t":"Gruber's term: the abstract, simplified view of the world that an ontology makes explicit."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Ontology]]"}],"tf":{"abstract":1,"an":1,"conceptualization":1,"explicit":1,"gruber":1,"in":1,"makes":1,"of":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontology":3,"portable":1,"s":1,"simplified":1,"specifications":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"view":1,"world":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Kolmogorov Complexity","s":"concepts/kolmogorov-complexity","secs":[{"h":"Kolmogorov Complexity","l":1,"t":"The length of the shortest program that outputs a given object on a universal Turing machine — a universal, machine-independent measure of information content."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Minimum Description Length]] - [[Shannon Information]] - [[Occam's Razor]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"algorithmic":1,"complexity":1,"content":1,"description":1,"given":1,"grunwald":1,"in":1,"independent":1,"information":3,"kolmogorov":1,"length":2,"machine":2,"measure":1,"minimum":1,"object":1,"occam":1,"of":2,"on":1,"outputs":1,"program":1,"razor":1,"s":1,"shannon":1,"shortest":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"turing":1,"universal":2,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Stigmergy","s":"concepts/stigmergy","secs":[{"h":"Stigmergy","l":1,"t":"Indirect coordination via persistent marks left in a shared environment — agents respond to the environment, not directly to each other (ants, fungi, tuple spaces)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":2,"ants":1,"coordination":1,"data":1,"directly":1,"driven":1,"each":1,"environment":2,"fungi":2,"in":3,"indirect":1,"inspired":1,"interaction":1,"languages":1,"left":1,"marks":1,"myconet":1,"not":1,"other":1,"overlay":1,"persistent":1,"respond":1,"secure":1,"shared":1,"spaces":1,"stigmergy":1,"superpeer":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"tuple":1,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Commitment-Based Protocol","s":"concepts/commitment-based-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Commitment-Based Protocol","l":1,"t":"An interaction protocol specified not by a fixed message sequence but by the social commitments agents create, discharge, cancel or delegate through their messages. This gives an objective, verifiable semantics that tolerates flexible enactment."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Interaction Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":3,"based":2,"but":1,"by":2,"cancel":1,"commitment":2,"commitments":1,"create":1,"delegate":1,"discharge":1,"enactment":1,"environments":1,"fixed":1,"flexible":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"gives":1,"in":1,"interaction":3,"message":1,"messages":1,"not":1,"objective":1,"open":1,"or":1,"oriented":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"semantics":2,"sequence":1,"social":1,"specified":1,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":2,"through":1,"tolerates":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Peer Sampling Service","s":"concepts/peer-sampling-service","secs":[{"h":"Peer Sampling Service","l":1,"t":"Substrate gossip protocol supplying random peer samples to higher-level aggregation or overlay protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]]"}],"tf":{"aggregation":2,"based":1,"distributed":1,"dynamic":1,"fungi":1,"gossip":2,"gossiping":1,"higher":1,"in":3,"inspired":1,"large":1,"level":1,"myconet":1,"networks":1,"or":1,"overlay":2,"peer":2,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"random":1,"samples":1,"sampling":1,"service":1,"substrate":1,"superpeer":1,"supplying":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Ontologies","s":"concepts/ontologies","secs":[{"h":"Ontologies","l":1,"t":"Shared, formal vocabularies for meaning. Essential for agents to understand each other."},{"h":"Sources","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]]"},{"h":"Related","l":11,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[KQML]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acls":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"automated":1,"change":1,"classification":1,"common":1,"communication":1,"each":1,"essential":1,"evolution":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"handbook":1,"kqml":1,"languages":1,"meaning":1,"of":2,"on":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":3,"other":1,"portable":1,"related":1,"shared":1,"sources":1,"specifications":1,"survey":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"understand":1,"vocabularies":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Illocutionary Point","s":"concepts/illocutionary-point","secs":[{"h":"Illocutionary Point","l":1,"t":"Searle: the purpose an illocutionary act essentially serves — e.g. a statement's illocutionary point is to represent how things are. Searle identifies five illocutionary points."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts]] - [[Foundations Of Illocutionary Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"act":1,"acts":1,"an":1,"are":1,"e":1,"essentially":1,"five":1,"foundations":1,"g":1,"how":1,"identifies":1,"illocutionary":6,"in":1,"is":1,"logic":1,"of":2,"point":2,"points":1,"purpose":1,"represent":1,"s":1,"searle":2,"serves":1,"statement":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":1,"things":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Bitter Lesson","s":"concepts/bitter-lesson","secs":[{"h":"Bitter Lesson","l":1,"t":"Sutton: across 70 years of AI, general-purpose methods that leverage computation (search, learning) consistently beat methods that encode human knowledge. The hard lesson the field keeps having to relearn."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Bitter Lesson]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"70":1,"across":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"beat":1,"bitter":2,"computation":1,"consistently":1,"encode":1,"field":1,"general":1,"hard":1,"having":1,"human":1,"in":1,"keeps":1,"knowledge":1,"learning":1,"lesson":3,"leverage":1,"llm":1,"methods":2,"of":1,"purpose":1,"relearn":1,"search":1,"sutton":1,"that":2,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"years":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Meta-agent","s":"concepts/meta-agent","secs":[{"h":"Meta-agent","l":1,"t":"In the AGENTS framework (Zhou et al.), an automated agent that generates Standard Operating Procedures and agent configurations from a task description via retrieval-augmented generation, reducing boilerplate in multi-agent system construction."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":4,"agents":2,"al":2,"an":1,"and":1,"augmented":1,"automated":1,"boilerplate":1,"configurations":1,"construction":1,"description":1,"et":2,"framework":2,"from":1,"generates":1,"generation":1,"in":3,"meta":1,"multi":1,"operating":2,"procedures":2,"reducing":1,"retrieval":1,"sops":1,"standard":2,"system":1,"task":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"zhou":2}},{"dl":43,"n":"Safestack","s":"concepts/safestack","secs":[{"h":"Safestack","l":1,"t":"An SOL module encoding a stack-safety policy: it mediates pushes and pops so that illegal operations raise observable `fail` events, illustrating how language-level modules express architectural safety patterns."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Secure Operations Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"and":1,"architectural":2,"dependable":1,"encoding":1,"events":1,"express":1,"for":1,"how":1,"illegal":1,"illustrating":1,"in":1,"it":1,"language":2,"level":1,"mediates":1,"module":1,"modules":1,"observable":1,"operations":2,"patterns":2,"policy":1,"pops":1,"pushes":1,"raise":1,"safestack":1,"safety":2,"secure":1,"so":1,"software":1,"sol":2,"stack":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Protocol Verification","s":"concepts/protocol-verification","secs":[{"h":"Protocol Verification","l":1,"t":"Mechanised or semi-formal checking that an interaction protocol satisfies properties such as termination, deadlock freedom, or compliance with a specified ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Verifiable Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"as":1,"checking":1,"communication":1,"compliance":1,"deadlock":1,"formal":2,"freedom":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"language":1,"mechanised":1,"or":2,"properties":1,"protocol":2,"satisfies":1,"semantics":2,"semi":1,"specified":1,"such":1,"termination":1,"that":1,"this":1,"trends":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":2,"with":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Content Languages","s":"concepts/content-languages","secs":[{"h":"Content Languages","l":1,"t":"Languages (KIF, SL, Prolog, RDF) used to express the *content* of an ACL message independently of the outer performative/message wrapper. The separation of wrapper from content language is an explicit FIPA/KQML design choice enabling heterogeneity and ontology reuse."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Language And Protocol]] - [[KIF]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"an":2,"and":2,"choice":1,"content":3,"design":1,"enabling":1,"explicit":1,"express":1,"fipa":1,"from":1,"heterogeneity":1,"in":1,"independently":1,"is":1,"kif":2,"kqml":2,"language":2,"languages":2,"message":2,"of":3,"ontologies":1,"ontology":1,"outer":1,"performative":1,"prolog":1,"protocol":1,"rdf":1,"reuse":1,"separation":1,"sl":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"wrapper":2}},{"dl":49,"n":"Hyphal Peer","s":"concepts/hyphal-peer","secs":[{"h":"Hyphal Peer","l":1,"t":"In the Myconet fungal overlay, an intermediate peer state between mobile \"biomass\" and settled \"immobile superpeer\": hyphae extend and branch to explore the network, driven by local biomass comparisons via Newscast gossip, eventually solidifying into superpeers when saturated."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Stigmergy]]"}],"tf":{"an":1,"and":2,"between":1,"biomass":2,"branch":1,"by":1,"comparisons":1,"driven":1,"eventually":1,"explore":1,"extend":1,"fungal":1,"fungi":1,"gossip":1,"hyphae":1,"hyphal":1,"immobile":1,"in":2,"inspired":1,"intermediate":1,"into":1,"local":1,"mobile":1,"myconet":2,"network":1,"newscast":1,"overlay":2,"peer":2,"saturated":1,"settled":1,"solidifying":1,"state":1,"stigmergy":1,"superpeer":2,"superpeers":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"when":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Epidemic Dissemination","s":"concepts/epidemic-dissemination","secs":[{"h":"Epidemic Dissemination","l":1,"t":"Information spread modelled on biological epidemics: each informed node randomly infects a small number of neighbours per round, so updates reach the whole population in logarithmic time with high probability and high fault tolerance."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossiping in Distributed Systems]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"biological":1,"dissemination":1,"distributed":1,"each":1,"epidemic":1,"epidemics":1,"fault":1,"gossip":1,"gossiping":1,"high":2,"in":3,"infects":1,"information":1,"informed":1,"logarithmic":1,"modelled":1,"neighbours":1,"node":1,"number":1,"of":1,"on":1,"per":1,"population":1,"probability":1,"protocols":1,"randomly":1,"reach":1,"round":1,"small":1,"so":1,"spread":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"time":1,"tolerance":1,"updates":1,"vault":1,"whole":1,"with":1}},{"dl":104,"n":"K Framework","s":"concepts/k-framework","secs":[{"h":"K Framework","l":1,"t":"A rewriting-logic-based framework for defining the formal semantics of programming languages (Roșu et al., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2003–). Language semantics written in K are simultaneously: (1) an *executable* interpreter, (2) a *symbolic* executor, (3) a target for model-checking, and (4) a target for deductive verification — all derived from a single specification. K has been used to formalise C (KCC), Java, JavaScript, LLVM, Ethereum (see [[KEVM]]), and others. It realises what the formal-methods community calls \"*one semantics, many tools*\": the same definition powers interpretation, verification, and analysis without re-implementation."},{"h":"Tags","l":7,"t":""},{"h":"formal-semantics #rewriting-logic #verification","l":8,"t":""}],"tf":{"1":1,"2":1,"2003":1,"3":1,"4":1,"a":5,"al":1,"all":1,"an":1,"analysis":1,"and":3,"are":1,"at":1,"based":1,"been":1,"c":1,"calls":1,"champaign":1,"checking":1,"community":1,"deductive":1,"defining":1,"definition":1,"derived":1,"et":1,"ethereum":1,"executable":1,"executor":1,"for":3,"formal":3,"formalise":1,"framework":2,"from":1,"has":1,"illinois":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"interpretation":1,"interpreter":1,"it":1,"java":1,"javascript":1,"k":3,"kcc":1,"kevm":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"llvm":1,"logic":2,"many":1,"methods":1,"model":1,"of":2,"one":1,"others":1,"powers":1,"programming":1,"re":1,"realises":1,"rewriting":2,"roșu":1,"same":1,"see":1,"semantics":4,"simultaneously":1,"single":1,"specification":1,"symbolic":1,"tags":1,"target":2,"the":3,"to":1,"tools":1,"university":1,"urbana":1,"used":1,"verification":3,"what":1,"without":1,"written":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Search and Learning","s":"concepts/search-and-learning","secs":[{"h":"Search and Learning","l":1,"t":"Sutton: the two general-purpose methods that scale with computation — search (tree, Monte Carlo) and learning (gradient descent over deep function approximators)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Bitter Lesson]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"approximators":1,"bitter":1,"carlo":1,"computation":1,"deep":1,"descent":1,"function":1,"general":1,"gradient":1,"in":1,"learning":2,"lesson":1,"methods":1,"monte":1,"over":1,"purpose":1,"scale":1,"search":2,"sutton":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tree":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Symbol Grounding Problem","s":"concepts/symbol-grounding-problem","secs":[{"h":"Symbol Grounding Problem","l":1,"t":"Harnad: how do abstract symbols acquire meaning connected to the world, rather than circling through other symbols? Central to emergent-communication work."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Language Games for Autonomous Robots]] - [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]]"}],"tf":{"abstract":1,"acquire":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"autonomous":1,"central":1,"circling":1,"communication":1,"compositional":1,"connected":1,"cooperation":1,"do":1,"emergence":2,"emergent":1,"for":1,"games":1,"grounded":1,"grounding":1,"harnad":1,"how":1,"in":2,"language":3,"meaning":1,"multi":2,"natural":1,"of":2,"other":1,"populations":1,"problem":1,"rather":1,"robots":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":2,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"through":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"work":1,"world":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Encoder-Decoder Attention","s":"concepts/encoder-decoder-attention","secs":[{"h":"Encoder-Decoder Attention","l":1,"t":"Cross-attention from decoder queries to encoder outputs in the original Transformer for sequence-to-sequence tasks; now common in every modern encoder-decoder model."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Transformer]]"}],"tf":{"all":1,"attention":3,"common":1,"cross":1,"decoder":3,"encoder":3,"every":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":3,"is":1,"model":1,"modern":1,"need":1,"now":1,"original":1,"outputs":1,"queries":1,"sequence":2,"tasks":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"transformer":2,"vault":1,"you":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Translation Approach","s":"concepts/translation-approach","secs":[{"h":"Translation Approach","l":1,"t":"The Ontolingua strategy of authoring ontologies in a neutral interlingua (KIF/frame ontology) and translating to target knowledge-representation systems, rather than forcing all systems to adopt a single shared KR."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[KIF]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adopt":1,"all":1,"and":1,"approach":1,"authoring":1,"forcing":1,"frame":1,"in":2,"interlingua":1,"kif":2,"knowledge":1,"kr":1,"neutral":1,"of":1,"ontolingua":2,"ontologies":1,"ontology":2,"portable":1,"rather":1,"representation":1,"shared":1,"single":1,"specifications":1,"strategy":1,"systems":2,"target":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"translating":1,"translation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":66,"n":"Protocol Layering Attacks","s":"concepts/protocol-layering-attacks","secs":[{"h":"Protocol Layering Attacks","l":1,"t":"Attacks that exploit semantic gaps between the layers of a protocol stack — e.g. between ASN.1 parsing, X.509 interpretation, and application-level name comparison — so that inputs that are benign at one layer become malicious at another. The structural attack class exposed across the PKI Layer Cake."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Shotgun Parsing]]"}],"tf":{"1":1,"509":1,"a":1,"across":1,"and":1,"another":1,"application":1,"are":1,"asn":1,"at":2,"attack":1,"attacks":2,"become":1,"benign":1,"between":2,"cake":2,"class":1,"comparison":1,"differential":1,"e":1,"exploit":1,"exposed":1,"g":1,"gaps":1,"in":1,"inputs":1,"interpretation":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":1,"layer":3,"layering":1,"layers":1,"level":1,"malicious":1,"name":1,"of":1,"one":1,"parser":1,"parsing":2,"patterson":1,"pki":2,"protocol":2,"sassaman":1,"semantic":1,"shotgun":1,"so":1,"stack":1,"structural":1,"that":3,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"x":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Future-Directed Intention","s":"concepts/future-directed-intention","secs":[{"h":"Future-Directed Intention","l":1,"t":"Bratman's target: intention regarding action one plans to take later — as opposed to intention-in-action during the deed itself."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]] - [[Intention]]"}],"tf":{"action":2,"as":1,"bratman":1,"deed":1,"directed":1,"during":1,"faces":1,"future":1,"in":2,"intention":5,"itself":1,"later":1,"of":1,"one":1,"opposed":1,"plans":1,"regarding":1,"s":1,"take":1,"target":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":52,"n":"Indirect Prompt Injection","s":"concepts/indirect-prompt-injection","secs":[{"h":"Indirect Prompt Injection","l":1,"t":"Prompt-injection attack delivered via content the agent retrieves or ingests (web pages, emails, tool outputs) rather than directly from a user — structurally unavoidable in a flat context model."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Prompt Injection]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"agent":2,"agentic":1,"ai":1,"attack":2,"attacks":1,"clawworm":1,"content":1,"context":1,"delivered":1,"directly":1,"ecosystems":1,"emails":1,"flat":1,"from":1,"in":2,"indirect":1,"ingests":1,"injection":3,"llm":1,"model":1,"of":1,"or":1,"outputs":1,"pages":1,"prompt":3,"propagating":1,"rather":1,"retrieves":1,"self":1,"sok":1,"structurally":1,"surface":1,"than":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tool":1,"unavoidable":1,"user":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"web":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Semantic Misalignment","s":"concepts/semantic-misalignment","secs":[{"h":"Semantic Misalignment","l":1,"t":"Divergence between the meanings that communicating agents assign to the same signals, leading to coordination failures despite syntactically valid exchange. For LLM agents, it is the principal reason natural language is preferred to brittle symbolic protocols — and also a persistent source of silent errors."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]] - [[Interoperability]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":3,"ai":1,"also":1,"and":1,"assign":1,"between":1,"brittle":1,"communicate":1,"communicating":1,"coordination":1,"despite":1,"divergence":1,"errors":1,"exchange":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"grounding":1,"human":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"is":2,"it":1,"language":2,"leading":1,"llm":1,"meanings":1,"misalignment":1,"natural":1,"of":1,"persistent":1,"preferred":1,"principal":1,"problem":1,"protocols":1,"reason":1,"same":1,"semantic":1,"signals":1,"silent":1,"source":1,"symbol":1,"symbolic":1,"syntactically":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":3,"valid":1,"vault":1,"why":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Specification Validation","s":"concepts/specification-validation","secs":[{"h":"Specification Validation","l":1,"t":"The open problem of assessing whether generated specifications actually capture user intent, given that only the user has access to the ground truth."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"access":1,"actually":1,"assessing":1,"capture":1,"challenge":1,"coding":1,"for":1,"formalization":1,"generated":1,"given":1,"grand":1,"ground":1,"has":1,"in":1,"intent":2,"of":1,"only":1,"open":1,"problem":1,"reliable":1,"specification":1,"specifications":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"truth":1,"user":2,"validation":1,"vault":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Strongest Verifiable Consequent","s":"concepts/strongest-verifiable-consequent","secs":[{"h":"Strongest Verifiable Consequent","l":1,"t":"In Floyd's *Assigning Meanings to Programs*, the strongest assertion derivable at a program point from the preceding command and entry assertion via the verification-condition rules — the mechanically-reachable analogue of the strongest postcondition. Central to the compositional axiomatic semantics of flowcharts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Operational Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"analogue":1,"and":1,"assertion":2,"assigning":2,"at":1,"axiomatic":1,"central":1,"command":1,"compositional":1,"condition":1,"consequent":1,"derivable":1,"entry":1,"flowcharts":1,"floyd":1,"from":1,"hoare":1,"in":2,"logic":1,"meanings":2,"mechanically":1,"of":2,"operational":1,"point":1,"postcondition":1,"preceding":1,"program":1,"programs":2,"reachable":1,"rules":1,"s":1,"semantics":2,"strongest":3,"the":6,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"verification":1,"via":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Postel's Law Critique","s":"concepts/postel's-law-critique","secs":[{"h":"Postel's Law Critique","l":1,"t":"The LangSec argument that \"be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept\" produces under-specified input languages, parser divergences, and weird-machine vulnerabilities, and should be rejected for security-critical protocols."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"accept":1,"and":2,"argument":1,"be":2,"conservative":1,"critical":1,"critique":1,"divergences":1,"for":1,"halting":1,"in":3,"input":1,"insecurity":1,"langsec":2,"languages":1,"law":1,"liberal":1,"machine":1,"network":1,"of":1,"parser":1,"postel":1,"problems":1,"produces":1,"protocols":1,"rejected":1,"s":1,"security":1,"send":1,"should":1,"specified":1,"stack":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"weird":1,"what":2,"you":2}},{"dl":51,"n":"Self-Expression","s":"concepts/self-expression","secs":[{"h":"Self-Expression","l":1,"t":"In the ASCENS taxonomy (Zambonelli et al.), the dimension of self-* behaviour concerned with how an ensemble structurally reorganises its coordination — topology, interaction protocol, role distribution — distinct from self-adaptation's behavioural tuning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Interaction Protocol Change]]"}],"tf":{"adaptation":2,"adaptive":1,"al":1,"an":1,"ascens":2,"awareness":1,"behaviour":1,"behavioural":1,"change":1,"concerned":1,"coordination":1,"dimension":1,"distinct":1,"distribution":1,"ensemble":1,"et":1,"expression":2,"from":1,"how":1,"in":2,"interaction":2,"its":1,"of":1,"protocol":2,"reorganises":1,"role":1,"s":1,"self":7,"structurally":1,"systems":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":2,"this":1,"topology":1,"tuning":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"zambonelli":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Sorted Logic","s":"concepts/sorted-logic","secs":[{"h":"Sorted Logic","l":1,"t":"First-order logic with typed variables — used to keep individual concepts, their denotations, and propositions cleanly separated."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"cleanly":1,"concepts":2,"denotations":1,"first":2,"in":1,"individual":2,"keep":1,"logic":2,"of":1,"order":2,"propositions":2,"separated":1,"sorted":1,"their":1,"theories":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typed":1,"used":1,"variables":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Hypermedia","s":"concepts/hypermedia","secs":[{"h":"Hypermedia","l":1,"t":"Media enriched with links and controls that allow clients to discover and invoke further resources dynamically. In REST, hypermedia as the engine of application state (HATEOAS) drives interaction without out-of-band coupling."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Principled Design Of The Modern Web Architecture]] - [[REST]]"}],"tf":{"allow":1,"and":2,"application":1,"architecture":1,"as":1,"band":1,"clients":1,"controls":1,"coupling":1,"design":1,"discover":1,"drives":1,"dynamically":1,"engine":1,"enriched":1,"further":1,"hateoas":1,"hypermedia":2,"in":2,"interaction":1,"invoke":1,"links":1,"media":1,"modern":1,"of":3,"out":1,"principled":1,"resources":1,"rest":2,"state":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"web":1,"with":1,"without":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Language Extensibility Taxonomy","s":"concepts/language-extensibility-taxonomy","secs":[{"h":"Language Extensibility Taxonomy","l":1,"t":"Standish's classification of programming-language extension mechanisms into paraphrase, orthophrase, and metaphrase, distinguishing what can be extended and how invasively."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[Paraphrase]] - [[Orthophrase]] - [[Metaphrase]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"be":1,"can":1,"classification":1,"design":1,"distinguishing":1,"extended":1,"extensibility":2,"extension":1,"how":1,"in":2,"into":1,"invasively":1,"language":3,"mechanisms":1,"metaphrase":2,"of":1,"orthophrase":2,"paraphrase":2,"programming":2,"s":1,"standish":2,"taxonomy":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Simple View","s":"concepts/simple-view","secs":[{"h":"Simple View","l":1,"t":"View Bratman rejects: to intend to A is just to believe one will A and desire to. Bratman shows intention is a distinct plan-state with its own functional role."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Two Faces of Intention]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"and":1,"believe":1,"bratman":2,"desire":1,"distinct":1,"faces":1,"functional":1,"in":1,"intend":1,"intention":2,"is":2,"its":1,"just":1,"of":1,"one":1,"own":1,"plan":1,"rejects":1,"role":1,"shows":1,"simple":1,"state":1,"this":1,"to":4,"two":1,"vault":1,"view":2,"will":1,"with":1}},{"dl":113,"n":"Relational Transducer","s":"concepts/relational-transducer","secs":[{"h":"Relational Transducer","l":1,"t":"Ameloot-Neven-Van den Bussche formalisation of a distributed program node: a relational event-loop server that, on each tick, (1) *ingests* an unordered batch of insert/delete requests into local relations, (2) *queries* the updated relations (a monotonic relational query: selection, projection, join, union, transitive closure), and (3) *sends* results as messages to other machines and outputs. A *relational transducer network* distributes data across machines of this shape. The **[[CALM Theorem]]** is proved over this model: a query has a coordination-free evaluation plan on such a network iff the query is monotone."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Dedalus]] - [[Bloom Language]]"}],"tf":{"1":1,"2":1,"3":1,"a":7,"across":1,"ameloot":1,"an":1,"and":2,"as":1,"batch":1,"bloom":1,"bussche":1,"calm":3,"closure":1,"consistency":1,"coordination":1,"data":1,"dedalus":1,"delete":1,"den":1,"distributed":2,"distributes":1,"each":1,"easy":1,"evaluation":1,"event":1,"formalisation":1,"free":1,"has":1,"iff":1,"in":1,"ingests":1,"insert":1,"into":1,"is":3,"join":1,"keeping":1,"language":1,"local":1,"logic":1,"loop":1,"machines":2,"messages":1,"model":1,"monotone":1,"monotonic":2,"network":2,"neven":1,"node":1,"of":3,"on":2,"other":1,"outputs":1,"over":1,"plan":1,"program":1,"projection":1,"proved":1,"queries":1,"query":3,"relational":4,"relations":2,"requests":1,"results":1,"selection":1,"sends":1,"server":1,"shape":1,"such":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theorem":2,"this":3,"tick":1,"to":1,"transducer":2,"transitive":1,"union":1,"unordered":1,"updated":1,"van":1,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Non-verbal Communication","s":"concepts/non-verbal-communication","secs":[{"h":"Non-verbal Communication","l":1,"t":"Communicative behaviours that do not use a discrete symbolic channel — pointing, gaze, positioning. In Mordatch & Abbeel's emergent-language experiments agents spontaneously adopt non-verbal strategies when the symbolic channel is removed, illustrating communication as optimisation over all available action dimensions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abbeel":1,"action":1,"adopt":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"all":1,"as":1,"available":1,"behaviours":1,"channel":2,"communication":3,"communicative":1,"compositional":1,"dimensions":1,"discrete":1,"do":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"experiments":1,"gaze":1,"grounded":1,"illustrating":1,"in":3,"is":1,"language":2,"mordatch":1,"multi":1,"non":2,"not":1,"of":1,"optimisation":1,"over":1,"pointing":1,"populations":1,"positioning":1,"removed":1,"s":1,"spontaneously":1,"strategies":1,"symbolic":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"verbal":2,"when":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Normalized Compression Distance","s":"concepts/normalized-compression-distance","secs":[{"h":"Normalized Compression Distance","l":1,"t":"A universal, parameter-free distance between strings defined via the ratio of compressed concatenation to individual compressions, approximating the uncomputable information distance and useful for clustering arbitrary data."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"algorithmic":1,"and":1,"approximating":1,"arbitrary":1,"between":1,"clustering":1,"complexity":1,"compressed":1,"compression":1,"compressions":1,"concatenation":1,"data":1,"defined":1,"distance":3,"for":1,"free":1,"grunwald":1,"in":1,"individual":1,"information":2,"kolmogorov":1,"normalized":1,"of":1,"parameter":1,"ratio":1,"strings":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"uncomputable":1,"universal":1,"useful":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vitanyi":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Full Abstraction","s":"concepts/full-abstraction","secs":[{"h":"Full Abstraction","l":1,"t":"A compiler/translation is fully abstract iff source-level observational equivalence is preserved in the target — the gold standard for language implementation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"abstraction":1,"communications":1,"compiler":1,"distributed":1,"equivalence":1,"for":2,"full":1,"fully":1,"gold":1,"iff":1,"implementation":1,"in":2,"is":2,"language":1,"languages":1,"level":1,"observational":1,"preserved":1,"processing":1,"secure":1,"source":1,"standard":1,"target":1,"the":2,"this":1,"translation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Operational Semantics","s":"concepts/operational-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Operational Semantics","l":1,"t":"Defining a program's meaning by the sequence of computation steps it induces on an abstract machine."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"an":1,"assigning":1,"by":1,"computation":1,"contracts":1,"defining":1,"hoare":1,"in":1,"induces":1,"it":1,"logic":1,"machine":1,"making":1,"meaning":1,"meanings":1,"of":1,"on":1,"operational":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"sequence":1,"smart":1,"smarter":1,"steps":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Agent Architecture","s":"concepts/agent-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Agent Architecture","l":1,"t":"The internal computational organisation of an agent — deliberative (BDI), reactive (subsumption), layered, or hybrid — along with the control loop and data pipelines that realise it."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The BOID Architecture]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]]"}],"tf":{"agent":3,"agents":1,"along":1,"an":1,"and":2,"architecture":2,"bdi":1,"boid":1,"computational":1,"control":1,"data":1,"deliberative":1,"hybrid":1,"in":1,"intelligent":1,"internal":1,"it":1,"layered":1,"loop":1,"of":1,"or":1,"organisation":1,"oriented":1,"pipelines":1,"practice":1,"programming":1,"reactive":1,"realise":1,"subsumption":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Planning","s":"concepts/planning","secs":[{"h":"Planning","l":1,"t":"Constructing action sequences that achieve a goal from an initial state. Formalised via situation calculus, STRIPS, and their descendants."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Situation Calculus]] - [[Programs with Common Sense]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achieve":1,"action":1,"an":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"calculus":2,"common":1,"constructing":1,"descendants":1,"formalised":1,"from":2,"goal":1,"in":1,"initial":1,"intelligence":1,"of":1,"philosophical":1,"planning":1,"problems":1,"programs":1,"sense":1,"sequences":1,"situation":2,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"state":1,"strips":1,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"with":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Common Weakness Enumeration","s":"concepts/common-weakness-enumeration","secs":[{"h":"Common Weakness Enumeration","l":1,"t":"MITRE's community-maintained catalog (CWE) of software and hardware weakness types, used as a shared vocabulary for describing security vulnerabilities. Cited as a frame for classifying LLM-agent and protocol-layer pathologies."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":2,"as":2,"babel":1,"catalog":1,"cited":1,"classifying":1,"common":1,"community":1,"cwe":1,"describing":1,"enumeration":1,"for":2,"frame":1,"hardware":1,"in":1,"layer":1,"llm":1,"maintained":1,"mitre":1,"of":2,"pathologies":1,"protocol":1,"s":1,"security":1,"seven":1,"shared":1,"software":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"turrets":1,"types":1,"under":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"vulnerabilities":1,"weakness":2}},{"dl":51,"n":"Compositionality","s":"concepts/compositionality","secs":[{"h":"Compositionality","l":1,"t":"Meaning of a complex expression is determined by meanings of its parts and how they combine — the property that lets language generalise."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of Natural Language]] - [[Three Models for the Description of Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"and":2,"by":1,"combine":1,"complex":1,"compositional":1,"compositionality":1,"cooperation":1,"description":1,"determined":1,"emergence":2,"expression":1,"for":1,"generalise":1,"grounded":1,"how":1,"in":2,"is":1,"its":1,"language":4,"lets":1,"meaning":1,"meanings":1,"models":1,"multi":2,"natural":1,"of":5,"parts":1,"populations":1,"property":1,"that":1,"the":3,"they":1,"this":1,"three":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":110,"n":"Perverse Incentives","s":"concepts/perverse-incentives","secs":[{"h":"Perverse Incentives","l":1,"t":"Economic structures that reward the *opposite* of their ostensible aim. The classic form is the \"cobra effect\": a bounty intended to reduce cobra populations induces breeding-for-bounty. In systems design, perverse incentives arise when a metering or policing mechanism becomes itself an adversarial game with direct monetary reward for gaming it. Example from [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]]: the [[Gas Mechanism]] creates a perverse incentive for contract authors to *remove* runtime sanity checks — every conditional costs gas, so defensively-written contracts lose on cost to recklessly-written ones. The policing mechanism itself erodes the behaviour it was supposed to encourage."},{"h":"Tags","l":7,"t":""},{"h":"mechanism-design #security #incentives","l":8,"t":""}],"tf":{"a":3,"adversarial":1,"aim":1,"an":1,"arise":1,"authors":1,"becomes":1,"behaviour":1,"bounty":2,"breeding":1,"checks":1,"classic":2,"cobra":2,"conditional":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"cost":1,"costs":1,"creates":1,"defensively":1,"design":2,"direct":1,"economic":1,"effect":1,"encourage":1,"erodes":1,"ethereum":1,"every":1,"example":1,"for":3,"form":1,"from":1,"game":1,"gaming":1,"gas":2,"house":1,"in":2,"incentive":1,"incentives":3,"induces":1,"intended":1,"is":1,"it":2,"itself":2,"langsec":1,"lose":1,"mechanism":4,"metering":1,"monetary":1,"of":1,"on":2,"ones":1,"opposite":1,"or":1,"ostensible":1,"perverse":3,"policing":2,"populations":1,"recklessly":1,"reduce":1,"remove":1,"reward":2,"rock":1,"runtime":1,"sanity":1,"security":1,"so":1,"structures":1,"supposed":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"that":1,"the":6,"their":1,"to":4,"was":1,"when":1,"with":1,"written":2}},{"dl":37,"n":"Macros as Language Extension","s":"concepts/macros-as-language-extension","secs":[{"h":"Macros as Language Extension","l":1,"t":"Using macros (hygienic or otherwise) to add syntactic forms indistinguishable from built-ins, enabling embedded DSLs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]]"}],"tf":{"add":1,"as":1,"built":1,"creating":1,"design":1,"dsls":1,"embedded":1,"enabling":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"forms":1,"from":1,"graham":1,"hygienic":1,"in":3,"indistinguishable":1,"ins":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"macros":2,"or":1,"otherwise":1,"programming":1,"racket":1,"standish":1,"syntactic":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Horn Clauses","s":"concepts/horn-clauses","secs":[{"h":"Horn Clauses","l":1,"t":"First-order clauses with at most one positive literal, of the form `H :- B1, ..., Bn`. Their restricted form admits efficient SLD-resolution and is the formal core of Prolog and logic programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[First-Order Logic]]"}],"tf":{"admits":1,"and":2,"at":1,"clauses":2,"core":1,"efficient":1,"first":2,"form":2,"formal":1,"foundations":1,"horn":1,"in":1,"is":1,"literal":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"most":1,"of":3,"one":1,"order":2,"positive":1,"programming":2,"prolog":1,"resolution":1,"restricted":1,"sld":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Secure Operations Language","s":"concepts/secure-operations-language","secs":[{"h":"Secure Operations Language","l":1,"t":"SOL — a synchronous agent specification language with formal semantics, designed for dependable distributed systems and deployed atop SINS middleware with compositional fault-tolerance and security guarantees."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"and":2,"architectural":1,"atop":1,"compositional":1,"dependable":2,"deployed":1,"designed":1,"distributed":1,"fault":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"guarantees":1,"in":1,"language":2,"middleware":1,"operations":1,"patterns":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"semantics":1,"sins":1,"software":1,"sol":2,"specification":1,"synchronous":1,"systems":2,"this":1,"tolerance":1,"vault":1,"with":2}},{"dl":40,"n":"Persistent Goal","s":"concepts/persistent-goal","secs":[{"h":"Persistent Goal","l":1,"t":"Cohen-Levesque: a goal the agent is committed to until it is achieved, becomes impossible, or its reason disappears — the key modal operator behind their intention-as-commitment definition."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achieved":1,"agent":1,"as":1,"bdi":1,"becomes":1,"behind":1,"choice":1,"cohen":1,"commitment":2,"committed":1,"definition":1,"disappears":1,"goal":2,"impossible":1,"in":1,"intention":2,"is":3,"it":1,"its":1,"key":1,"levesque":1,"modal":1,"operator":1,"or":1,"persistent":1,"reason":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"to":1,"until":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Emergent Protocols","s":"concepts/emergent-protocols","secs":[{"h":"Emergent Protocols","l":1,"t":"Communication protocols that are not pre-designed but arise through the ongoing interactions of participating agents, typically by negotiation, imitation or reinforcement. In LLM networks they can take the form of conventions crystallising across repeated conversations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agents":1,"are":1,"arise":1,"but":1,"by":1,"can":1,"communication":3,"conventions":1,"conversations":1,"crystallising":1,"designed":1,"emergent":2,"for":1,"form":1,"imitation":1,"in":2,"interactions":1,"llm":1,"llms":1,"negotiation":1,"networks":2,"not":1,"of":3,"ongoing":1,"or":1,"participating":1,"pre":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":2,"reinforcement":1,"repeated":1,"scalable":1,"take":1,"that":1,"the":2,"they":1,"this":1,"through":1,"typically":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":58,"n":"Foundational vs Auxiliary Properties","s":"concepts/foundational-vs-auxiliary-properties","secs":[{"h":"Foundational vs Auxiliary Properties","l":1,"t":"In modular metatheory, *foundational* properties (e.g. preservation, progress) are those whose statement is fixed by the core language, whereas *auxiliary* properties are extension-specific lemmas added to support them. Separating the two lets language extensions be verified once and composed safely."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"added":1,"and":1,"approach":1,"are":2,"auxiliary":2,"be":1,"by":1,"composed":1,"core":1,"e":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"extensions":1,"fixed":1,"for":1,"foundational":2,"g":1,"in":2,"is":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"lemmas":1,"lets":1,"metatheoretic":1,"metatheory":1,"modular":2,"once":1,"preservation":1,"progress":1,"properties":3,"reasoning":1,"safely":1,"separating":1,"specific":1,"statement":1,"support":1,"the":2,"them":1,"this":1,"those":1,"to":2,"two":1,"vault":1,"verified":1,"vs":1,"whereas":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"State Capture","s":"concepts/state-capture","secs":[{"h":"State Capture","l":1,"t":"The ability of a mobile-agent system to save the full execution state of an agent (stack, variables, program counter) so it can migrate and resume elsewhere. A hallmark feature of Agent Tcl's strong mobility."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"ability":1,"agent":4,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":1,"can":1,"capture":1,"counter":1,"elsewhere":1,"execution":1,"feature":1,"flexible":1,"full":1,"hallmark":1,"in":1,"it":1,"migrate":1,"mobile":2,"mobility":1,"of":3,"program":1,"resume":1,"s":1,"save":1,"secure":1,"so":1,"stack":1,"state":2,"strong":1,"system":1,"tcl":2,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"variables":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Language Workbench","s":"concepts/language-workbench","secs":[{"h":"Language Workbench","l":1,"t":"An integrated environment for developing domain-specific languages, providing coordinated support for syntax, static semantics, transformations, and IDE services. Spoofax is a prominent example."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"and":1,"coordinated":1,"developing":1,"domain":2,"environment":1,"example":1,"for":2,"ide":1,"in":1,"integrated":1,"is":1,"language":3,"languages":2,"prominent":1,"providing":1,"semantics":1,"services":1,"specific":2,"spoofax":2,"static":1,"support":1,"syntax":1,"the":1,"this":1,"transformations":1,"vault":1,"workbench":2,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Language Workbenches","s":"concepts/language-workbenches","secs":[{"h":"Language Workbenches","l":1,"t":"Tools and theory for designing and composing programming languages. - [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[The Extensible Language - Graham]] - [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]]"},{"h":"Related","l":14,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"and":2,"approach":1,"assigning":1,"communication":1,"composing":1,"creating":1,"design":1,"designing":1,"distributed":1,"edition":1,"erlang":1,"extensibility":1,"extensible":2,"for":2,"foundations":1,"graham":1,"in":2,"language":4,"languages":4,"lloyd":1,"logic":1,"meanings":1,"metatheoretic":1,"modular":1,"of":1,"programming":4,"programs":1,"racket":1,"reasoning":1,"related":1,"second":1,"security":1,"spoofax":1,"standish":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"to":2,"tools":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Theory of Agency","s":"concepts/theory-of-agency","secs":[{"h":"Theory of Agency","l":1,"t":"The philosophical and formal account of what it is to be an agent — beliefs, goals, intentions, autonomy, social standing — and the first of the five persistent issues in ACL research."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[Strong Agency]] - [[Weak Agency]]"}],"tf":{"account":1,"acl":1,"agency":3,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":2,"autonomy":1,"be":1,"beliefs":1,"communication":1,"first":1,"five":1,"formal":1,"goals":1,"in":3,"intentions":1,"is":1,"issues":1,"it":1,"language":1,"of":3,"persistent":1,"philosophical":1,"research":1,"social":1,"standing":1,"strong":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trends":1,"vault":1,"weak":1,"what":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Agent Cards","s":"concepts/agent-cards","secs":[{"h":"Agent Cards","l":1,"t":"In Google's Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol, machine-readable capability descriptors that advertise an agent's identity, skills, endpoint, authentication requirements, and supported task types. Agent Cards are the discovery primitive that enables enterprise-scale delegation between heterogeneous agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Agent-to-Agent Protocol]] - [[Agent Discovery]]"}],"tf":{"a2a":1,"advertise":1,"agent":9,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":1,"are":1,"authentication":1,"between":1,"capability":1,"cards":2,"delegation":1,"descriptors":1,"discovery":2,"enables":1,"endpoint":1,"enterprise":1,"google":1,"heterogeneous":1,"identity":1,"in":2,"interoperability":1,"machine":1,"of":1,"primitive":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"readable":1,"requirements":1,"s":2,"scale":1,"skills":1,"supported":1,"survey":1,"task":1,"that":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":2,"types":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Permissive Grammar","s":"concepts/permissive-grammar","secs":[{"h":"Permissive Grammar","l":1,"t":"A grammar that accepts many malformed inputs in order to preserve IDE usability or downstream error messages; a deliberate design choice in language workbenches like Spoofax."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"accepts":1,"choice":1,"deliberate":1,"design":1,"downstream":1,"error":1,"grammar":2,"ide":1,"in":3,"inputs":1,"language":2,"like":1,"malformed":1,"many":1,"messages":1,"or":1,"order":1,"permissive":1,"preserve":1,"spoofax":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"usability":1,"vault":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":97,"n":"Bloom Language","s":"concepts/bloom-language","secs":[{"h":"Bloom Language","l":1,"t":"Declarative, Dedalus-based language for distributed programming (Alvaro, Conway, Hellerstein, Marczak) in which state is modelled as relations and computation as monotonic rules over them. Bloom ships a **syntactic monotonicity check** — programs written in the monotonic subset are guaranteed by the **[[CALM Theorem]]** to be eventually consistent and coordination-free. Non-monotone operators (`<-`, aggregates over closed sets, deletions) are visible at the type level, giving the programmer / compiler a \"bright line\" for where coordination is required."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Dedalus]] - [[Monotonic Logic]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[Relational Transducer]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregates":1,"alvaro":1,"and":2,"are":2,"as":2,"at":1,"avoidance":1,"based":1,"be":1,"bloom":2,"bright":1,"by":1,"calm":3,"check":1,"closed":1,"compiler":1,"computation":1,"consistency":1,"consistent":1,"conway":1,"coordination":3,"declarative":1,"dedalus":2,"deletions":1,"distributed":2,"easy":1,"eventually":1,"for":2,"free":1,"giving":1,"guaranteed":1,"hellerstein":1,"in":3,"is":3,"keeping":1,"language":2,"level":1,"line":1,"logic":1,"marczak":1,"modelled":1,"monotone":1,"monotonic":3,"monotonicity":1,"non":1,"operators":1,"over":2,"programmer":1,"programming":1,"programs":1,"relational":1,"relations":1,"required":1,"rules":1,"sets":1,"ships":1,"state":1,"subset":1,"syntactic":1,"the":4,"them":1,"theorem":2,"this":1,"to":1,"transducer":1,"type":1,"vault":1,"visible":1,"when":1,"where":1,"which":1,"written":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Value of Communication","s":"concepts/value-of-communication","secs":[{"h":"Value of Communication","l":1,"t":"A game-theoretic quantification of how much expected utility agents gain by exchanging messages versus acting on private information alone; used to motivate and measure the usefulness of evolved ACL primitives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"acting":1,"agents":1,"alone":1,"and":1,"automated":1,"by":1,"communication":1,"evolution":1,"evolved":1,"exchanging":1,"expected":1,"gain":1,"game":1,"how":1,"in":1,"information":1,"measure":1,"messages":1,"motivate":1,"much":1,"of":4,"on":1,"primitives":1,"private":1,"quantification":1,"the":1,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"used":1,"usefulness":1,"utility":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"versus":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Invariance Theorem","s":"concepts/invariance-theorem","secs":[{"h":"Invariance Theorem","l":1,"t":"The result that Kolmogorov complexity is defined up to an additive constant independent of the reference universal Turing machine: for any two universal machines U and V, |K_U(x) - K_V(x)| is bounded by a constant. This makes Kolmogorov complexity a well-defined object of study."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"additive":1,"algorithmic":1,"an":1,"and":1,"any":1,"bounded":1,"by":1,"complexity":3,"constant":2,"defined":2,"for":1,"grunwald":1,"in":1,"independent":1,"information":1,"invariance":1,"is":2,"k":2,"kolmogorov":3,"machine":1,"machines":1,"makes":1,"object":1,"of":2,"reference":1,"result":1,"study":1,"that":1,"the":2,"theorem":1,"theory":1,"this":2,"to":1,"turing":1,"two":1,"u":2,"universal":2,"up":1,"v":2,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"well":1,"x":2}},{"dl":37,"n":"Frames (AI)","s":"concepts/frames-(ai)","secs":[{"h":"Frames (AI)","l":1,"t":"Minsky 1974: data structures for representing stereotyped situations (rooms, birthday parties) with default slot values overridable by observation. Trans-frames are the verb analogue."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Trans-Frames]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"1974":1,"ai":1,"analogue":1,"are":1,"birthday":1,"by":1,"data":1,"default":1,"for":1,"frames":3,"in":1,"knowledge":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"observation":1,"of":1,"overridable":1,"parties":1,"representation":1,"representing":1,"rooms":1,"situations":1,"slot":1,"society":1,"stereotyped":1,"structures":1,"the":2,"this":1,"trans":2,"values":1,"vault":1,"verb":1,"with":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Minimal Ontological Commitment","s":"concepts/minimal-ontological-commitment","secs":[{"h":"Minimal Ontological Commitment","l":1,"t":"Gruber: specify only what is needed to support the intended sharing of knowledge; leave everything else open so the ontology does not over-constrain users."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] - [[Ontological Commitment]]"}],"tf":{"commitment":2,"constrain":1,"design":1,"does":1,"else":1,"everything":1,"for":2,"gruber":1,"in":1,"intended":1,"is":1,"knowledge":2,"leave":1,"minimal":1,"needed":1,"not":1,"of":2,"only":1,"ontological":2,"ontologies":1,"ontology":1,"open":1,"over":1,"principles":1,"sharing":2,"so":1,"specify":1,"support":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"used":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Trans-Frames","s":"concepts/trans-frames","secs":[{"h":"Trans-Frames","l":1,"t":"Minsky's frame template for actions/changes: carries the origin, trajectory, destination, means, and cause of a transformation — the scaffolding of most verbs and plans."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Frames (AI)]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"ai":1,"and":2,"carries":1,"cause":1,"changes":1,"destination":1,"for":1,"frame":1,"frames":2,"in":1,"means":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"most":1,"of":3,"origin":1,"plans":1,"s":1,"scaffolding":1,"society":1,"template":1,"the":3,"this":1,"trajectory":1,"trans":1,"transformation":1,"vault":1,"verbs":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Proactive Aggregation","s":"concepts/proactive-aggregation","secs":[{"h":"Proactive Aggregation","l":1,"t":"Gossip-based aggregation style (Jelasity et al.) in which all nodes periodically exchange with random peers to continuously maintain an estimate of a global aggregate, as opposed to reactive/on-demand computation. Produces a continuously-refreshed value robust to churn."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Aggregate Functions]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":2,"aggregation":3,"al":1,"all":1,"an":1,"as":1,"based":2,"churn":1,"computation":1,"continuously":2,"demand":1,"dynamic":1,"estimate":1,"et":1,"exchange":1,"functions":1,"global":1,"gossip":3,"in":3,"jelasity":1,"large":1,"maintain":1,"networks":1,"nodes":1,"of":1,"on":1,"opposed":1,"peers":1,"periodically":1,"proactive":1,"produces":1,"protocols":1,"random":1,"reactive":1,"refreshed":1,"robust":1,"style":1,"this":1,"to":3,"value":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"MAS Meta-model","s":"concepts/mas-meta-model","secs":[{"h":"MAS Meta-model","l":1,"t":"An abstract schema capturing the essential entities of a multi-agent system — agents, roles, interactions, organisations, environment — used to formally describe and compare design patterns across frameworks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstract":1,"across":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":1,"capturing":1,"compare":1,"describe":1,"description":1,"design":2,"entities":1,"environment":1,"essential":1,"for":1,"formally":1,"frameworks":1,"in":1,"interactions":1,"mas":1,"meta":1,"model":1,"multi":2,"of":1,"organisations":1,"patterns":2,"roles":1,"schema":1,"semantic":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Inductive Assertions","s":"concepts/inductive-assertions","secs":[{"h":"Inductive Assertions","l":1,"t":"Floyd's method of annotating program flowcharts with assertions that are invariant over loops and verification conditions at each edge, reducing program correctness to finitely many logical obligations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"annotating":1,"are":1,"assertions":2,"assigning":1,"at":1,"conditions":1,"correctness":1,"each":1,"edge":1,"finitely":1,"flowcharts":1,"floyd":1,"hoare":1,"in":1,"inductive":1,"invariant":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"loops":1,"many":1,"meanings":1,"method":1,"obligations":1,"of":1,"over":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"reducing":1,"s":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"verification":1,"with":1}},{"dl":72,"n":"Expected Utility Communication","s":"concepts/expected-utility-communication","secs":[{"h":"Expected Utility Communication","l":1,"t":"A decision-theoretic framework for deciding *whether* and *what* to communicate: the utility of a message is the expected change in the hearer's mental state (and thus their action) weighed against production cost. Central to the automated evolution of ACLs where new lexical items are adopted when their expected utility exceeds implementation cost."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acls":2,"action":1,"adopted":1,"against":1,"and":2,"are":1,"automated":2,"automating":1,"central":1,"change":1,"communicate":1,"communication":1,"competence":1,"cost":2,"deciding":1,"decision":1,"evolution":3,"exceeds":1,"expected":3,"for":1,"framework":1,"hearer":1,"implementation":1,"in":2,"is":1,"items":1,"lexical":1,"linguistic":1,"mental":1,"message":1,"new":1,"of":4,"production":1,"s":1,"state":1,"the":5,"their":2,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"thus":1,"to":2,"toward":1,"towards":1,"utility":3,"vault":1,"weighed":1,"what":1,"when":1,"where":1,"whether":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Commitment Strategies","s":"concepts/commitment-strategies","secs":[{"h":"Commitment Strategies","l":1,"t":"Rao & Georgeff: rules governing when a BDI agent should give up an intention (blind commitment, single-minded, open-minded). Determines how tenaciously an agent pursues a goal."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":2,"architecture":1,"bdi":3,"blind":1,"commitment":2,"determines":1,"georgeff":1,"give":1,"goal":1,"governing":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"minded":2,"modeling":1,"open":1,"pursues":1,"rao":1,"rational":1,"rules":1,"should":1,"single":1,"strategies":1,"tenaciously":1,"this":1,"up":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"within":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Parser Differential","s":"concepts/parser-differential","secs":[{"h":"Parser Differential","l":1,"t":"Attack exploiting the fact that two parsers accept or interpret the same input differently."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"accept":1,"attack":1,"cake":1,"differential":1,"differently":1,"exploiting":1,"fact":1,"halting":1,"in":1,"input":1,"insecurity":1,"interpret":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":1,"layer":1,"network":1,"of":1,"or":1,"parser":1,"parsers":1,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"problems":1,"same":1,"sassaman":1,"stack":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":97,"n":"Immutable Data Structures","s":"concepts/immutable-data-structures","secs":[{"h":"Immutable Data Structures","l":1,"t":"Data whose values never change after construction — state updates create *new* values rather than mutating existing ones. Immutability is a monotonic discipline: the set of values in existence only grows. It is one of the practical design patterns the **[[CALM Theorem]]** motivates for coordination-free distributed systems, alongside [[Tombstones]] and [[CRDTs]]. Functional-programming heritage (persistent trees, zippers, deforestation) carries directly into the distributed setting: immutable logs, append-only storage, event-sourced architectures, deforested pipelines."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[CRDTs]] - [[Tombstones]] - [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"after":1,"alongside":1,"and":1,"append":1,"architectures":1,"avoidance":1,"calm":3,"carries":1,"change":1,"consistency":1,"construction":1,"coordination":2,"crdts":2,"create":1,"data":2,"deforestation":1,"deforested":1,"design":1,"directly":1,"discipline":1,"distributed":3,"easy":1,"edition":1,"erlang":1,"event":1,"existence":1,"existing":1,"for":1,"free":1,"functional":1,"grows":1,"heritage":1,"immutability":1,"immutable":2,"in":2,"into":1,"is":3,"it":1,"keeping":1,"logs":1,"monotonic":1,"motivates":1,"mutating":1,"never":1,"new":1,"of":2,"one":1,"ones":1,"only":2,"patterns":1,"persistent":1,"pipelines":1,"practical":1,"programming":2,"rather":1,"second":1,"set":1,"setting":1,"sourced":1,"state":1,"storage":1,"structures":1,"systems":1,"than":1,"the":4,"theorem":2,"this":1,"tombstones":2,"trees":1,"updates":1,"values":3,"vault":1,"when":1,"whose":1,"zippers":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Ontology Change","s":"concepts/ontology-change","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Change","l":1,"t":"Any modification of an ontology — addition, deletion, refinement, merging, or translation of concepts — together with techniques to preserve consistency and data compatibility across versions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontology]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"addition":1,"an":1,"and":2,"any":1,"change":2,"classification":1,"compatibility":1,"concepts":1,"consistency":1,"data":1,"deletion":1,"in":1,"merging":1,"modification":1,"of":2,"ontology":4,"or":1,"preserve":1,"refinement":1,"survey":1,"techniques":1,"this":1,"to":1,"together":1,"translation":1,"vault":1,"versions":1,"with":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Shannon Information","s":"concepts/shannon-information","secs":[{"h":"Shannon Information","l":1,"t":"Classical information theory: expected surprise (entropy) of a random source, measured in bits — contrasted in the vault with algorithmic information."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"algorithmic":2,"bits":1,"classical":1,"complexity":1,"contrasted":1,"entropy":1,"expected":1,"grunwald":1,"in":3,"information":4,"kolmogorov":1,"measured":1,"of":1,"random":1,"shannon":1,"source":1,"surprise":1,"the":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"vault":2,"vitanyi":1,"with":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Grounded Theory","s":"concepts/grounded-theory","secs":[{"h":"Grounded Theory","l":1,"t":"A qualitative research methodology in which theoretical categories emerge iteratively from systematic coding of empirical data. Used to derive failure taxonomies from observed multi-agent LLM system traces."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"categories":1,"coding":1,"data":1,"derive":1,"do":1,"emerge":1,"empirical":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"from":2,"grounded":1,"in":2,"iteratively":1,"llm":2,"mast":1,"methodology":1,"multi":2,"observed":1,"of":1,"qualitative":1,"research":1,"system":1,"systematic":1,"systems":1,"taxonomies":1,"taxonomy":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"traces":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"why":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Commitment-based Semantics","s":"concepts/commitment-based-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Commitment-based Semantics","l":1,"t":"Approach that grounds ACL message meaning in public social commitments rather than private mental states — making conformance verifiable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Public Semantics]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"acls":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"approach":1,"based":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"common":1,"communication":2,"conformance":1,"grounds":1,"in":2,"institutional":1,"languages":1,"making":1,"meaning":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"message":1,"of":1,"ontology":1,"principles":2,"private":1,"public":2,"rather":1,"reality":1,"rethinking":2,"semantics":3,"social":1,"states":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":64,"n":"BDI Agents","s":"concepts/bdi-agents","secs":[{"h":"BDI Agents","l":1,"t":"Agents whose architecture is structured around explicit Beliefs (information about the world), Desires (goals), and Intentions (committed plans). The BDI model provides a practical reasoning cycle — deliberation over desires yields intentions, means-ends reasoning selects plans — and is the basis of AgentSpeak, Jason, JACK and similar platforms."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[BDI]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"agents":3,"agentspeak":1,"and":4,"architecture":1,"around":1,"basis":1,"bdi":3,"behaviour":1,"beliefs":1,"committed":1,"cycle":1,"deliberation":1,"desires":2,"ends":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":1,"explicit":1,"goals":1,"in":2,"information":1,"intelligent":1,"intentions":2,"is":2,"jack":1,"jason":1,"logical":1,"means":1,"mental":1,"model":1,"of":1,"over":1,"plans":2,"platforms":1,"practical":1,"provides":1,"reasoning":2,"selects":1,"similar":1,"state":1,"structured":1,"the":3,"this":1,"trustworthy":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"world":1,"yields":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Coordination Recipes","s":"concepts/coordination-recipes","secs":[{"h":"Coordination Recipes","l":1,"t":"Standard distributed-coordination primitives — shared counters, queues, barriers, leader election — used as benchmarks for coordination kernels. Extensible kernels (EZK, EDS) implement each recipe as a server-side extension, yielding order-of-magnitude throughput gains over client-side composition of ZooKeeper/DepSpace operations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"as":2,"barriers":1,"benchmarks":1,"client":1,"composition":1,"coordination":4,"counters":1,"depspace":1,"distributed":2,"each":1,"eds":1,"election":1,"extensible":2,"extension":1,"ezk":1,"for":1,"gains":1,"implement":1,"in":1,"kernels":2,"leader":1,"magnitude":1,"of":2,"operations":1,"order":1,"over":1,"primitives":1,"queues":1,"recipe":1,"recipes":1,"server":1,"shared":1,"side":2,"standard":1,"this":1,"throughput":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"yielding":1,"zookeeper":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Ontolingua","s":"concepts/ontolingua","secs":[{"h":"Ontolingua","l":1,"t":"Gruber's language and server for writing portable ontologies as sets of definitions in KIF plus a thin frame-like layer. It was designed as a lingua franca allowing ontologies to be translated into the target representation of different reasoning systems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[KIF]] - [[Ontologies]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"allowing":1,"and":1,"as":2,"be":1,"definitions":1,"designed":1,"different":1,"for":1,"frame":1,"franca":1,"gruber":1,"in":2,"into":1,"it":1,"kif":2,"language":1,"layer":1,"like":1,"lingua":1,"of":2,"ontolingua":2,"ontologies":3,"ontology":1,"plus":1,"portable":2,"reasoning":1,"representation":1,"s":1,"server":1,"sets":1,"specifications":1,"systems":1,"target":1,"the":1,"thin":1,"this":1,"to":1,"translated":1,"vault":1,"was":1,"writing":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Ramification Problem","s":"concepts/ramification-problem","secs":[{"h":"Ramification Problem","l":1,"t":"The challenge of computing the *indirect* effects of an action without re-enumerating all causal chains."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Frame Problem]] - [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"all":1,"an":1,"artificial":2,"causal":1,"chains":1,"challenge":1,"computing":1,"effects":1,"enumerating":1,"frame":1,"from":1,"generality":1,"in":2,"indirect":1,"intelligence":2,"of":3,"philosophical":1,"problem":2,"problems":1,"ramification":1,"re":1,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"the":3,"this":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Multi-Head Attention","s":"concepts/multi-head-attention","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Head Attention","l":1,"t":"Running several attention operations in parallel on different learned projections, then concatenating. Lets a Transformer layer attend to multiple relational patterns simultaneously."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Self-Attention]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"all":1,"attend":1,"attention":4,"concatenating":1,"different":1,"head":1,"in":2,"is":1,"layer":1,"learned":1,"lets":1,"multi":1,"multiple":1,"need":1,"on":1,"operations":1,"parallel":1,"patterns":1,"projections":1,"relational":1,"running":1,"self":1,"several":1,"simultaneously":1,"then":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transformer":1,"vault":1,"you":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Return-Oriented Programming","s":"concepts/return-oriented-programming","secs":[{"h":"Return-Oriented Programming","l":1,"t":"Exploit technique constructing a computation from chains of existing code 'gadgets' ending in return instructions; the archetypal weird machine."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] - [[Weird Machine]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"archetypal":1,"buffer":1,"chains":1,"code":1,"computation":1,"constructing":1,"ending":1,"existing":1,"exploit":2,"from":2,"gadgets":1,"in":2,"instructions":1,"machine":2,"machines":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"overflows":1,"programming":2,"return":2,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"weird":3}},{"dl":40,"n":"Subsumption Architecture","s":"concepts/subsumption-architecture","secs":[{"h":"Subsumption Architecture","l":1,"t":"Brooks's layered reactive architecture in which behavioural modules are stacked so that higher layers subsume (override) lower ones; a canonical weak-agency alternative to symbolic deliberative architectures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Weak Agency]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agency":2,"agents":1,"alternative":1,"and":1,"architecture":2,"architectures":1,"are":1,"behavioural":1,"brooks":1,"canonical":1,"deliberative":1,"higher":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"layered":1,"layers":1,"lower":1,"modules":1,"ones":1,"override":1,"practice":1,"reactive":1,"s":1,"so":1,"stacked":1,"subsume":1,"subsumption":1,"symbolic":1,"that":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"weak":2,"which":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Commitments","s":"concepts/commitments","secs":[{"h":"Commitments","l":1,"t":"Social obligations between agents expressed as debtor-creditor relations over conditional propositions. They ground ACL semantics in publicly observable state rather than private mental attitudes, enabling verification and enforcement."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Social Agency]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"agency":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"as":1,"attitudes":1,"based":1,"between":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"conditional":1,"creditor":1,"debtor":1,"enabling":1,"enforcement":1,"expressed":1,"ground":1,"in":2,"mental":1,"obligations":1,"observable":1,"over":1,"principles":1,"private":1,"propositions":1,"publicly":1,"rather":1,"relations":1,"rethinking":1,"semantics":2,"social":2,"state":1,"than":1,"they":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Dialogue Sessions","s":"concepts/dialogue-sessions","secs":[{"h":"Dialogue Sessions","l":1,"t":"First-class conversational contexts holding state across multiple messages — needed to handle commitments and role-indexed attitudes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acls":1,"acre":1,"across":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"attitudes":1,"class":1,"commitments":1,"common":1,"contexts":1,"conversation":2,"conversational":1,"dialogue":1,"engine":1,"first":1,"handle":1,"holding":1,"in":1,"indexed":1,"messages":1,"multiple":1,"needed":1,"of":1,"ontology":1,"policy":1,"reasoning":1,"role":1,"sessions":1,"state":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Inconsequentiality","s":"concepts/inconsequentiality","secs":[{"h":"Inconsequentiality","l":1,"t":"A property of a multi-agent system whereby certain communication failures or message losses do not alter the system's equilibrium outcome. A sufficient condition for communication-failure resilience in potential games."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Potential Games]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"agent":1,"alter":1,"are":1,"certain":1,"communication":3,"condition":1,"do":1,"equilibrium":1,"failure":1,"failures":2,"for":1,"games":2,"in":2,"inconsequentiality":1,"losses":1,"message":1,"multi":1,"multiagent":1,"not":1,"of":1,"or":1,"outcome":1,"potential":2,"property":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"s":1,"sufficient":1,"system":2,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"whereby":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Agent Security","s":"concepts/agent-security","secs":[{"h":"Agent Security","l":1,"t":"Security concerns specific to LLM-agent systems: tool attacks, prompt injection, memory poisoning, inter-agent trust failures."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[Distributed Security]]"}],"tf":{"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":1,"attacks":2,"concerns":1,"distributed":1,"failures":1,"in":1,"injection":1,"inter":1,"llm":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"memory":1,"poisoning":1,"prompt":1,"security":3,"specific":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"to":1,"tool":2,"trust":1,"under":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Flooding","s":"concepts/flooding","secs":[{"h":"Flooding","l":1,"t":"A naive gossip/broadcast strategy in which each node forwards a message to all neighbours; guarantees delivery but wastes bandwidth, motivating probabilistic gossip and push-sum alternatives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":1,"all":1,"alternatives":1,"and":1,"bandwidth":1,"based":1,"broadcast":1,"but":1,"computation":1,"delivery":1,"each":1,"flooding":1,"forwards":1,"gossip":4,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"information":1,"message":1,"motivating":1,"naive":1,"neighbours":1,"node":1,"of":1,"probabilistic":1,"protocols":1,"push":1,"strategy":1,"sum":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"wastes":1,"which":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Obligation Exchange","s":"concepts/obligation-exchange","secs":[{"h":"Obligation Exchange","l":1,"t":"McCarthy: commercial transactions as reciprocal assumption of obligations by a program's owner and a counterparty. Spelling out the exchange in logic lets the spec require that obligations are exchanged as intended."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Institutional Reality]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":3,"acts":1,"and":1,"are":1,"as":2,"assumption":1,"based":2,"by":1,"commercial":1,"commitment":1,"counterparty":1,"elephant":1,"exchange":2,"exchanged":1,"in":2,"institutional":1,"intended":1,"language":1,"lets":1,"logic":1,"mccarthy":1,"obligation":1,"obligations":2,"of":1,"on":1,"out":1,"owner":1,"program":1,"programming":1,"reality":1,"reciprocal":1,"require":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"spec":1,"speech":1,"spelling":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"transactions":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Sensitivity Sharing","s":"concepts/sensitivity-sharing","secs":[{"h":"Sensitivity Sharing","l":1,"t":"The core mechanism of the Ripple Effect Protocol: agents exchange not decisions but *counterfactual sensitivities* — how much their chosen action would change in response to peers's hypothetical actions — allowing populations of LLM agents to anticipate cascades without full state sharing."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ripple Effect Protocol]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] - [[Coordination Graphs]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"actions":1,"agents":2,"allowing":1,"anticipate":1,"but":1,"cascades":1,"change":1,"chosen":1,"coordination":1,"core":1,"counterfactual":1,"decisions":1,"effect":2,"exchange":1,"full":1,"graphs":1,"how":1,"hypothetical":1,"in":2,"levels":1,"llm":1,"mechanism":1,"much":1,"not":1,"of":3,"orchestration":1,"peers":1,"populations":1,"protocol":2,"response":1,"ripple":2,"s":1,"sensitivities":1,"sensitivity":1,"sharing":2,"social":1,"state":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"without":1,"would":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Knowledge Transfer Learning","s":"concepts/knowledge-transfer-learning","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Transfer Learning","l":1,"t":"Techniques that reuse knowledge learned in a source task or domain to accelerate or improve learning in a related target task. In edge intelligence it enables small edge models to benefit from large cloud-trained ones despite data and compute asymmetries."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Edge Intelligence]] - [[Federated Learning]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"accelerate":1,"and":1,"asymmetries":1,"benefit":1,"cloud":1,"compute":1,"data":1,"despite":1,"domain":1,"edge":4,"enables":1,"federated":1,"from":1,"improve":1,"in":4,"intelligence":3,"it":1,"knowledge":2,"large":1,"learned":1,"learning":3,"models":1,"ones":1,"or":2,"related":1,"reuse":1,"small":1,"source":1,"survey":1,"target":1,"task":2,"techniques":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":2,"trained":1,"transfer":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"SKTP","s":"concepts/sktp","secs":[{"h":"SKTP","l":1,"t":"The Simple KQML Transport Protocol: a minimal TCP-based framing specification used to carry KQML performatives between agents, abstracting away the content and message layers. It is one of several transport bindings used in KQML deployments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[KQML]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstracting":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"away":1,"based":1,"between":1,"bindings":1,"carry":1,"content":1,"deployments":1,"framing":1,"in":2,"is":1,"it":1,"kqml":5,"layers":1,"message":1,"minimal":1,"of":1,"one":1,"overview":1,"performatives":1,"protocol":1,"several":1,"simple":1,"sktp":1,"specification":1,"tcp":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"transport":2,"used":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Gumbel-Softmax","s":"concepts/gumbel-softmax","secs":[{"h":"Gumbel-Softmax","l":1,"t":"A continuous, differentiable relaxation of categorical sampling (Jang et al., Maddison et al.) using Gumbel noise and a temperature-annealed softmax. Enables end-to-end gradient training through discrete-symbol communication channels in emergent-language experiments."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Emergence of Grounded Compositional Language in Multi-Agent Populations]] - [[Differentiable Protocols]] - [[Emergent Communication]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"al":2,"and":1,"annealed":1,"categorical":1,"channels":1,"communication":2,"compositional":1,"continuous":1,"differentiable":2,"discrete":1,"emergence":1,"emergent":2,"enables":1,"end":2,"et":2,"experiments":1,"gradient":1,"grounded":1,"gumbel":2,"in":3,"jang":1,"language":2,"maddison":1,"multi":1,"noise":1,"of":2,"populations":1,"protocols":1,"relaxation":1,"sampling":1,"softmax":2,"symbol":1,"temperature":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":1,"training":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":35,"n":"Minimum Description Length","s":"concepts/minimum-description-length","secs":[{"h":"Minimum Description Length (MDL)","l":1,"t":"Model-selection principle: prefer the model whose code plus data-under-model is shortest. Operational realisation of Kolmogorov Complexity for statistics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"algorithmic":1,"code":1,"complexity":2,"data":1,"description":1,"for":1,"grunwald":1,"in":1,"information":1,"is":1,"kolmogorov":2,"length":1,"mdl":1,"minimum":1,"model":3,"of":1,"operational":1,"plus":1,"prefer":1,"principle":1,"realisation":1,"selection":1,"shortest":1,"statistics":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"vitanyi":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Trust Fusion","s":"concepts/trust-fusion","secs":[{"h":"Trust Fusion","l":1,"t":"The combination of multiple, possibly conflicting trust signals — direct experience, witness reports, role-based trust, certification — into a single trust estimate. The Composite Self-organisation paper fuses them via Dezert-Smarandache theory to handle paradoxical evidence."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Composite Self-organisation Mechanism in an Agent Network]] - [[Dezert-Smarandache Theory]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"an":1,"and":1,"based":1,"certification":1,"combination":1,"composite":2,"conflicting":1,"dezert":2,"direct":1,"estimate":1,"evidence":1,"experience":1,"fuses":1,"fusion":1,"handle":1,"in":2,"into":1,"mechanism":1,"multiple":1,"network":1,"of":1,"organisation":2,"paper":1,"paradoxical":1,"possibly":1,"reports":1,"reputation":1,"role":1,"self":2,"signals":1,"single":1,"smarandache":2,"the":2,"them":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":5,"vault":1,"via":1,"witness":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Verified Synthesis","s":"concepts/verified-synthesis","secs":[{"h":"Verified Synthesis","l":1,"t":"Far end of the intent-formalization spectrum: correct-by-construction code generated by a verified compilation from a complete DSL specification."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Domain-Specific Languages]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"by":2,"challenge":1,"code":1,"coding":1,"compilation":1,"complete":1,"construction":1,"correct":1,"domain":1,"dsl":1,"end":1,"far":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"formalization":2,"from":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"in":1,"intent":2,"languages":1,"of":1,"reliable":1,"specific":1,"specification":1,"spectrum":1,"synthesis":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"verified":2}},{"dl":40,"n":"Knowing What vs Knowing That","s":"concepts/knowing-what-vs-knowing-that","secs":[{"h":"Knowing What vs Knowing That","l":1,"t":"Knowledge of a referent (knowing what X is) versus knowledge of a proposition (knowing that p); logically distinguished via individual-concept machinery."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Epistemic Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"concept":1,"concepts":1,"distinguished":1,"epistemic":1,"first":1,"in":1,"individual":2,"is":1,"knowing":4,"knowledge":2,"logic":1,"logically":1,"machinery":1,"of":3,"order":1,"p":1,"proposition":1,"propositions":1,"referent":1,"that":2,"theories":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"versus":1,"via":1,"vs":1,"what":2,"x":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Counts-as Rules","s":"concepts/counts-as-rules","secs":[{"h":"Counts-as Rules","l":1,"t":"Constitutive rules of the form \"X counts as Y in context C\" (Searle), used in artificial-institution frameworks to define when a brute act (sending a message) institutionally counts as a declaration that creates, updates or cancels a commitment. The mechanism by which message exchanges produce institutional facts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Institutional Reality]] - [[Declarations]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"act":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"artificial":1,"as":3,"based":1,"brute":1,"by":1,"c":1,"cancels":1,"commitment":2,"communication":1,"constitutive":1,"context":1,"counts":3,"creates":1,"declaration":1,"declarations":1,"define":1,"exchanges":1,"facts":1,"form":1,"frameworks":1,"in":3,"institution":1,"institutional":3,"institutionally":1,"mechanism":1,"message":2,"of":1,"or":1,"produce":1,"reality":2,"rules":2,"searle":1,"semantics":1,"sending":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"updates":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"which":1,"x":1,"y":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Meta-Programming","s":"concepts/meta-programming","secs":[{"h":"Meta-Programming","l":1,"t":"Programming technique in which programs manipulate, transform, or generate other programs as data. Central to language workbenches, which rely on rewriting and code-generation layers such as Stratego."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[Code as Data]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"as":4,"central":1,"code":2,"data":2,"extension":1,"generate":1,"generation":1,"in":2,"language":3,"layers":1,"macros":1,"manipulate":1,"meta":1,"on":1,"or":1,"other":1,"programming":2,"programs":2,"rely":1,"rewriting":1,"spoofax":1,"stratego":1,"such":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transform":1,"vault":1,"which":2,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Encoding Bias","s":"concepts/encoding-bias","secs":[{"h":"Encoding Bias","l":1,"t":"Gruber: an ontology's commitments should not leak from the representation language used to express it. Minimise dependence on a particular notation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"bias":1,"commitments":1,"dependence":1,"design":1,"encoding":1,"express":1,"for":2,"from":1,"gruber":1,"in":1,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"language":1,"leak":1,"minimise":1,"not":1,"notation":1,"of":1,"on":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":1,"particular":1,"principles":1,"representation":1,"s":1,"sharing":1,"should":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"used":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Situated Automata","s":"concepts/situated-automata","secs":[{"h":"Situated Automata","l":1,"t":"Rosenschein-Kaelbling programme: compile knowledge-level specifications into finite-state automata whose correlation with the world is provable — no runtime symbolic reasoning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]]"}],"tf":{"automata":2,"compile":1,"correlation":1,"digital":1,"epistemic":1,"finite":1,"in":1,"into":1,"is":1,"kaelbling":1,"knowledge":1,"level":1,"machines":1,"no":1,"of":1,"programme":1,"properties":1,"provable":2,"reasoning":1,"rosenschein":1,"runtime":1,"situated":1,"specifications":1,"state":1,"symbolic":1,"synthesis":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"with":2,"world":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Trace Expressions","s":"concepts/trace-expressions","secs":[{"h":"Trace Expressions","l":1,"t":"A compact formalism, built on coinductive regular-like operators, for specifying infinite sets of interaction traces. They are used as runtime-verification monitors to enforce ethical and protocol constraints on logical agents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Runtime Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agents":2,"and":2,"are":1,"as":1,"behaviour":1,"built":1,"coinductive":1,"compact":1,"constraints":1,"enforce":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":2,"expressions":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"in":2,"infinite":1,"intelligent":1,"interaction":1,"like":1,"logical":2,"monitors":1,"of":1,"on":2,"operators":1,"protocol":1,"regular":1,"runtime":2,"sets":1,"specifying":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trace":1,"traces":1,"trustworthy":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"verification":2}},{"dl":60,"n":"Transformational Grammar","s":"concepts/transformational-grammar","secs":[{"h":"Transformational Grammar","l":1,"t":"Chomsky's proposal in *Three Models* that natural-language syntax is best described by a small kernel of simple sentence patterns plus a set of *transformations* (passive, question, negation) that derive surface sentences — yielding grammars more compact and explanatory than unaugmented phrase-structure rules."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Generative Grammar]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"best":1,"by":1,"chomsky":2,"compact":1,"derive":1,"described":1,"description":1,"explanatory":1,"for":1,"generative":1,"grammar":2,"grammars":1,"hierarchy":1,"in":2,"is":1,"kernel":1,"language":2,"models":2,"more":1,"natural":1,"negation":1,"of":3,"passive":1,"patterns":1,"phrase":1,"plus":1,"proposal":1,"question":1,"rules":1,"s":1,"sentence":1,"sentences":1,"set":1,"simple":1,"small":1,"structure":1,"surface":1,"syntax":1,"than":1,"that":2,"the":1,"this":1,"three":2,"transformational":1,"transformations":1,"unaugmented":1,"vault":1,"yielding":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Concurrent METATEM","s":"concepts/concurrent-metatem","secs":[{"h":"Concurrent METATEM","l":1,"t":"A multi-agent programming language due to Fisher in which each agent is a set of temporal logic rules of the form \"past implies future\", executed by an imperative-future interpreter; agents communicate via asynchronous broadcast. Illustrates an executable-temporal-logic approach to agent architecture."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] - [[Strong Agency]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agency":1,"agent":3,"agents":2,"an":2,"and":1,"approach":1,"architecture":1,"asynchronous":1,"broadcast":1,"by":1,"communicate":1,"concurrent":1,"due":1,"each":1,"executable":1,"executed":1,"fisher":1,"form":1,"future":2,"illustrates":1,"imperative":1,"implies":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"interpreter":1,"is":1,"language":1,"logic":2,"metatem":1,"multi":1,"of":2,"past":1,"practice":1,"programming":1,"rules":1,"set":1,"strong":1,"temporal":2,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"via":1,"which":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Inter-Agent Misalignment","s":"concepts/inter-agent-misalignment","secs":[{"h":"Inter-Agent Misalignment","l":1,"t":"A failure mode in multi-agent LLM systems where agents hold inconsistent goals, assumptions, or state representations, producing contradictory actions or deadlock. A major category in the MAST taxonomy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail]] - [[MAST Taxonomy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"actions":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"assumptions":1,"category":1,"contradictory":1,"deadlock":1,"do":1,"fail":1,"failure":1,"goals":1,"hold":1,"in":3,"inconsistent":1,"inter":1,"llm":2,"major":1,"mast":2,"misalignment":1,"mode":1,"multi":2,"or":2,"producing":1,"representations":1,"state":1,"systems":2,"taxonomy":2,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"where":1,"why":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Configuration Integrity","s":"concepts/configuration-integrity","secs":[{"h":"Configuration Integrity","l":1,"t":"Ensuring that an agent's configuration files (persona, tools, policies) have not been silently mutated by adversaries or the agent itself; essential for auditability."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Agents of Chaos]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"adversaries":1,"agent":3,"agents":1,"an":1,"attacks":1,"auditability":1,"been":1,"by":1,"chaos":1,"clawworm":1,"configuration":2,"ecosystems":1,"ensuring":1,"essential":1,"files":1,"for":1,"have":1,"in":1,"integrity":1,"itself":1,"llm":1,"mutated":1,"not":1,"of":1,"or":1,"persona":1,"policies":1,"propagating":1,"s":1,"self":1,"silently":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tools":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Proof Obligations","s":"concepts/proof-obligations","secs":[{"h":"Proof Obligations","l":1,"t":"Formally stated conditions that must be discharged (by proof or model checking) to establish a system's correctness; in blockchain-interoperability patterns they pin down exactly what each pattern guarantees."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"be":1,"blockchain":2,"by":1,"checking":1,"conditions":1,"correctness":1,"discharged":1,"down":1,"each":1,"establish":1,"exactly":1,"formal":1,"formalise":1,"formally":1,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"interoperability":2,"model":1,"must":1,"obligations":1,"or":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":2,"pin":1,"proof":2,"s":1,"stated":1,"system":1,"that":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"what":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Adjectival Modifiers","s":"concepts/adjectival-modifiers","secs":[{"h":"Adjectival Modifiers","l":1,"t":"Syntactic constructs that qualify or restrict the meaning of a noun phrase or message term. In business communication languages they attach qualifiers (e.g., urgency, confidentiality) to primitive message content."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Common Business Communication Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adjectival":1,"attach":1,"business":2,"common":1,"communication":2,"confidentiality":1,"constructs":1,"content":1,"e":1,"g":1,"in":2,"language":1,"languages":1,"meaning":1,"message":2,"modifiers":1,"noun":1,"of":1,"or":2,"phrase":1,"primitive":1,"qualifiers":1,"qualify":1,"restrict":1,"syntactic":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"urgency":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Coordination Graphs","s":"concepts/coordination-graphs","secs":[{"h":"Coordination Graphs","l":1,"t":"Structural abstraction of which agents must coordinate on which decisions — factors joint policy into local components."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Why AI Agents Communicate In Human Language]] - [[Ripple Effect Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"abstraction":1,"agents":2,"ai":1,"communicate":1,"components":1,"coordinate":1,"coordination":1,"decisions":1,"effect":1,"factors":1,"graphs":1,"human":1,"in":2,"into":1,"joint":1,"language":1,"local":1,"must":1,"of":1,"on":1,"policy":1,"protocol":1,"ripple":1,"structural":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"which":2,"why":1}},{"dl":62,"n":"First-Order Logic","s":"concepts/first-order-logic","secs":[{"h":"First-Order Logic","l":1,"t":"The classical logic of quantifiers over individuals, predicates and functions, with sound and complete proof systems. It provides the baseline expressiveness against which logic-programming, description and modal logics are measured."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]] - [[Horn Clauses]] - [[Description Logics]] - [[An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory]] — Church 1936, undecidability of first-order logic (the Entscheidungsproblem)."}],"tf":{"1936":1,"against":1,"an":1,"and":3,"are":1,"baseline":1,"church":1,"classical":1,"clauses":1,"complete":1,"description":2,"elementary":1,"entscheidungsproblem":1,"expressiveness":1,"first":2,"foundations":1,"functions":1,"horn":1,"in":1,"individuals":1,"it":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":5,"logics":2,"measured":1,"modal":1,"number":1,"of":4,"order":2,"over":1,"predicates":1,"problem":1,"programming":2,"proof":1,"provides":1,"quantifiers":1,"sound":1,"systems":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"undecidability":1,"unsolvable":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":65,"n":"Finite-State Transducer","s":"concepts/finite-state-transducer","secs":[{"h":"Finite-State Transducer","l":1,"t":"A finite automaton that, while reading an input string, emits an output string — effectively a rational relation between two languages. In automated ACL evolution, each agent's translator between its private knowledge-representation language and the shared ACL is modelled as an FST whose states/transitions can be extended via negotiation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Knowledge Representation Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":2,"acls":1,"agent":1,"an":3,"and":1,"as":1,"automated":2,"automaton":1,"be":1,"between":2,"can":1,"each":1,"effectively":1,"emits":1,"evolution":2,"extended":1,"finite":2,"fst":1,"in":2,"input":1,"is":1,"its":1,"knowledge":2,"language":2,"languages":1,"modelled":1,"negotiation":1,"of":1,"output":1,"private":1,"rational":1,"reading":1,"relation":1,"representation":2,"s":1,"shared":1,"state":1,"states":1,"string":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"transducer":1,"transitions":1,"translator":1,"two":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"while":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Design Autonomy","s":"concepts/design-autonomy","secs":[{"h":"Design Autonomy","l":1,"t":"The freedom of an agent's designer to choose internal architectures, representations, and reasoning mechanisms without being constrained by the ACL. A principle motivating externalist, commitment-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages - Rethinking the Principles]] - [[Execution Autonomy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":2,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":1,"architectures":1,"autonomy":2,"based":1,"being":1,"by":1,"choose":1,"commitment":1,"communication":1,"constrained":1,"design":1,"designer":1,"execution":1,"externalist":1,"freedom":1,"in":1,"internal":1,"languages":1,"mechanisms":1,"motivating":1,"of":1,"principle":1,"principles":1,"reasoning":1,"representations":1,"rethinking":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Complication Threshold","s":"concepts/complication-threshold","secs":[{"h":"Complication Threshold","l":1,"t":"Von Neumann's conjecture that there is a minimum level of structural complication below which automata can only degrade but above which qualitatively new behaviours — self-reproduction and open-ended evolution — become possible."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"above":1,"and":1,"automata":2,"become":1,"behaviours":1,"below":1,"but":1,"can":1,"complication":2,"conjecture":1,"degrade":1,"ended":1,"evolution":1,"in":1,"is":1,"level":1,"minimum":1,"neumann":1,"new":1,"of":2,"only":1,"open":1,"possible":1,"qualitatively":1,"reproducing":1,"reproduction":1,"s":1,"self":2,"structural":1,"that":1,"theory":1,"there":1,"this":1,"threshold":1,"vault":1,"von":1,"which":2}},{"dl":41,"n":"Organizational Metaphors","s":"concepts/organizational-metaphors","secs":[{"h":"Organizational Metaphors","l":1,"t":"Sycara's framing of MAS architectures by analogy to human organisations — markets, hierarchies, teams, coalitions — each bringing characteristic coordination mechanisms, incentive structures and failure modes to bear on distributed problem solving."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Roles]] - [[Coordination]]"}],"tf":{"analogy":1,"and":1,"architectures":1,"bear":1,"bringing":1,"by":1,"characteristic":1,"coalitions":1,"coordination":2,"distributed":1,"each":1,"failure":1,"framing":1,"hierarchies":1,"human":1,"in":1,"incentive":1,"markets":1,"mas":1,"mechanisms":1,"metaphors":1,"modes":1,"multiagent":1,"of":1,"on":1,"organisations":1,"organizational":1,"problem":1,"roles":1,"s":1,"solving":1,"structures":1,"sycara":2,"systems":1,"teams":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"System Homomorphism","s":"concepts/system-homomorphism","secs":[{"h":"System Homomorphism","l":1,"t":"A structure-preserving map between two systems; in Conway's argument, the homomorphism from the designing organisation's communication graph onto the designed system's module-interface graph."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[How Do Committees Invent]] - [[Conway's Law]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"argument":1,"between":1,"committees":1,"communication":1,"conway":2,"designed":1,"designing":1,"do":1,"from":1,"graph":2,"homomorphism":2,"how":1,"in":2,"interface":1,"invent":1,"law":1,"map":1,"module":1,"onto":1,"organisation":1,"preserving":1,"s":4,"structure":1,"system":2,"systems":1,"the":3,"this":1,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Ontology","s":"concepts/ontology","secs":[{"h":"Ontology","l":1,"t":"Gruber: an explicit specification of a conceptualization — the shared vocabulary agents use to talk about a domain."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Ontologies]] - [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Conceptualization]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"conceptualization":2,"domain":1,"explicit":1,"gruber":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"of":1,"on":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":2,"portable":1,"shared":1,"specification":1,"specifications":1,"talk":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Racket Macros","s":"concepts/racket-macros","secs":[{"h":"Racket Macros","l":1,"t":"Racket's hygienic, phase-aware syntactic-extension mechanism that enables users to add new binding forms and compile-time transformations indistinguishable from primitives. The foundation of Racket's module-language infrastructure and language-oriented programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]] - [[Syntactic Abstraction]]"}],"tf":{"abstraction":1,"add":1,"and":2,"as":1,"aware":1,"binding":1,"compile":1,"creating":1,"enables":1,"extension":2,"forms":1,"foundation":1,"from":1,"hygienic":1,"in":2,"indistinguishable":1,"infrastructure":1,"language":3,"languages":1,"macros":2,"mechanism":1,"module":1,"new":1,"of":1,"oriented":1,"phase":1,"primitives":1,"programming":1,"racket":4,"s":2,"syntactic":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"transformations":1,"users":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Program Verification","s":"concepts/program-verification","secs":[{"h":"Program Verification","l":1,"t":"Proving that programs meet their specifications — foundational to computer science, with direct ancestors in Floyd 1967 and McCarthy-Painter 1967."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Correctness of a Compiler for Arithmetic Expressions]] - [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"1967":2,"a":2,"ancestors":1,"and":1,"arithmetic":1,"assigning":1,"compiler":1,"computation":1,"computer":1,"correctness":1,"direct":1,"expressions":1,"floyd":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"foundational":1,"hoare":1,"in":2,"logic":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"meanings":1,"meet":1,"of":2,"painter":1,"program":1,"programs":2,"proving":1,"science":2,"specifications":1,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"towards":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"with":1}},{"dl":82,"n":"Consistency and Completeness","s":"concepts/consistency-and-completeness","secs":[{"h":"Consistency and Completeness","l":1,"t":"Two classical axiomatic-method properties of a deductive system: consistency (no contradictions provable) and completeness (every semantically valid statement is provable); Floyd's program-proof method depends on analogous properties for the inductive-assertion method."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Assigning Meanings to Programs]] - [[Hoare Logic]] - [[Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I]] — Gödel 1931, the incompleteness theorems. - [[Extensions of Some Theorems of Gödel and Church]] — Rosser 1936, strengthens Gödel's result to assume only simple consistency."}],"tf":{"1931":1,"1936":1,"a":1,"analogous":1,"and":3,"assertion":1,"assigning":1,"assume":1,"axiomatic":1,"church":1,"classical":1,"completeness":2,"consistency":3,"contradictions":1,"deductive":1,"depends":1,"der":1,"every":1,"extensions":1,"floyd":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"gödel":3,"hoare":1,"i":1,"in":1,"incompleteness":1,"inductive":1,"is":1,"logic":1,"mathematica":1,"meanings":1,"method":3,"no":1,"of":3,"on":1,"only":1,"principia":1,"program":1,"programs":1,"proof":1,"properties":2,"provable":2,"result":1,"rosser":1,"s":2,"semantically":1,"simple":1,"some":1,"statement":1,"strengthens":1,"system":1,"systeme":1,"sätze":1,"the":2,"theorems":2,"this":1,"to":2,"two":1,"und":1,"unentscheidbare":1,"valid":1,"vault":1,"verwandter":1,"über":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Knowledge Representation","s":"concepts/knowledge-representation","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Representation","l":1,"t":"The discipline of encoding knowledge about a domain in a machine-usable form (logic, frames, semantic nets, ontologies) so agents can reason over it."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[KIF]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"agents":1,"ascribing":1,"can":1,"discipline":1,"domain":1,"encoding":1,"form":1,"frames":1,"in":2,"it":1,"kif":1,"knowledge":2,"logic":1,"machine":1,"machines":1,"mental":1,"nets":1,"of":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":1,"over":1,"portable":1,"qualities":1,"reason":1,"representation":1,"semantic":1,"so":1,"specifications":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"usable":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Epistemic Logic","s":"concepts/epistemic-logic","secs":[{"h":"Epistemic Logic","l":1,"t":"Modal logic of knowledge and belief; foundational to formal agent theory (knowledge-level specifications, BDI logics, multi-agent epistemics)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] - [[Intention Is Choice with Commitment]] - [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"and":1,"ascribing":1,"bdi":1,"belief":1,"choice":1,"commitment":1,"digital":1,"epistemic":2,"epistemics":1,"formal":1,"foundational":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"is":1,"knowledge":2,"level":1,"logic":2,"logics":1,"machines":2,"mental":1,"modal":1,"multi":1,"of":2,"properties":1,"provable":1,"qualities":1,"specifications":1,"synthesis":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"with":2}},{"dl":53,"n":"Program Semantics","s":"concepts/program-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Program Semantics","l":1,"t":"The mathematical definition of what a program means — operational (how it runs), denotational (what value it computes), or axiomatic (what properties it guarantees). Verifiable ACL semantics require programs whose meaning is pinned down precisely enough for conformance to be checked."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Operational Semantics]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"axiomatic":1,"be":1,"checked":1,"computes":1,"conformance":1,"definition":1,"denotational":1,"down":1,"enough":1,"for":2,"guarantees":1,"hoare":1,"how":1,"in":1,"is":1,"it":3,"logic":1,"mathematical":1,"meaning":1,"means":1,"of":1,"operational":2,"or":1,"pinned":1,"precisely":1,"program":2,"programs":1,"properties":1,"require":1,"runs":1,"semantics":4,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":2,"what":3,"whose":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"OCapN","s":"concepts/ocapn","secs":[{"h":"OCapN — Object Capability Network","l":1,"t":"Spritely's cross-implementation protocol for secure distributed object communication. Successor to CapTP, designed for language heterogeneity and modern cryptography."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[CapTP]] - [[Object Capability Security]] - [[E Language]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"capability":3,"captp":2,"communication":1,"cross":1,"cryptography":1,"designed":1,"distributed":2,"e":1,"for":2,"heart":1,"heterogeneity":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"language":2,"modern":1,"network":1,"object":3,"objects":1,"ocapn":1,"of":1,"protocol":1,"s":1,"secure":1,"security":2,"spritely":2,"successor":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Exploit Programming","s":"concepts/exploit-programming","secs":[{"h":"Exploit Programming","l":1,"t":"Programming paradigm in which the 'program' is a crafted input that drives a target's weird machine — pioneered by Bratus et al. as the lens for understanding modern exploits."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Exploit Programming - From Buffer Overflows To Weird Machines]] - [[Weird Machine]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"al":1,"as":1,"bratus":1,"buffer":1,"by":1,"crafted":1,"drives":1,"et":1,"exploit":2,"exploits":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":2,"input":1,"is":1,"langsec":1,"lens":1,"machine":2,"machines":1,"modern":1,"overflows":1,"paradigm":1,"pioneered":1,"program":1,"programming":3,"s":1,"target":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"understanding":1,"vault":1,"weird":3,"which":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Explainable AI","s":"concepts/explainable-ai","secs":[{"h":"Explainable AI","l":1,"t":"AI systems designed so that their outputs and decision processes can be inspected and understood by humans; a growing requirement for multi-agent LLM systems where opaque reasoning chains block debugging and trust."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"ai":3,"and":3,"be":1,"block":1,"by":1,"can":1,"chains":1,"collaboration":1,"debugging":1,"decision":1,"designed":1,"explainable":1,"for":1,"growing":1,"humans":1,"in":2,"inspected":1,"llm":1,"multi":2,"opaque":1,"outputs":1,"processes":1,"reasoning":1,"requirement":1,"so":1,"systems":2,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"trust":1,"tunkel":1,"understood":1,"vault":1,"wasif":1,"where":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Capability Revocation","s":"concepts/capability-revocation","secs":[{"h":"Capability Revocation","l":1,"t":"Design pattern for withdrawing an issued capability: typically interpose a revocable forwarder object whose reference you hand out, and whose binding you can later sever."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[Object Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"an":1,"and":2,"binding":1,"can":1,"capability":4,"design":1,"distributed":1,"for":1,"forwarder":1,"hand":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"interpose":1,"issued":1,"later":1,"object":2,"objects":1,"of":1,"out":1,"pattern":1,"reference":1,"revocable":1,"revocation":1,"security":2,"sever":1,"spritely":1,"the":1,"this":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"whose":2,"withdrawing":1,"you":2}},{"dl":46,"n":"JSON-RPC","s":"concepts/json-rpc","secs":[{"h":"JSON-RPC","l":1,"t":"A lightweight remote-procedure-call protocol that encodes method names, parameters, and results as JSON objects over a transport such as HTTP or WebSockets. Widely adopted in agent interoperability stacks for its simplicity."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]] - [[Model Context Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adopted":1,"agent":2,"and":1,"as":2,"call":1,"context":1,"encodes":1,"for":1,"http":1,"in":2,"interoperability":2,"its":1,"json":2,"lightweight":1,"method":1,"model":1,"names":1,"objects":1,"of":1,"or":1,"over":1,"parameters":1,"procedure":1,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"remote":1,"results":1,"rpc":1,"simplicity":1,"stacks":1,"such":1,"survey":1,"that":1,"this":1,"transport":1,"vault":1,"websockets":1,"widely":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Join Calculus","s":"concepts/join-calculus","secs":[{"h":"Join Calculus","l":1,"t":"Process calculus (Fournet-Gonthier) based on join patterns — asynchronous receive on multiple channels at once; basis for ML-style distributed languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]]"}],"tf":{"asynchronous":1,"at":1,"based":1,"basis":1,"calculus":2,"channels":1,"communications":1,"distributed":2,"for":2,"fournet":1,"gonthier":1,"in":1,"join":2,"languages":2,"ml":1,"multiple":1,"on":2,"once":1,"patterns":1,"process":1,"processing":1,"receive":1,"secure":1,"style":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Gossip Training","s":"concepts/gossip-training","secs":[{"h":"Gossip Training","l":1,"t":"A decentralised machine-learning paradigm in which nodes exchange model parameters or gradients with random peers, converging on a shared model without a central server. Applied at the edge to reduce bandwidth and preserve privacy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Edge Intelligence Survey]] - [[Gossip Protocols]] - [[Federated Learning]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"and":1,"applied":1,"at":1,"bandwidth":1,"central":1,"converging":1,"decentralised":1,"edge":2,"exchange":1,"federated":1,"gossip":2,"gradients":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"learning":2,"machine":1,"model":2,"nodes":1,"on":1,"or":1,"paradigm":1,"parameters":1,"peers":1,"preserve":1,"privacy":1,"protocols":1,"random":1,"reduce":1,"server":1,"shared":1,"survey":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"training":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1,"without":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Lexicon Negotiation","s":"concepts/lexicon-negotiation","secs":[{"h":"Lexicon Negotiation","l":1,"t":"A process by which agents in a population iteratively adjust their word-meaning mappings through interaction, converging on a shared vocabulary. A central mechanism in evolutionary and emergent-language models."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Language Games]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"adjust":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"automating":1,"by":1,"central":1,"competence":1,"converging":1,"emergent":1,"evolution":1,"evolutionary":1,"games":1,"in":3,"interaction":1,"iteratively":1,"language":2,"lexicon":1,"linguistic":1,"mappings":1,"meaning":1,"mechanism":1,"models":1,"negotiation":1,"of":1,"on":1,"population":1,"process":1,"shared":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"through":1,"towards":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"which":1,"word":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Rubinstein Bargaining","s":"concepts/rubinstein-bargaining","secs":[{"h":"Rubinstein Bargaining","l":1,"t":"A classical alternating-offers bargaining game with time discounting whose unique subgame-perfect equilibrium gives a closed-form share split; used as the game-theoretic substrate for automated ACL/convention evolution."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":1,"acls":1,"alternating":1,"as":1,"automated":2,"automating":1,"bargaining":2,"classical":1,"closed":1,"competence":1,"convention":1,"discounting":1,"equilibrium":1,"evolution":3,"for":1,"form":1,"game":2,"gives":1,"in":1,"linguistic":1,"of":2,"offers":1,"perfect":1,"rubinstein":1,"share":1,"split":1,"subgame":1,"substrate":1,"the":2,"theoretic":1,"this":1,"time":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"unique":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"whose":1,"with":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Retrieval-based Dialogue","s":"concepts/retrieval-based-dialogue","secs":[{"h":"Retrieval-based Dialogue","l":1,"t":"A dialogue approach in which the system selects responses from a large repository of human-written utterances using relevance ranking, rather than generating them token by token. Used in XiaoIce's core chat alongside generative components."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[From Eliza to XiaoIce - Social Chatbots]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"alongside":1,"approach":1,"based":1,"by":1,"chat":1,"chatbots":1,"components":1,"core":1,"dialogue":2,"eliza":1,"from":2,"generating":1,"generative":1,"human":1,"in":3,"large":1,"of":1,"ranking":1,"rather":1,"relevance":1,"repository":1,"responses":1,"retrieval":1,"s":1,"selects":1,"social":1,"system":1,"than":1,"the":1,"them":1,"this":1,"to":1,"token":2,"used":1,"using":1,"utterances":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"written":1,"xiaoice":2}},{"dl":47,"n":"Developmental Bioelectricity","s":"concepts/developmental-bioelectricity","secs":[{"h":"Developmental Bioelectricity","l":1,"t":"The use of endogenous voltage gradients and ionic signalling by cells and tissues to coordinate morphogenesis, regeneration, and pattern formation. Levin treats it as a substrate for primitive cognition and goal-directed behaviour at non-neural scales."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Computational Boundary of a Self]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":4,"as":1,"at":1,"behaviour":1,"bioelectricity":1,"boundary":1,"by":1,"cells":1,"cognition":1,"computational":1,"coordinate":1,"developmental":1,"directed":1,"endogenous":1,"for":1,"formation":1,"goal":1,"gradients":1,"in":1,"ionic":1,"it":1,"levin":1,"morphogenesis":1,"neural":1,"non":1,"of":2,"pattern":1,"primitive":1,"regeneration":1,"scales":1,"self":1,"signalling":1,"substrate":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tissues":1,"to":1,"treats":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"voltage":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Actor Model","s":"concepts/actor-model","secs":[{"h":"Actor Model","l":1,"t":"Hewitt's concurrency model: isolated actors communicating by asynchronous messages, spawning new actors, and changing local behaviour."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Programming Erlang Second Edition]] - [[A Language-Based Approach To Prevent DDoS]] - [[Supervision Tree]] - [[Let It Crash]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actor":1,"actors":2,"and":1,"approach":1,"asynchronous":1,"based":1,"behaviour":1,"by":1,"changing":1,"communicating":1,"concurrency":1,"crash":1,"ddos":1,"edition":1,"erlang":1,"hewitt":1,"in":1,"isolated":1,"it":1,"language":1,"let":1,"local":1,"messages":1,"model":2,"new":1,"prevent":1,"programming":1,"s":1,"second":1,"spawning":1,"supervision":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tree":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Papert's Principle","s":"concepts/papert's-principle","secs":[{"h":"Papert's Principle","l":1,"t":"Minsky (named after Seymour Papert): much mental growth comes not from new skills but from new managerial agents that coordinate existing skills."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]]"}],"tf":{"after":1,"agents":1,"but":1,"comes":1,"coordinate":1,"existing":1,"from":2,"growth":1,"in":1,"managerial":1,"mental":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"much":1,"named":1,"new":2,"not":1,"of":1,"papert":2,"principle":1,"s":1,"seymour":1,"skills":2,"society":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Mobile Agent","s":"concepts/mobile-agent","secs":[{"h":"Mobile Agent","l":1,"t":"A program that can suspend its execution on one host, transfer itself with its state to another, and resume there, trading stationary client/server interaction for locality of access and autonomy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"access":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"and":2,"another":1,"autonomy":1,"book":1,"can":1,"chapter":1,"client":1,"dagents":1,"execution":1,"flexible":1,"for":1,"host":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"its":2,"itself":1,"locality":1,"mobile":2,"of":1,"on":1,"one":1,"program":1,"resume":1,"secure":1,"security":1,"server":1,"state":1,"stationary":1,"suspend":1,"tcl":1,"that":1,"there":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trading":1,"transfer":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Shannon Entropy","s":"concepts/shannon-entropy","secs":[{"h":"Shannon Entropy","l":1,"t":"The expected self-information of a random variable, H(X) = -Σ p(x) log p(x), measuring its average uncertainty in bits. It bounds the best achievable lossless compression and, via its relationship to Kolmogorov complexity, links statistical and algorithmic notions of information."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Algorithmic Information Theory - Grunwald Vitanyi]] - [[Shannon Information]] - [[Kolmogorov Complexity]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"achievable":1,"algorithmic":2,"and":2,"average":1,"best":1,"bits":1,"bounds":1,"complexity":2,"compression":1,"entropy":1,"expected":1,"grunwald":1,"h":1,"in":2,"information":4,"it":1,"its":2,"kolmogorov":2,"links":1,"log":1,"lossless":1,"measuring":1,"notions":1,"of":2,"p":2,"random":1,"relationship":1,"self":1,"shannon":2,"statistical":1,"the":2,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"uncertainty":1,"variable":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vitanyi":1,"x":3,"σ":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Weird Machine","s":"concepts/weird-machine","secs":[{"h":"Weird Machine","l":1,"t":"Unintended computational automaton exposed when a program processes invalid or crafted inputs — the substrate of most exploits."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"automaton":1,"computational":1,"crafted":1,"exploits":1,"exposed":1,"halting":1,"in":1,"inputs":1,"insecurity":1,"invalid":1,"langsec":1,"machine":1,"most":1,"network":1,"of":2,"or":1,"problems":1,"processes":1,"program":1,"stack":1,"substrate":1,"the":2,"this":1,"unintended":1,"vault":1,"weird":1,"when":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Frame Ontology","s":"concepts/frame-ontology","secs":[{"h":"Frame Ontology","l":1,"t":"Ontolingua's meta-ontology expressing frame-based constructs (classes, slots, facets, relations) in KIF, giving a portable surface syntax for ontologies originally authored in frame languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]] - [[Ontology]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"authored":1,"based":1,"classes":1,"constructs":1,"expressing":1,"facets":1,"for":1,"frame":3,"giving":1,"in":3,"kif":1,"languages":1,"meta":1,"ontolingua":2,"ontologies":1,"ontology":4,"originally":1,"portable":2,"relations":1,"s":1,"slots":1,"specifications":1,"surface":1,"syntax":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Temporal Transfer Pattern","s":"concepts/temporal-transfer-pattern","secs":[{"h":"Temporal Transfer Pattern","l":1,"t":"A blockchain-interoperability pattern in which an asset or message is locked on a source chain, proved to have been locked within a bounded time window, and only then released on a destination chain. Event-B models formalise its safety and liveness obligations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Formalise Blockchain Interoperability Patterns]] - [[Event-B]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"an":1,"and":2,"asset":1,"b":2,"been":1,"blockchain":2,"bounded":1,"chain":2,"destination":1,"event":2,"formalise":2,"have":1,"in":2,"interoperability":2,"is":1,"its":1,"liveness":1,"locked":2,"message":1,"models":1,"obligations":1,"on":2,"only":1,"or":1,"pattern":2,"patterns":1,"proved":1,"released":1,"safety":1,"source":1,"temporal":1,"then":1,"this":1,"time":1,"to":1,"transfer":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"window":1,"within":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Symbolic Plans","s":"concepts/symbolic-plans","secs":[{"h":"Symbolic Plans","l":1,"t":"Explicit, structured sequences or graphs of named actions, expressed in a symbolic representation rather than latent activations. In LLM agent frameworks, symbolic plans are produced by a planner module and consumed by executors, affording inspection, editing and reuse."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]] - [[LLM Agents]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"actions":1,"activations":1,"affording":1,"agent":1,"agents":2,"al":1,"and":2,"are":1,"by":2,"consumed":1,"editing":1,"et":1,"executors":1,"explicit":1,"expressed":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"graphs":1,"in":3,"inspection":1,"latent":1,"llm":2,"module":1,"named":1,"of":1,"or":1,"planner":1,"plans":2,"produced":1,"rather":1,"representation":1,"reuse":1,"sequences":1,"structured":1,"symbolic":3,"than":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Extendibility","s":"concepts/extendibility","secs":[{"h":"Extendibility","l":1,"t":"Gruber's ontology design principle: it should be possible to specialise or extend the ontology for new purposes without revising existing definitions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] - [[Ontology Design Criteria]]"}],"tf":{"be":1,"criteria":1,"definitions":1,"design":3,"existing":1,"extend":1,"extendibility":1,"for":3,"gruber":1,"in":1,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"new":1,"of":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":3,"or":1,"possible":1,"principle":1,"principles":1,"purposes":1,"revising":1,"s":1,"sharing":1,"should":1,"specialise":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Epidemiological Projection R0","s":"concepts/epidemiological-projection-r0","secs":[{"h":"Epidemiological Projection R0","l":1,"t":"Basic reproduction number (from epidemiology) applied to agentic worm spread: expected number of secondary infections produced by one compromised agent."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"agent":2,"agentic":1,"applied":1,"attacks":1,"basic":1,"by":1,"clawworm":1,"compromised":1,"ecosystems":1,"epidemiological":1,"epidemiology":1,"expected":1,"from":1,"in":1,"infections":1,"llm":1,"number":2,"of":1,"one":1,"produced":1,"projection":1,"propagating":1,"r0":1,"reproduction":1,"secondary":1,"self":1,"spread":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"worm":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"RAG Poisoning","s":"concepts/rag-poisoning","secs":[{"h":"RAG Poisoning","l":1,"t":"Attack where adversary-controlled content is inserted into the knowledge base that a retrieval-augmented-generation agent consults — turns the retriever into an indirect prompt-injection vector."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Indirect Prompt Injection]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adversary":1,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"ai":1,"an":1,"attack":2,"augmented":1,"base":1,"consults":1,"content":1,"controlled":1,"generation":1,"in":1,"indirect":2,"injection":2,"inserted":1,"into":2,"is":1,"knowledge":1,"of":1,"poisoning":1,"prompt":2,"rag":1,"retrieval":1,"retriever":1,"sok":1,"surface":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"turns":1,"vault":1,"vector":1,"where":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"Witness Reputation","s":"concepts/witness-reputation","secs":[{"h":"Witness Reputation","l":1,"t":"Reputation information obtained from third parties that have had direct experience with the target agent, aggregated and weighted by the querier's trust in those witnesses. It extends direct reputation to cover partners with whom one has no personal history."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Sociological Reputation]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"aggregated":1,"and":3,"by":1,"computational":1,"cover":1,"direct":2,"experience":1,"extends":1,"from":1,"had":1,"has":1,"have":1,"history":1,"in":2,"information":1,"it":1,"models":1,"no":1,"obtained":1,"on":1,"one":1,"parties":1,"partners":1,"personal":1,"querier":1,"reputation":6,"review":1,"s":1,"sociological":1,"target":1,"that":1,"the":2,"third":1,"this":1,"those":1,"to":1,"trust":3,"vault":1,"weighted":1,"whom":1,"with":2,"witness":1,"witnesses":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Facilitator","s":"concepts/facilitator","secs":[{"h":"Facilitator","l":1,"t":"A specialised KQML/KSE agent that mediates between other agents — providing routing, matchmaking, translation, and content-based forwarding — thereby decoupling speakers from knowledge of listeners."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[KQML Overview]] - [[The State of the Art in Agent Communication Languages]] - [[Facilitators]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"art":1,"based":1,"between":1,"communication":1,"content":1,"decoupling":1,"facilitator":1,"facilitators":1,"forwarding":1,"from":1,"in":2,"knowledge":1,"kqml":2,"kse":1,"languages":1,"listeners":1,"matchmaking":1,"mediates":1,"of":2,"other":1,"overview":1,"providing":1,"routing":1,"speakers":1,"specialised":1,"state":1,"that":1,"the":2,"thereby":1,"this":1,"translation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"CapTP","s":"concepts/captp","secs":[{"h":"CapTP — Capability Transport Protocol","l":1,"t":"The E language's foundational protocol for sending object references and invocations across the network while preserving capability discipline and supporting promise pipelining."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Heart of Spritely - Distributed Objects and Capability Security]] - [[E Language]] - [[OCapN]] - [[Promise Pipelining]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"and":3,"capability":3,"captp":1,"discipline":1,"distributed":1,"e":2,"for":1,"foundational":1,"heart":1,"in":1,"invocations":1,"language":2,"network":1,"object":1,"objects":1,"ocapn":1,"of":1,"pipelining":2,"preserving":1,"promise":2,"protocol":2,"references":1,"s":1,"security":1,"sending":1,"spritely":1,"supporting":1,"the":3,"this":1,"transport":1,"vault":1,"while":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"History-Referring Programs","s":"concepts/history-referring-programs","secs":[{"h":"History-Referring Programs","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's Elephant move: programs refer directly to past events and states (a virtual history list) rather than maintaining data structures. Analogous to how natural-language speakers refer to the past."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]]"}],"tf":{"2000":1,"a":2,"acts":1,"analogous":1,"and":1,"based":1,"data":1,"directly":1,"elephant":2,"events":1,"history":2,"how":1,"in":1,"language":2,"list":1,"maintaining":1,"mccarthy":1,"move":1,"natural":1,"on":1,"past":2,"programming":1,"programs":2,"rather":1,"refer":2,"referring":1,"s":1,"speakers":1,"speech":1,"states":1,"structures":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"virtual":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Self-Reproducing Automata","s":"concepts/self-reproducing-automata","secs":[{"h":"Self-Reproducing Automata","l":1,"t":"Machines, in von Neumann's cellular-automaton formulation, capable of constructing functional copies of themselves from raw materials. Foundational for theoretical biology, artificial life, and reliability theory."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"artificial":1,"automata":2,"automaton":1,"biology":1,"capable":1,"cellular":1,"constructing":1,"copies":1,"for":1,"formulation":1,"foundational":1,"from":1,"functional":1,"in":2,"life":1,"machines":1,"materials":1,"neumann":1,"of":3,"raw":1,"reliability":1,"reproducing":2,"s":1,"self":2,"themselves":1,"theoretical":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"von":1}},{"dl":24,"n":"Conventional Implicature","s":"concepts/conventional-implicature","secs":[{"h":"Conventional Implicature","l":1,"t":"Grice: inferences attached to particular words (e.g. 'but', 'therefore') independent of context — conventional, not cancellable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Logic and Conversation]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"attached":1,"but":1,"cancellable":1,"context":1,"conventional":2,"conversation":1,"e":1,"g":1,"grice":1,"implicature":1,"in":1,"independent":1,"inferences":1,"logic":1,"not":1,"of":1,"particular":1,"therefore":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"words":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Ontology Grounding","s":"concepts/ontology-grounding","secs":[{"h":"Ontology Grounding","l":1,"t":"Anchoring the symbols of an agent's ontology to shared referents — either through perception, reference to a public ontology, or alignment with peer ontologies — a prerequisite for meaningful inter-agent communication."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[Ontology]] - [[Symbol Grounding Problem]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"alignment":1,"an":1,"anchoring":1,"communication":2,"either":1,"for":1,"grounding":2,"in":2,"inter":1,"language":1,"meaningful":1,"of":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":4,"or":1,"peer":1,"perception":1,"prerequisite":1,"problem":1,"public":1,"reference":1,"referents":1,"s":1,"shared":1,"symbol":1,"symbols":1,"the":1,"this":1,"through":1,"to":2,"trends":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Concepts as Individuals","s":"concepts/concepts-as-individuals","secs":[{"h":"Concepts as Individuals","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's reification move: treat concepts as first-order individuals so propositional attitudes, identity across modal contexts, and knowing-what/knowing-that can be expressed uniformly."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions]] - [[Individual Concepts]] - [[Reification]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"and":2,"artificial":1,"as":2,"attitudes":1,"be":1,"can":1,"concepts":4,"contexts":1,"epistemological":1,"expressed":1,"first":2,"identity":1,"in":1,"individual":2,"individuals":2,"intelligence":1,"knowing":2,"mccarthy":1,"modal":1,"move":1,"of":2,"order":2,"problems":1,"propositional":1,"propositions":1,"reification":2,"s":1,"so":1,"that":1,"theories":1,"this":1,"treat":1,"uniformly":1,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":55,"n":"Majority Vote","s":"concepts/majority-vote","secs":[{"h":"Majority Vote","l":1,"t":"A standard fault-tolerance pattern in which multiple redundant replicas compute the same result and a voter output the plurality value, masking up to a minority of faulty replicas. Formalised as a reusable SOL module in the SINS dependability framework."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Byzantine Fault Tolerance]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"and":1,"architectural":1,"as":1,"byzantine":1,"compute":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":1,"fault":2,"faulty":1,"for":1,"formalised":1,"framework":1,"in":3,"majority":1,"masking":1,"minority":1,"module":1,"multiple":1,"of":1,"output":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"plurality":1,"redundant":1,"replicas":2,"result":1,"reusable":1,"same":1,"sins":1,"software":1,"sol":2,"standard":1,"systems":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"tolerance":2,"up":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"vote":1,"voter":1,"which":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Self-Attention","s":"concepts/self-attention","secs":[{"h":"Self-Attention","l":1,"t":"Mechanism by which each position in a sequence attends to every other position; the core primitive of the Transformer."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Attention Is All You Need]] - [[Transformer]] - [[Scaled Dot-Product Attention]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"all":1,"attends":1,"attention":3,"by":1,"core":1,"dot":1,"each":1,"every":1,"in":2,"is":1,"mechanism":1,"need":1,"of":1,"other":1,"position":2,"primitive":1,"product":1,"scaled":1,"self":1,"sequence":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"transformer":2,"vault":1,"which":1,"you":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Self-Replicating Agent","s":"concepts/self-replicating-agent","secs":[{"h":"Self-Replicating Agent","l":1,"t":"LLM agent whose execution induces propagation of a compromising payload to other agents, analogous to a self-reproducing automaton applied to agentic worms."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"across":1,"agent":3,"agentic":1,"agents":1,"analogous":1,"applied":1,"attacks":1,"automata":1,"automaton":1,"clawworm":1,"compromising":1,"ecosystems":1,"execution":1,"in":1,"induces":1,"llm":2,"of":2,"other":1,"payload":1,"propagating":1,"propagation":1,"replicating":1,"reproducing":2,"self":4,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"whose":1,"worms":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Biomass","s":"concepts/biomass","secs":[{"h":"Biomass","l":1,"t":"In the Myconet fungi-inspired overlay, the lowest-capacity peer state: biomass peers act as the resource pool that hyphal peers extend toward and absorb, analogous to nutrient substrate consumed by growing mycelium."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Myconet Fungi Inspired Superpeer Overlay]] - [[Stigmergy]]"}],"tf":{"absorb":1,"act":1,"analogous":1,"and":1,"as":1,"biomass":2,"by":1,"capacity":1,"consumed":1,"extend":1,"fungi":2,"growing":1,"hyphal":1,"in":2,"inspired":2,"lowest":1,"mycelium":1,"myconet":2,"nutrient":1,"overlay":2,"peer":1,"peers":2,"pool":1,"resource":1,"state":1,"stigmergy":1,"substrate":1,"superpeer":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Mechanism Design","s":"concepts/mechanism-design","secs":[{"h":"Mechanism Design","l":1,"t":"The branch of game theory that designs interaction rules so that self-interested agents, acting in equilibrium, produce a desired social outcome; applied in ACL evolution to shape negotiation protocols that reach efficient linguistic conventions."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"acls":1,"acting":1,"agents":1,"applied":1,"automated":1,"branch":1,"conventions":1,"design":1,"designs":1,"desired":1,"efficient":1,"equilibrium":1,"evolution":2,"game":1,"in":3,"interaction":1,"interested":1,"linguistic":1,"mechanism":1,"negotiation":1,"of":2,"outcome":1,"produce":1,"protocols":1,"reach":1,"rules":1,"self":1,"shape":1,"so":1,"social":1,"that":3,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":1,"toward":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Tool Use","s":"concepts/tool-use","secs":[{"h":"Tool Use","l":1,"t":"LLM-agent capability of invoking external tools (APIs, code execution, database queries). Standardised through Model Context Protocol."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Model Context Protocol]] - [[MalTool Malicious Tool Attacks]] - [[AI Agents Under Threat]] - [[Survey Of Agent Interoperability Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"agent":2,"agents":1,"ai":1,"apis":1,"attacks":1,"capability":1,"code":1,"context":2,"database":1,"execution":1,"external":1,"in":1,"interoperability":1,"invoking":1,"llm":1,"malicious":1,"maltool":1,"model":2,"of":2,"protocol":2,"protocols":1,"queries":1,"standardised":1,"survey":1,"this":1,"threat":1,"through":1,"tool":2,"tools":1,"under":1,"use":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Editor Service Descriptor","s":"concepts/editor-service-descriptor","secs":[{"h":"Editor Service Descriptor","l":1,"t":"In Spoofax, a declarative specification that binds language-specific editor services (syntax highlighting, outlines, hover, reference resolution) to the language definition. Enables IDE integration from a single source."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Spoofax Language Workbench]] - [[Language Workbenches]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"binds":1,"declarative":1,"definition":1,"descriptor":1,"editor":2,"enables":1,"from":1,"highlighting":1,"hover":1,"ide":1,"in":2,"integration":1,"language":4,"outlines":1,"reference":1,"resolution":1,"service":1,"services":1,"single":1,"source":1,"specific":1,"specification":1,"spoofax":2,"syntax":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"workbench":1,"workbenches":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Agent Coordination Overhead","s":"concepts/agent-coordination-overhead","secs":[{"h":"Agent Coordination Overhead","l":1,"t":"The additional computational, communication, and latency cost incurred when multiple agents must synchronise, negotiate, or share state to accomplish a joint task. Grows non-linearly with agent count and interaction density."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"accomplish":1,"additional":1,"agent":4,"agents":1,"ai":1,"and":2,"collaboration":1,"communication":1,"computational":1,"coordination":1,"cost":1,"count":1,"density":1,"grows":1,"in":2,"incurred":1,"interaction":1,"joint":1,"latency":1,"linearly":1,"multi":2,"multiple":1,"must":1,"negotiate":1,"non":1,"or":1,"overhead":1,"share":1,"state":1,"synchronise":1,"systems":1,"task":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tunkel":1,"vault":1,"wasif":1,"when":1,"with":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Paraphrase","s":"concepts/paraphrase","secs":[{"h":"Paraphrase","l":1,"t":"Standish's category: defining new constructs in terms of existing ones (essentially macros) — the only extensibility actually delivered at scale."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[Orthophrase]] - [[Metaphrase]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]]"}],"tf":{"actually":1,"as":1,"at":1,"category":1,"constructs":1,"defining":1,"delivered":1,"design":1,"essentially":1,"existing":1,"extensibility":2,"extension":1,"in":3,"language":2,"macros":2,"metaphrase":1,"new":1,"of":1,"ones":1,"only":1,"orthophrase":1,"paraphrase":1,"programming":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"standish":2,"terms":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Metatheoretic Reasoning","s":"concepts/metatheoretic-reasoning","secs":[{"h":"Metatheoretic Reasoning","l":1,"t":"Formal reasoning about properties of a language or logic itself (type soundness, termination, preservation) rather than about particular programs. Modular approaches let such proofs compose as the language is extended."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Modular Proofs]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":2,"approach":1,"approaches":1,"as":1,"compose":1,"extended":1,"extensible":1,"for":1,"formal":1,"in":1,"is":1,"itself":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"let":1,"logic":1,"metatheoretic":2,"modular":3,"of":1,"or":1,"particular":1,"preservation":1,"programs":1,"proofs":2,"properties":1,"rather":1,"reasoning":3,"soundness":1,"such":1,"termination":1,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"type":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":32,"n":"Scaling","s":"concepts/scaling","secs":[{"h":"Scaling","l":1,"t":"Increasing the size of models, datasets, and computation — the practical realisation of the Bitter Lesson in modern deep learning."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Bitter Lesson]] - [[Language Models are Few-Shot Learners]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"are":1,"bitter":2,"computation":1,"datasets":1,"deep":1,"few":1,"in":2,"increasing":1,"language":1,"learners":1,"learning":1,"lesson":2,"models":2,"modern":1,"of":2,"practical":1,"realisation":1,"scaling":1,"shot":1,"size":1,"the":4,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":120,"n":"Liveness Property","s":"concepts/liveness-property","secs":[{"h":"Liveness Property","l":1,"t":"A property of a program or distributed system asserting that \"**something good eventually happens**\" (Lamport 1977; Alpern & Schneider 1985). Unlike a [[Safety Property]], a liveness property cannot be falsified by any finite prefix — one must observe (or reason about) infinite behaviours. Examples: eventual delivery (\"every sent message is eventually received\"), progress (\"every enabled thread eventually runs\"), termination (\"every well-formed input produces output\"). Proving liveness typically requires a *well-founded ordering* or a *fairness assumption*. Alpern–Schneider's decomposition theorem: every trace property is the intersection of a safety property and a liveness property. This factoring structures verification: safety is proved by invariants, liveness by well-founded descent or fairness-conditioned reasoning."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"verification #distributed-systems #safety-liveness","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1977":1,"1985":1,"a":8,"about":1,"alpern":2,"and":1,"any":1,"asserting":1,"assumption":1,"be":1,"behaviours":1,"by":3,"cannot":1,"conditioned":1,"decomposition":1,"delivery":1,"descent":1,"distributed":2,"enabled":1,"eventual":1,"eventually":3,"every":4,"examples":1,"factoring":1,"fairness":2,"falsified":1,"finite":1,"formed":1,"founded":2,"good":1,"happens":1,"infinite":1,"input":1,"intersection":1,"invariants":1,"is":3,"lamport":1,"liveness":6,"message":1,"must":1,"observe":1,"of":2,"one":1,"or":4,"ordering":1,"output":1,"prefix":1,"produces":1,"program":1,"progress":1,"property":7,"proved":1,"proving":1,"reason":1,"reasoning":1,"received":1,"requires":1,"runs":1,"s":1,"safety":4,"schneider":2,"sent":1,"something":1,"structures":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"tags":1,"termination":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theorem":1,"this":1,"thread":1,"trace":1,"typically":1,"unlike":1,"verification":2,"well":3}},{"dl":43,"n":"Input Language","s":"concepts/input-language","secs":[{"h":"Input Language","l":1,"t":"In LangSec, the implicit or explicit grammar defining which messages a component must accept; treating inputs as a formal language lets one reason about parser completeness, equivalence, and security boundaries."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Halting Problems of Network Stack Insecurity]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"about":1,"accept":1,"and":1,"as":1,"boundaries":1,"completeness":1,"component":1,"defining":1,"equivalence":1,"explicit":1,"formal":1,"grammar":1,"halting":1,"implicit":1,"in":2,"input":1,"inputs":1,"insecurity":1,"langsec":2,"language":2,"lets":1,"messages":1,"must":1,"network":1,"of":1,"one":1,"or":1,"parser":1,"problems":1,"reason":1,"security":1,"stack":1,"the":2,"this":1,"treating":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Dooley Graphs","s":"concepts/dooley-graphs","secs":[{"h":"Dooley Graphs","l":1,"t":"A diagrammatic notation, adopted by ACRE and other conversation-reasoning tools, in which nodes represent conversational states and edges represent performative moves. Dooley graphs make the role structure and turn-taking of multi-party agent dialogues explicit."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acre":2,"adopted":1,"agent":2,"and":3,"by":1,"conversation":3,"conversational":1,"diagrammatic":1,"dialogues":1,"dooley":2,"edges":1,"engine":1,"explicit":1,"graphs":2,"in":2,"make":1,"moves":1,"multi":1,"nodes":1,"notation":1,"of":1,"other":1,"party":1,"performative":1,"policy":1,"reasoning":2,"represent":2,"role":1,"states":1,"structure":1,"taking":1,"the":1,"this":1,"tools":1,"turn":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Relational Logic","s":"concepts/relational-logic","secs":[{"h":"Relational Logic","l":1,"t":"A logical framework in which judgements relate pairs (or tuples) of terms, programs, or states. Useful in modular metatheory for expressing language-extension correspondences and preservation properties."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"approach":1,"correspondences":1,"expressing":1,"extensible":1,"extension":1,"for":2,"framework":1,"in":3,"judgements":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"metatheoretic":1,"metatheory":1,"modular":2,"of":1,"or":2,"pairs":1,"preservation":1,"programs":1,"properties":1,"reasoning":1,"relate":1,"relational":1,"states":1,"terms":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tuples":1,"useful":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Content-addressed Storage","s":"concepts/content-addressed-storage","secs":[{"h":"Content-addressed Storage","l":1,"t":"A storage scheme in which data is retrieved by a hash of its contents rather than by a location-based name, providing integrity, deduplication, and immutability — used by the ANP LLM protocol to share large protocol documents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"addressed":1,"and":1,"anp":1,"based":1,"by":3,"communication":1,"content":1,"contents":1,"data":1,"deduplication":1,"documents":1,"for":1,"hash":1,"immutability":1,"in":2,"integrity":1,"is":1,"its":1,"large":1,"llm":1,"llms":1,"location":1,"name":1,"networks":1,"of":2,"protocol":3,"providing":1,"rather":1,"retrieved":1,"scalable":1,"scheme":1,"share":1,"storage":2,"than":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Generative Grammar","s":"concepts/generative-grammar","secs":[{"h":"Generative Grammar","l":1,"t":"Chomsky's programme of specifying a language as a finite rule system that *generates* all and only its grammatical sentences. The programme distinguishes descriptive adequacy from explanatory power and motivated the shift from phrase-structure to transformational grammars."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Three Models for the Description of Language]] - [[Transformational Grammar]] - [[Chomsky Hierarchy]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"adequacy":1,"all":1,"and":2,"as":1,"chomsky":2,"description":1,"descriptive":1,"distinguishes":1,"explanatory":1,"finite":1,"for":1,"from":2,"generates":1,"generative":1,"grammar":2,"grammars":1,"grammatical":1,"hierarchy":1,"in":1,"its":1,"language":2,"models":1,"motivated":1,"of":2,"only":1,"phrase":1,"power":1,"programme":2,"rule":1,"s":1,"sentences":1,"shift":1,"specifying":1,"structure":1,"system":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"three":1,"to":1,"transformational":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"ReGreT","s":"concepts/regret","secs":[{"h":"ReGreT","l":1,"t":"A computational trust and reputation model for multi-agent systems that combines individual, social, and ontological dimensions to compute trust values with associated reliability estimates."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Review on Computational Trust and Reputation Models]] - [[Trust]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"and":4,"associated":1,"combines":1,"computational":2,"compute":1,"dimensions":1,"estimates":1,"for":1,"in":1,"individual":1,"model":1,"models":1,"multi":1,"on":1,"ontological":1,"regret":1,"reliability":1,"reputation":3,"review":1,"social":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trust":5,"values":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Agents and Artifacts","s":"concepts/agents-and-artifacts","secs":[{"h":"Agents and Artifacts (A&A)","l":1,"t":"Meta-model treating the agent *environment* as first-class artefacts agents interact with, implemented in JaCaMo / CArtAgO."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Multi-Agent Systems]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"agents":2,"an":1,"and":1,"artefacts":1,"artifacts":1,"as":1,"cartago":1,"class":1,"environment":1,"environments":1,"first":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"implemented":1,"in":2,"interact":1,"interaction":1,"jacamo":1,"meta":1,"model":1,"multi":1,"open":1,"oriented":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"this":1,"treating":1,"vault":1,"with":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Coordination-Security Separation","s":"concepts/coordination-security-separation","secs":[{"h":"Coordination-Security Separation","l":1,"t":"A design principle in data-driven agent languages whereby coordination primitives (tuple operations, joins) are kept orthogonal to security mechanisms (authentication, authorisation, encryption), so that each can be reasoned about and evolved independently."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Secure Interaction in Data Driven Languages]] - [[Mechanism vs Policy]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"are":1,"authentication":1,"authorisation":1,"be":1,"can":1,"coordination":2,"data":2,"design":1,"driven":2,"each":1,"encryption":1,"evolved":1,"in":3,"independently":1,"interaction":1,"joins":1,"kept":1,"languages":2,"mechanism":1,"mechanisms":1,"operations":1,"orthogonal":1,"policy":1,"primitives":1,"principle":1,"reasoned":1,"secure":1,"security":2,"separation":1,"so":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tuple":1,"vault":1,"vs":1,"whereby":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Dafny","s":"concepts/dafny","secs":[{"h":"Dafny","l":1,"t":"Verification-aware programming language with an integrated Hoare-style proof checker; used as a target for AI-generated logical contracts."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Intent Formalization - A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding]] - [[Formal Verification]] - [[Hoare Logic]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"ai":1,"an":1,"as":1,"aware":1,"challenge":1,"checker":1,"coding":1,"contracts":1,"dafny":1,"for":2,"formal":1,"formalization":1,"generated":1,"grand":1,"hoare":2,"in":1,"integrated":1,"intent":1,"language":1,"logic":1,"logical":1,"programming":1,"proof":1,"reliable":1,"style":1,"target":1,"this":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"verification":2,"with":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"Sincerity Condition","s":"concepts/sincerity-condition","secs":[{"h":"Sincerity Condition","l":1,"t":"A precondition on speech acts requiring that the speaker actually hold the mental state the act expresses (e.g., belief for an assertion, intention for a promise). A persistent source of ACL verifiability problems."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"acl":1,"acls":1,"act":2,"acts":1,"actually":1,"an":1,"assertion":1,"belief":1,"condition":1,"e":1,"expresses":1,"for":3,"g":1,"hold":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"of":1,"on":1,"persistent":1,"precondition":1,"problems":1,"promise":1,"requiring":1,"semantics":2,"sincerity":1,"source":1,"speaker":1,"speech":2,"state":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"verifiability":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Symbolic Execution","s":"concepts/symbolic-execution","secs":[{"h":"Symbolic Execution","l":1,"t":"A program-analysis technique that executes code on symbolic rather than concrete inputs to explore many paths at once; applied to EVM bytecode (e.g., Oyente) to find smart-contract bugs such as reentrancy."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Making Smart Contracts Smarter]] - [[Formal Verification]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"analysis":1,"applied":1,"as":1,"at":1,"bugs":1,"bytecode":1,"code":1,"concrete":1,"contract":1,"contracts":1,"e":1,"evm":1,"executes":1,"execution":1,"explore":1,"find":1,"formal":1,"g":1,"in":1,"inputs":1,"making":1,"many":1,"on":1,"once":1,"oyente":1,"paths":1,"program":1,"rather":1,"reentrancy":1,"smart":2,"smarter":1,"such":1,"symbolic":2,"technique":1,"than":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":3,"vault":1,"verification":1}},{"dl":31,"n":"Agent Types","s":"concepts/agent-types","secs":[{"h":"Agent Types","l":1,"t":"BOID-era classification of agents by how they resolve conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires — e.g. realistic, social, stable, selfish."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The BOID Architecture]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"architecture":1,"bdi":1,"beliefs":1,"between":1,"boid":2,"by":1,"classification":1,"conflicts":1,"desires":1,"e":1,"era":1,"g":1,"how":1,"in":1,"intentions":1,"obligations":1,"of":1,"realistic":1,"resolve":1,"selfish":1,"social":1,"stable":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"types":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Observational Equivalence","s":"concepts/observational-equivalence","secs":[{"h":"Observational Equivalence","l":1,"t":"A contextual equivalence on processes/programs: P and Q are observationally equivalent iff no context can distinguish them. Standard yardstick for compiler correctness, secure information flow, and the full-abstraction property of secure distributed-language implementations."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[Full Abstraction]] - [[Operational Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"abstraction":2,"and":2,"are":1,"can":1,"communications":1,"compiler":1,"context":1,"contextual":1,"correctness":1,"distinguish":1,"distributed":2,"equivalence":2,"equivalent":1,"flow":1,"for":2,"full":2,"iff":1,"implementations":1,"in":1,"information":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"no":1,"observational":1,"observationally":1,"of":1,"on":1,"operational":1,"p":1,"processes":1,"processing":1,"programs":1,"property":1,"q":1,"secure":3,"semantics":1,"standard":1,"the":1,"them":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"yardstick":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Recursion Induction","s":"concepts/recursion-induction","secs":[{"h":"Recursion Induction","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's proof technique: two recursive functions are equal if they satisfy the same recursive equation. An early alternative to fixpoint semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"alternative":1,"an":1,"are":1,"computation":1,"early":1,"equal":1,"equation":1,"fixpoint":1,"functions":1,"if":1,"in":1,"induction":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":1,"proof":1,"recursion":1,"recursive":2,"s":1,"same":1,"satisfy":1,"science":1,"semantics":1,"technique":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"to":1,"towards":1,"two":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":164,"n":"Processing Fluency","s":"concepts/processing-fluency","secs":[{"h":"Processing Fluency","l":1,"t":"The subjective ease with which information is cognitively processed (Reber, Winkielman, Schwarz and others, cognitive psychology ~1990s–2000s). Fluent stimuli — familiar words, simple shapes, rhymes, short sentences — are judged as more true, more likeable, more trustworthy, and more probable than dis-fluent ones, even when the underlying evidence is identical. This is the **truth effect** and its many cousins. Processing fluency is the cognitive mechanism behind several security-relevant failure modes: phishing pages that mimic the visual \"look\" of legitimate sites exploit fluency; dense legalese in smart-contract ToS reduces fluency and thereby perceived risk; and — more subtly — fluent LLM prose is judged more credible than equally-reliable but less fluent text ([[Epistemia]], [[Epistemological Fault Lines Between Human and Artificial Intelligence]]). [[House on Rock - LangSec in Ethereum Classic]] invokes processing fluency to explain why Solidity code that *looks like* JavaScript is trusted more than its semantic hazards warrant: the fluency of the surface syntax imports misplaced confidence."},{"h":"Tags","l":9,"t":""},{"h":"cognitive-psychology #ui #security","l":10,"t":""}],"tf":{"1990s":1,"2000s":1,"and":6,"are":1,"artificial":1,"as":1,"behind":1,"between":1,"but":1,"classic":1,"code":1,"cognitive":3,"cognitively":1,"confidence":1,"contract":1,"cousins":1,"credible":1,"dense":1,"dis":1,"ease":1,"effect":1,"epistemia":1,"epistemological":1,"equally":1,"ethereum":1,"even":1,"evidence":1,"explain":1,"exploit":1,"failure":1,"familiar":1,"fault":1,"fluency":6,"fluent":4,"hazards":1,"house":1,"human":1,"identical":1,"imports":1,"in":2,"information":1,"intelligence":1,"invokes":1,"is":6,"its":2,"javascript":1,"judged":2,"langsec":1,"legalese":1,"legitimate":1,"less":1,"like":1,"likeable":1,"lines":1,"llm":1,"look":1,"looks":1,"many":1,"mechanism":1,"mimic":1,"misplaced":1,"modes":1,"more":7,"of":2,"on":1,"ones":1,"others":1,"pages":1,"perceived":1,"phishing":1,"probable":1,"processed":1,"processing":3,"prose":1,"psychology":2,"reber":1,"reduces":1,"relevant":1,"reliable":1,"rhymes":1,"risk":1,"rock":1,"schwarz":1,"security":2,"semantic":1,"sentences":1,"several":1,"shapes":1,"short":1,"simple":1,"sites":1,"smart":1,"solidity":1,"stimuli":1,"subjective":1,"subtly":1,"surface":1,"syntax":1,"tags":1,"text":1,"than":3,"that":2,"the":7,"thereby":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tos":1,"true":1,"trusted":1,"trustworthy":1,"truth":1,"ui":1,"underlying":1,"visual":1,"warrant":1,"when":1,"which":1,"why":1,"winkielman":1,"with":1,"words":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"SINS Middleware","s":"concepts/sins-middleware","secs":[{"h":"SINS Middleware","l":1,"t":"The Secure Infrastructure for Networked Systems — a middleware that runs SOL agents across encrypted virtual machines, propagating failure events and enforcing synchronous-language semantics at runtime."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Secure Operations Language]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"across":1,"agents":1,"and":1,"architectural":1,"at":1,"dependable":1,"encrypted":1,"enforcing":1,"events":1,"failure":1,"for":2,"in":1,"infrastructure":1,"language":2,"machines":1,"middleware":2,"networked":1,"operations":1,"patterns":1,"propagating":1,"runs":1,"runtime":1,"secure":2,"semantics":1,"sins":1,"software":1,"sol":2,"synchronous":1,"systems":2,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"virtual":1}},{"dl":53,"n":"Digital-Analog Hybrid","s":"concepts/digital-analog-hybrid","secs":[{"h":"Digital-Analog Hybrid","l":1,"t":"Von Neumann's proposed architecture in *Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata* combining digital logic (for precise symbolic manipulation) with analog components (for continuous physical processes), motivated by observations of biological nervous systems that require both discrete and continuous signal regimes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata]] - [[Error Halting]]"}],"tf":{"analog":2,"and":1,"architecture":1,"automata":2,"biological":1,"both":1,"by":1,"combining":1,"components":1,"continuous":2,"digital":2,"discrete":1,"error":1,"for":2,"halting":1,"hybrid":1,"in":2,"logic":1,"manipulation":1,"motivated":1,"nervous":1,"neumann":1,"observations":1,"of":3,"physical":1,"precise":1,"processes":1,"proposed":1,"regimes":1,"reproducing":2,"require":1,"s":1,"self":2,"signal":1,"symbolic":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"theory":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"von":1,"with":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Dynamic Scheduling","s":"concepts/dynamic-scheduling","secs":[{"h":"Dynamic Scheduling","l":1,"t":"Runtime allocation of tasks to agents or workers based on current load, capability, and context, rather than fixed assignment. Essential for open, heterogeneous multi-agent frameworks."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents Framework - Zhou et al]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":2,"al":1,"allocation":1,"and":1,"assignment":1,"based":1,"capability":1,"context":1,"current":1,"dynamic":1,"essential":1,"et":1,"fixed":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"frameworks":1,"heterogeneous":1,"in":1,"load":1,"multi":1,"of":1,"on":1,"open":1,"or":1,"rather":1,"runtime":1,"scheduling":1,"tasks":1,"than":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"workers":1,"zhou":1}},{"dl":36,"n":"Pronomes","s":"concepts/pronomes","secs":[{"h":"Pronomes","l":1,"t":"Minsky's short-term place-holders inside trans-frames (actor, object, tool, destination, …); the 'grammar slots' that let one agency speak to another about specific referents."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Trans-Frames]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"actor":1,"agency":1,"another":1,"destination":1,"frames":2,"grammar":1,"holders":1,"in":1,"inside":1,"let":1,"mind":1,"minsky":1,"object":1,"of":1,"one":1,"place":1,"pronomes":1,"referents":1,"s":1,"short":1,"slots":1,"society":1,"speak":1,"specific":1,"term":1,"that":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"tool":1,"trans":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"OWASP LLM Top-10","s":"concepts/owasp-llm-top-10","secs":[{"h":"OWASP LLM Top-10","l":1,"t":"OWASP's prioritised list of the ten most critical LLM-application vulnerabilities (prompt injection, insecure output handling, training-data poisoning, etc.)."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"10":1,"agent":1,"agentic":1,"ai":1,"application":1,"attack":1,"critical":1,"data":1,"etc":1,"handling":1,"in":1,"injection":1,"insecure":1,"list":1,"llm":2,"most":1,"of":2,"output":1,"owasp":2,"poisoning":1,"prioritised":1,"prompt":1,"s":1,"security":1,"sok":1,"surface":1,"ten":1,"the":2,"this":1,"top":1,"training":1,"vault":1,"vulnerabilities":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Knowledge Level","s":"concepts/knowledge-level","secs":[{"h":"Knowledge Level","l":1,"t":"Newell: a level of system description above the symbol level, in which behaviour is explained by what the system *knows* and *wants* (principle of rationality) — the theoretical home of agent theory."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Knowledge Level]] - [[Symbol Level]] - [[Principle of Rationality]] - [[BDI]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"above":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"bdi":1,"behaviour":1,"by":1,"description":1,"explained":1,"home":1,"in":2,"is":1,"knowledge":2,"knows":1,"level":5,"newell":1,"of":4,"principle":2,"rationality":2,"symbol":2,"system":2,"the":4,"theoretical":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"wants":1,"what":1,"which":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Roles","s":"concepts/roles","secs":[{"h":"Roles","l":1,"t":"Typed functional positions in a MAS (e.g. buyer, broker, arbiter) that constrain which speech acts and commitments apply — key to role-based ACL semantics."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Common Ontology Of ACLs]] - [[Semantic Description For Agent Design Patterns]] - [[ACL Rethinking Principles]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"acl":2,"acls":1,"acts":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"apply":1,"arbiter":1,"based":1,"broker":1,"buyer":1,"commitments":1,"common":1,"constrain":1,"description":1,"design":1,"e":1,"for":1,"functional":1,"g":1,"in":2,"key":1,"mas":1,"of":1,"ontology":1,"patterns":1,"positions":1,"principles":1,"rethinking":1,"role":1,"roles":1,"semantic":1,"semantics":1,"speech":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"typed":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Modular Proofs","s":"concepts/modular-proofs","secs":[{"h":"Modular Proofs","l":1,"t":"Proofs structured so that adding new language features or cases requires only local additions rather than rework of existing arguments. Enable scalable metatheory for extensible languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Metatheoretic Reasoning]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"adding":1,"additions":1,"approach":1,"arguments":1,"cases":1,"enable":1,"existing":1,"extensible":2,"features":1,"for":2,"in":1,"language":1,"languages":2,"local":1,"metatheoretic":2,"metatheory":1,"modular":2,"new":1,"of":1,"only":1,"or":1,"proofs":2,"rather":1,"reasoning":2,"requires":1,"rework":1,"scalable":1,"so":1,"structured":1,"than":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":34,"n":"Public Semantics","s":"concepts/public-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Public Semantics","l":1,"t":"ACL semantics grounded in externally observable facts (commitments, roles, institutional state) rather than private mental state."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[Agent Communication And Institutional Reality]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"agent":1,"and":1,"based":1,"commitment":1,"commitments":1,"communication":1,"externally":1,"facts":1,"grounded":1,"in":2,"institutional":2,"mental":1,"mentalistic":1,"observable":1,"principles":1,"private":1,"public":1,"rather":1,"reality":1,"rethinking":1,"roles":1,"semantics":4,"state":2,"than":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":45,"n":"Diffusion Speed","s":"concepts/diffusion-speed","secs":[{"h":"Diffusion Speed","l":1,"t":"The rate at which information or aggregate values propagate through a gossip-based network toward convergence. Typically exponential in the number of rounds for push-sum style protocols on well-connected graphs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Gossip Protocols]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"aggregate":2,"at":1,"based":2,"computation":1,"connected":1,"convergence":1,"diffusion":1,"exponential":1,"for":1,"gossip":3,"graphs":1,"in":2,"information":2,"network":1,"number":1,"of":2,"on":1,"or":1,"propagate":1,"protocols":2,"push":1,"rate":1,"rounds":1,"speed":1,"style":1,"sum":1,"the":2,"this":1,"through":1,"toward":1,"typically":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"well":1,"which":1}},{"dl":69,"n":"Best-Response Dynamics","s":"concepts/best-response-dynamics","secs":[{"h":"Best-Response Dynamics","l":1,"t":"A learning/adjustment process in games where each player iteratively updates their strategy to the action that is optimal given others' current strategies. Convergence to Nash equilibria is guaranteed in potential games but the equilibria reached can be catastrophically poor when communication is partial, as shown by the resilience analysis of Gopalakrishnan et al."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[Nash Equilibrium]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"action":1,"adjustment":1,"al":1,"analysis":1,"are":1,"as":1,"be":1,"best":1,"but":1,"by":1,"can":1,"catastrophically":1,"communication":2,"convergence":1,"current":1,"dynamics":1,"each":1,"equilibria":2,"equilibrium":1,"et":1,"failures":1,"games":2,"given":1,"gopalakrishnan":1,"guaranteed":1,"in":3,"is":3,"iteratively":1,"learning":1,"multiagent":1,"nash":2,"of":1,"optimal":1,"others":1,"partial":1,"player":1,"poor":1,"potential":1,"process":1,"reached":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"response":1,"shown":1,"strategies":1,"strategy":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"the":3,"their":1,"this":1,"to":3,"updates":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"where":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Interaction Protocol Change","s":"concepts/interaction-protocol-change","secs":[{"h":"Interaction Protocol Change","l":1,"t":"In the ASCENS self-adaptation taxonomy, the dimension of adaptation where the coordination pattern among agents (not merely their individual behaviours) is reconfigured — e.g. switching from leader-follower to swarm — in response to environmental change."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Self-Adaptation Self-Expression Self-Awareness ASCENS]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Self-Expression]]"}],"tf":{"adaptation":3,"adaptive":1,"agents":1,"among":1,"ascens":2,"awareness":1,"behaviours":1,"change":2,"coordination":1,"dimension":1,"e":1,"environmental":1,"expression":2,"follower":1,"from":1,"g":1,"in":3,"individual":1,"interaction":1,"is":1,"leader":1,"merely":1,"not":1,"of":1,"pattern":1,"protocol":1,"reconfigured":1,"response":1,"self":6,"swarm":1,"switching":1,"systems":1,"taxonomy":1,"the":3,"their":1,"this":1,"to":2,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":27,"n":"Binding Deal","s":"concepts/binding-deal","secs":[{"h":"Binding Deal","l":1,"t":"Agreement between rational agents whose outcome each prefers to the no-deal status quo and which is enforceable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Deals Among Rational Agents]]"}],"tf":{"agents":2,"agreement":1,"among":1,"and":1,"between":1,"binding":1,"deal":2,"deals":1,"each":1,"enforceable":1,"in":1,"is":1,"no":1,"outcome":1,"prefers":1,"quo":1,"rational":2,"status":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Multi-Turn Social Engineering","s":"concepts/multi-turn-social-engineering","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Turn Social Engineering","l":1,"t":"Extended-interaction attack where an adversary builds rapport or context across turns to coax an LLM agent past its policies."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ClawWorm Self-Propagating Attacks Across LLM Agent Ecosystems]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"across":2,"adversary":1,"agent":3,"an":2,"attack":1,"attacks":1,"builds":1,"clawworm":1,"coax":1,"context":1,"ecosystems":1,"engineering":1,"extended":1,"in":1,"interaction":1,"its":1,"llm":2,"multi":1,"or":1,"past":1,"policies":1,"propagating":1,"rapport":1,"security":1,"self":1,"social":1,"this":1,"to":1,"turn":1,"turns":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Capability Bounding","s":"concepts/capability-bounding","secs":[{"h":"Capability Bounding","l":1,"t":"Restricting the set of actions an agent can perform regardless of goals or prompts — the Constraint trust primitive, delivered via sandboxing, policy engines, and capability tokens."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[Sandboxing]] - [[Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"actions":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":1,"bounding":1,"can":1,"capability":3,"comparative":1,"constraint":1,"delivered":1,"engines":1,"goals":1,"in":1,"inter":1,"models":1,"of":2,"or":1,"perform":1,"policy":1,"primitive":1,"prompts":1,"regardless":1,"restricting":1,"sandboxing":2,"security":1,"set":1,"study":1,"the":2,"this":1,"tokens":1,"trust":2,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Embedded Agent","s":"concepts/embedded-agent","secs":[{"h":"Embedded Agent","l":1,"t":"Brooks/Rosenschein-era view: agents are physical systems embedded in their environment, not disembodied reasoners; design centres on environmental regularities."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Synthesis of Digital Machines with Provable Epistemic Properties]] - [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]]"}],"tf":{"agent":1,"agents":2,"and":1,"are":1,"brooks":1,"centres":1,"design":1,"digital":1,"disembodied":1,"embedded":2,"environment":1,"environmental":1,"epistemic":1,"era":1,"in":2,"intelligent":1,"machines":1,"not":1,"of":1,"on":1,"physical":1,"practice":1,"properties":1,"provable":1,"reasoners":1,"regularities":1,"rosenschein":1,"synthesis":1,"systems":1,"the":1,"their":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"view":1,"with":1}},{"dl":83,"n":"Multi-Agent Systems","s":"concepts/multi-agent-systems","secs":[{"h":"Multi-Agent Systems","l":1,"t":"Systems of multiple autonomous agents that interact, coordinate, and sometimes compete."},{"h":"Foundations","l":5,"t":"- [[Intelligent Agents Theory and Practice]] — Wooldridge - [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] — Shoham"},{"h":"Coordination & robustness","l":10,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]] - [[An Interaction-oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments]] - [[Levels Of Social Orchestration]] - [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]]"},{"h":"See also","l":18,"t":"- [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[LLM Agents]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Trust and Reputation]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"adaptive":1,"agent":5,"agents":5,"ai":1,"also":1,"an":1,"and":4,"are":1,"autonomous":1,"behaviour":1,"collaboration":1,"communication":2,"compete":1,"conversations":1,"coordinate":1,"coordinating":1,"coordination":1,"ensuring":1,"environments":1,"ethical":1,"failures":1,"for":1,"foundations":1,"framework":1,"in":2,"intelligent":2,"interact":1,"interaction":1,"languages":1,"levels":1,"llm":1,"logical":1,"multi":2,"multiagent":2,"multiple":1,"of":2,"open":1,"orchestration":1,"oriented":2,"practice":1,"programming":1,"reputation":1,"resilient":1,"robustness":1,"see":1,"self":1,"shoham":1,"social":1,"sometimes":1,"sycara":1,"systems":5,"that":1,"theory":1,"to":1,"trust":1,"trustworthy":1,"tunkel":1,"using":1,"wasif":1,"wooldridge":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Epistemological Adequacy","s":"concepts/epistemological-adequacy","secs":[{"h":"Epistemological Adequacy","l":1,"t":"McCarthy-Hayes criterion: a representation is epistemologically adequate iff it can express the facts about the world an agent actually has to reason about, regardless of whether those inferences are computationally tractable."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"about":2,"actually":1,"adequacy":1,"adequate":1,"agent":1,"an":1,"are":1,"ascribing":1,"can":1,"computationally":1,"criterion":1,"epistemological":1,"epistemologically":1,"express":1,"facts":1,"has":1,"hayes":1,"iff":1,"in":1,"inferences":1,"is":1,"it":1,"knowledge":1,"machines":1,"mccarthy":1,"mental":1,"of":1,"qualities":1,"reason":1,"regardless":1,"representation":2,"the":2,"this":1,"those":1,"to":2,"tractable":1,"vault":1,"whether":1,"world":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Clarity","s":"concepts/clarity","secs":[{"h":"Clarity","l":1,"t":"Gruber's ontology design principle: definitions must be as objective and context-independent as possible. An ontology's terms should mean what they say."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing]] - [[Ontology Design Criteria]]"}],"tf":{"an":1,"and":1,"as":2,"be":1,"clarity":1,"context":1,"criteria":1,"definitions":1,"design":3,"for":2,"gruber":1,"in":1,"independent":1,"knowledge":1,"mean":1,"must":1,"objective":1,"of":1,"ontologies":1,"ontology":3,"possible":1,"principle":1,"principles":1,"s":2,"say":1,"sharing":1,"should":1,"terms":1,"the":1,"they":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"used":1,"vault":1,"what":1}},{"dl":49,"n":"Sjoin Calculus","s":"concepts/sjoin-calculus","secs":[{"h":"Sjoin Calculus","l":1,"t":"A secure variant of the join calculus in which channel names are cryptographic keys and message reception requires possession of the matching key. It gives a process-calculus foundation for end-to-end-protected distributed programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Secure Communications Processing for Distributed Languages]] - [[Join Calculus]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"and":1,"are":1,"calculus":4,"channel":1,"communications":1,"cryptographic":1,"distributed":2,"end":2,"for":2,"foundation":1,"gives":1,"in":2,"it":1,"join":2,"key":1,"keys":1,"languages":1,"matching":1,"message":1,"names":1,"of":2,"possession":1,"process":1,"processing":1,"programming":1,"protected":1,"reception":1,"requires":1,"secure":2,"sjoin":1,"the":2,"this":1,"to":1,"variant":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":57,"n":"ACL Evolution","s":"concepts/acl-evolution","secs":[{"h":"ACL Evolution","l":1,"t":"The process by which an Agent Communication Language's vocabulary, semantics, or pragmatics change over time — typically via designer iteration, negotiation, or learning — so that communities of agents can extend their shared linguistic conventions without central redesign."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"acls":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"an":1,"automated":1,"automating":1,"by":1,"can":1,"central":1,"change":1,"communication":2,"communities":1,"competence":1,"conventions":1,"designer":1,"evolution":3,"extend":1,"in":1,"iteration":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"learning":1,"linguistic":2,"negotiation":1,"of":3,"or":2,"over":1,"pragmatics":1,"process":1,"redesign":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"shared":1,"so":1,"that":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"time":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"typically":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vocabulary":1,"which":1,"without":1}},{"dl":59,"n":"ASN.1 BER Ambiguity","s":"concepts/asn.1-ber-ambiguity","secs":[{"h":"ASN.1 BER Ambiguity","l":1,"t":"The property of ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules whereby the same abstract value admits multiple valid byte-level encodings. The resulting non-canonical form enables parser-differential attacks, since different implementations may disagree on which bytes to accept or how to interpret them."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[PKI Layer Cake - Kaminsky Patterson Sassaman]] - [[Parser Differential]] - [[LangSec]]"}],"tf":{"1":2,"abstract":1,"accept":1,"admits":1,"ambiguity":1,"asn":2,"attacks":1,"basic":1,"ber":1,"byte":1,"bytes":1,"cake":1,"canonical":1,"different":1,"differential":2,"disagree":1,"enables":1,"encoding":1,"encodings":1,"form":1,"how":1,"implementations":1,"in":1,"interpret":1,"kaminsky":1,"langsec":1,"layer":1,"level":1,"may":1,"multiple":1,"non":1,"of":1,"on":1,"or":1,"parser":2,"patterson":1,"pki":1,"property":1,"resulting":1,"rules":1,"same":1,"sassaman":1,"since":1,"the":3,"them":1,"this":1,"to":2,"valid":1,"value":1,"vault":1,"whereby":1,"which":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"Coloured Petri Nets","s":"concepts/coloured-petri-nets","secs":[{"h":"Coloured Petri Nets","l":1,"t":"An extension of Petri nets in which tokens carry typed (\"coloured\") data values and transitions include guards and expressions. Used to model concurrent agent conversations with rich state and role information."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACRE Agent Conversation Reasoning Engine]] - [[Colored Petri Nets]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"acre":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":3,"carry":1,"colored":1,"coloured":2,"concurrent":1,"conversation":2,"conversations":1,"data":1,"engine":1,"expressions":1,"extension":1,"guards":1,"in":2,"include":1,"information":1,"model":1,"nets":3,"of":1,"petri":3,"policy":1,"reasoning":1,"rich":1,"role":1,"state":1,"this":1,"to":1,"tokens":1,"transitions":1,"typed":1,"used":1,"values":1,"vault":1,"which":1,"with":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Fixpoint Semantics","s":"concepts/fixpoint-semantics","secs":[{"h":"Fixpoint Semantics","l":1,"t":"A denotational approach that defines the meaning of a recursive program or logic program as the least fixed point of a monotone operator on a suitable domain. Central to the Van Emden-Kowalski semantics of logic programming."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Modular Approach to Metatheoretic Reasoning for Extensible Languages]] - [[Foundations of Logic Programming - Lloyd]]"}],"tf":{"a":5,"approach":2,"as":1,"central":1,"defines":1,"denotational":1,"domain":1,"emden":1,"extensible":1,"fixed":1,"fixpoint":1,"for":1,"foundations":1,"in":1,"kowalski":1,"languages":1,"least":1,"lloyd":1,"logic":3,"meaning":1,"metatheoretic":1,"modular":1,"monotone":1,"of":4,"on":1,"operator":1,"or":1,"point":1,"program":2,"programming":2,"reasoning":1,"recursive":1,"semantics":2,"suitable":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"to":2,"van":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Sandboxing","s":"concepts/sandboxing","secs":[{"h":"Sandboxing","l":1,"t":"Restricting a guest computation's capabilities (system calls, memory, bindings) so that untrusted code cannot harm the host."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent Tcl Flexible Secure Mobile Agents]] - [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Extensible Distributed Coordination]] - [[Capability Security]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"bindings":1,"book":1,"calls":1,"cannot":1,"capabilities":1,"capability":1,"chapter":1,"code":1,"computation":1,"coordination":1,"dagents":1,"distributed":1,"extensible":1,"flexible":1,"guest":1,"harm":1,"host":1,"in":1,"memory":1,"mobile":1,"restricting":1,"s":1,"sandboxing":1,"secure":1,"security":2,"so":1,"system":1,"tcl":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"untrusted":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":38,"n":"Stake Trust","s":"concepts/stake-trust","secs":[{"h":"Stake Trust","l":1,"t":"Trust backed by economic collateral at risk (stake + slashing conditions); aligns incentives but requires mis-behaviour detection and penalises new entrants via Sybil cost."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Inter-Agent Trust Models - A Comparative Study]] - [[ERC-8004]]"}],"tf":{"8004":1,"a":1,"agent":1,"aligns":1,"and":1,"at":1,"backed":1,"behaviour":1,"but":1,"by":1,"collateral":1,"comparative":1,"conditions":1,"cost":1,"detection":1,"economic":1,"entrants":1,"erc":1,"in":1,"incentives":1,"inter":1,"mis":1,"models":1,"new":1,"penalises":1,"requires":1,"risk":1,"slashing":1,"stake":2,"study":1,"sybil":1,"this":1,"trust":3,"vault":1,"via":1}},{"dl":27,"n":"Orthophrase","s":"concepts/orthophrase","secs":[{"h":"Orthophrase","l":1,"t":"Standish's category: extending a language with genuinely new primitive constructs — requires compiler-writer skill."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Extensibility in Programming Language Design - Standish]] - [[Paraphrase]] - [[Metaphrase]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"category":1,"compiler":1,"constructs":1,"design":1,"extending":1,"extensibility":1,"genuinely":1,"in":2,"language":2,"metaphrase":1,"new":1,"orthophrase":1,"paraphrase":1,"primitive":1,"programming":1,"requires":1,"s":1,"skill":1,"standish":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"with":1,"writer":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Four Security Problems","s":"concepts/four-security-problems","secs":[{"h":"Four Security Problems","l":1,"t":"In the D'Agents mobile-agent framework, the canonical threats: (1) protecting hosts from malicious agents, (2) protecting agents from malicious hosts, (3) protecting agents from other agents, and (4) protecting the underlying network."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[DAgents Security Book Chapter]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"1":1,"2":1,"3":1,"4":1,"agent":2,"agents":5,"and":1,"book":1,"canonical":1,"chapter":1,"d":1,"dagents":1,"four":1,"framework":1,"from":3,"hosts":2,"in":2,"malicious":2,"mobile":1,"network":1,"other":1,"problems":1,"protecting":4,"security":3,"the":3,"this":1,"threats":1,"underlying":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":42,"n":"Propositional Attitudes","s":"concepts/propositional-attitudes","secs":[{"h":"Propositional Attitudes","l":1,"t":"Mental states such as believing, desiring, or intending that take propositions as their content. ACL semantics have traditionally been specified in terms of sender and recipient propositional attitudes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]] - [[Mental State]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"agents":1,"and":1,"as":2,"attitudes":2,"been":1,"believing":1,"content":1,"conversations":1,"coordinating":1,"desiring":1,"have":1,"in":2,"intending":1,"mental":2,"mentalistic":1,"of":1,"or":1,"propositional":2,"propositions":1,"recipient":1,"semantics":2,"sender":1,"specified":1,"state":1,"states":1,"such":1,"take":1,"terms":1,"that":1,"their":1,"this":1,"traditionally":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":33,"n":"Garbage Collection","s":"concepts/garbage-collection","secs":[{"h":"Garbage Collection","l":1,"t":"Automatic reclamation of unreachable memory; introduced by McCarthy's original Lisp implementation and now pervasive across programming languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]]"}],"tf":{"across":1,"and":2,"automatic":1,"by":2,"collection":1,"computation":1,"expressions":1,"functions":1,"garbage":1,"implementation":1,"in":1,"introduced":1,"languages":1,"lisp":1,"machine":1,"mccarthy":1,"memory":1,"now":1,"of":2,"original":1,"pervasive":1,"programming":1,"reclamation":1,"recursive":1,"s":1,"symbolic":1,"their":1,"this":1,"unreachable":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":47,"n":"BDI Logic","s":"concepts/bdi-logic","secs":[{"h":"BDI Logic","l":1,"t":"A family of multimodal logics (Rao & Georgeff, Cohen & Levesque) that formalise the attitudes of Belief, Desire and Intention, giving axioms for their interaction over branching time. BDI logic underpins mentalistic semantics for agent communication languages."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[BDI]] - [[Mentalistic Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acls":1,"agent":1,"and":1,"attitudes":1,"axioms":1,"bdi":3,"belief":1,"branching":1,"cohen":1,"communication":1,"desire":1,"family":1,"for":3,"formalise":1,"georgeff":1,"giving":1,"in":1,"intention":1,"interaction":1,"languages":1,"levesque":1,"logic":2,"logics":1,"mentalistic":2,"multimodal":1,"of":2,"over":1,"rao":1,"semantics":3,"that":1,"the":1,"their":1,"this":1,"time":1,"underpins":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1}},{"dl":46,"n":"Nash Equilibrium Pathologies","s":"concepts/nash-equilibrium-pathologies","secs":[{"h":"Nash Equilibrium Pathologies","l":1,"t":"Pathological fixed points (e.g., miscoordination, inefficient conventions) that remain individually stable under Nash best-response even when a Pareto-better joint strategy exists — a source of MAS resilience failures under communication perturbation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Are Multiagent Systems Resilient to Communication Failures]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"are":1,"best":1,"better":1,"communication":2,"conventions":1,"e":1,"equilibrium":1,"even":1,"exists":1,"failures":2,"fixed":1,"g":1,"in":1,"individually":1,"inefficient":1,"joint":1,"mas":1,"miscoordination":1,"multiagent":1,"nash":2,"of":1,"pareto":1,"pathological":1,"pathologies":1,"perturbation":1,"points":1,"remain":1,"resilience":1,"resilient":1,"response":1,"source":1,"stable":1,"strategy":1,"systems":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"under":2,"vault":1,"when":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Privilege-Escalation Distance","s":"concepts/privilege-escalation-distance","secs":[{"h":"Privilege-Escalation Distance","l":1,"t":"SoK metric: minimum number of inter-component transitions required for an attacker to reach a target privilege level from an initial foothold in an agentic system."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[SoK The Attack Surface of Agentic AI]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"agentic":2,"ai":1,"an":3,"attack":1,"attacker":1,"component":1,"distance":1,"escalation":1,"foothold":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":2,"initial":1,"inter":1,"level":1,"metric":1,"minimum":1,"number":1,"of":2,"privilege":2,"reach":1,"required":1,"sok":2,"surface":1,"system":1,"target":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transitions":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":43,"n":"Input Validation","s":"concepts/input-validation","secs":[{"h":"Input Validation","l":1,"t":"Checking that inputs conform to a declared language before use; LangSec argues this must be a total, minimal-power recogniser rather than ad-hoc checks scattered through the program."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Security Applications Of Formal Language Theory]] - [[LangSec]] - [[Shotgun Parsing]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"ad":1,"applications":1,"argues":1,"be":1,"before":1,"checking":1,"checks":1,"conform":1,"declared":1,"formal":1,"hoc":1,"in":1,"input":1,"inputs":1,"langsec":2,"language":2,"minimal":1,"must":1,"of":1,"parsing":1,"power":1,"program":1,"rather":1,"recogniser":1,"scattered":1,"security":1,"shotgun":1,"than":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":2,"through":1,"to":1,"total":1,"use":1,"validation":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Semantic Web","s":"concepts/semantic-web","secs":[{"h":"Semantic Web","l":1,"t":"Vision of a machine-readable web built from RDF/OWL ontologies — the industrial-scale legacy of the Knowledge Sharing Effort's ontology research."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Handbook On Ontologies]] - [[Ontology Change Classification and Survey]] - [[Ontolingua Portable Ontology Specifications]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"and":1,"built":1,"change":1,"classification":1,"effort":1,"from":1,"handbook":1,"in":1,"industrial":1,"knowledge":1,"legacy":1,"machine":1,"of":2,"on":1,"ontolingua":1,"ontologies":2,"ontology":3,"owl":1,"portable":1,"rdf":1,"readable":1,"research":1,"s":1,"scale":1,"semantic":1,"sharing":1,"specifications":1,"survey":1,"the":2,"this":1,"vault":1,"vision":1,"web":2}},{"dl":38,"n":"Semantic Information Processing","s":"concepts/semantic-information-processing","secs":[{"h":"Semantic Information Processing","l":1,"t":"Minsky (ed.) 1968: MIT PhD theses collection (Bobrow, Evans, Raphael, Quillian, …) that set the semantic-nets-and-frames agenda Minsky later generalises in Society of Mind."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[The Society of Mind]] - [[Knowledge Representation]]"}],"tf":{"1968":1,"agenda":1,"and":1,"bobrow":1,"collection":1,"ed":1,"evans":1,"frames":1,"generalises":1,"in":2,"information":1,"knowledge":1,"later":1,"mind":2,"minsky":2,"mit":1,"nets":1,"of":2,"phd":1,"processing":1,"quillian":1,"raphael":1,"representation":1,"semantic":2,"set":1,"society":2,"that":1,"the":2,"theses":1,"this":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":30,"n":"Agent Libel","s":"concepts/agent-libel","secs":[{"h":"Agent Libel","l":1,"t":"Failure mode where an LLM agent produces defamatory or false claims about third parties (other agents, users) during autonomous operation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agents of Chaos]] - [[Agent Security]]"}],"tf":{"about":1,"agent":3,"agents":2,"an":1,"autonomous":1,"chaos":1,"claims":1,"defamatory":1,"during":1,"failure":1,"false":1,"in":1,"libel":1,"llm":1,"mode":1,"of":1,"operation":1,"or":1,"other":1,"parties":1,"produces":1,"security":1,"third":1,"this":1,"users":1,"vault":1,"where":1}},{"dl":51,"n":"Compositional Dependability","s":"concepts/compositional-dependability","secs":[{"h":"Compositional Dependability","l":1,"t":"The approach to building dependable systems in which quality attributes (availability, safety, confidentiality, etc.) are established for small components and then preserved under well-defined composition operators, so that system-level guarantees follow from component-level ones."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Architectural Patterns for Dependable Software Systems - SOL]] - [[Architectural Pattern]]"}],"tf":{"and":1,"approach":1,"architectural":2,"are":1,"attributes":1,"availability":1,"building":1,"component":1,"components":1,"composition":1,"compositional":1,"confidentiality":1,"defined":1,"dependability":1,"dependable":2,"established":1,"etc":1,"follow":1,"for":2,"from":1,"guarantees":1,"in":2,"level":2,"ones":1,"operators":1,"pattern":1,"patterns":1,"preserved":1,"quality":1,"safety":1,"small":1,"so":1,"software":1,"sol":1,"system":1,"systems":2,"that":1,"the":1,"then":1,"this":1,"to":1,"under":1,"vault":1,"well":1,"which":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Generality","s":"concepts/generality","secs":[{"h":"Generality","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's lifelong target: AI systems should be *general* — same reasoning mechanism across domains and tasks — rather than bespoke per problem. Theme of his 1987 Turing Award lecture."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Generality in Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Common Sense Reasoning]] - [[Logicist AI]]"}],"tf":{"1987":1,"across":1,"ai":2,"and":1,"artificial":1,"award":1,"be":1,"bespoke":1,"common":1,"domains":1,"general":1,"generality":2,"his":1,"in":2,"intelligence":1,"lecture":1,"lifelong":1,"logicist":1,"mccarthy":1,"mechanism":1,"of":1,"per":1,"problem":1,"rather":1,"reasoning":2,"s":1,"same":1,"sense":1,"should":1,"systems":1,"target":1,"tasks":1,"than":1,"theme":1,"this":1,"turing":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":76,"n":"AGENT-0","s":"concepts/agent-0","secs":[{"h":"AGENT-0","l":1,"t":"The first agent-oriented programming language, introduced by Yoav Shoham, in which agents are defined by a formal mental state (beliefs, capabilities, commitments) and interact via speech-act-typed primitives (INFORM, REQUEST, UNREQUEST). AGENT-0 concretises agent-oriented programming as a specialisation of object-oriented programming where module state is a mental state and messages are speech acts constrained by honesty/consistency rules."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Agent-Oriented Programming]] - [[Mental State]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"0":2,"a":3,"act":2,"acts":1,"agent":5,"agents":1,"and":2,"are":2,"as":1,"beliefs":1,"by":3,"capabilities":1,"commitments":1,"concretises":1,"consistency":1,"constrained":1,"defined":1,"first":1,"formal":1,"honesty":1,"in":2,"inform":1,"interact":1,"introduced":1,"is":1,"language":1,"mental":3,"messages":1,"module":1,"object":1,"of":1,"oriented":4,"primitives":1,"programming":4,"request":1,"rules":1,"shoham":1,"specialisation":1,"speech":3,"state":4,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"typed":1,"unrequest":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"where":1,"which":1,"yoav":1}},{"dl":40,"n":"Conversation Composition","s":"concepts/conversation-composition","secs":[{"h":"Conversation Composition","l":1,"t":"The construction of complex agent dialogues from smaller, reusable conversation fragments or protocols. Supports modularity in multi-agent interaction design by treating conversations as first-class composable entities."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Coordinating Agents Using ACL Conversations]] - [[Conversation Policy]]"}],"tf":{"acl":1,"agent":2,"agents":1,"as":1,"by":1,"class":1,"complex":1,"composable":1,"composition":1,"construction":1,"conversation":3,"conversations":2,"coordinating":1,"design":1,"dialogues":1,"entities":1,"first":1,"fragments":1,"from":1,"in":2,"interaction":1,"modularity":1,"multi":1,"of":1,"or":1,"policy":1,"protocols":1,"reusable":1,"smaller":1,"supports":1,"the":1,"this":1,"treating":1,"using":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":63,"n":"Self-aware Computing","s":"concepts/self-aware-computing","secs":[{"h":"Self-aware Computing","l":1,"t":"A design paradigm where a system maintains an explicit runtime model of itself (capabilities, state, performance, ethics constraints) and uses it to monitor, adapt, and explain its behaviour. Concretised in trustworthy-logical-agent work via runtime verification against A-ILTL/trace-expression specifications."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Ensuring Trustworthy and Ethical Behaviour in Intelligent Logical Agents]] - [[Self-Adaptive Systems]] - [[Metacognitive Loop]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"adapt":1,"adaptive":1,"against":1,"agent":1,"agents":1,"an":1,"and":3,"aware":1,"behaviour":2,"capabilities":1,"computing":1,"concretised":1,"constraints":1,"design":1,"ensuring":1,"ethical":1,"ethics":1,"explain":1,"explicit":1,"expression":1,"iltl":1,"in":3,"intelligent":1,"it":1,"its":1,"itself":1,"logical":2,"loop":1,"maintains":1,"metacognitive":1,"model":1,"monitor":1,"of":1,"paradigm":1,"performance":1,"runtime":2,"self":2,"specifications":1,"state":1,"system":1,"systems":1,"this":1,"to":1,"trace":1,"trustworthy":2,"uses":1,"vault":1,"verification":1,"via":1,"where":1,"work":1}},{"dl":54,"n":"Communicative Acts","s":"concepts/communicative-acts","secs":[{"h":"Communicative Acts","l":1,"t":"FIPA's term for the primitive message types (INFORM, REQUEST, PROPOSE, CFP, AGREE, REFUSE, ...) whose semantics is defined in SL modal logic over the sender's beliefs, intentions and feasibility preconditions. Effectively the FIPA-ACL rebranding of KQML's performatives."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[ACL Rethinking Principles]] - [[FIPA-ACL]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Speech Act Theory]]"}],"tf":{"acl":3,"act":1,"acts":1,"agree":1,"and":1,"beliefs":1,"cfp":1,"communicative":1,"defined":1,"effectively":1,"feasibility":1,"fipa":3,"for":1,"in":2,"inform":1,"intentions":1,"is":1,"kqml":1,"logic":1,"message":1,"modal":1,"of":1,"over":1,"performatives":2,"preconditions":1,"primitive":1,"principles":1,"propose":1,"rebranding":1,"refuse":1,"request":1,"rethinking":1,"s":3,"semantics":1,"sender":1,"sl":1,"speech":1,"term":1,"the":3,"theory":1,"this":1,"types":1,"vault":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Agent Communication Framework","s":"concepts/agent-communication-framework","secs":[{"h":"Agent Communication Framework","l":1,"t":"An architectural layering that separates an ACL's message syntax, content language, ontology, and interaction protocols, allowing each layer to be specified, verified, and evolved independently."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Verifiable Semantics for ACLs]] - [[Agent Communication Languages]] - [[FIPA-ACL]]"}],"tf":{"acl":2,"acls":1,"agent":2,"allowing":1,"an":2,"and":2,"architectural":1,"be":1,"communication":2,"content":1,"each":1,"evolved":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"framework":1,"in":1,"independently":1,"interaction":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"layer":1,"layering":1,"message":1,"ontology":1,"protocols":1,"s":1,"semantics":1,"separates":1,"specified":1,"syntax":1,"that":1,"this":1,"to":1,"vault":1,"verifiable":1,"verified":1}},{"dl":64,"n":"Commissives","s":"concepts/commissives","secs":[{"h":"Commissives","l":1,"t":"In Searle's taxonomy of illocutionary acts, speech acts that commit the speaker to a future course of action (promises, vows, offers). FIPA-ACL was criticised by Chaib-draa and Dignum for lacking native commissive performatives, forcing commitment semantics to be simulated via requests and agree/refuse pairs."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[Speech Act Theory]] - [[Performatives]] - [[Commitment-based Semantics]]"}],"tf":{"a":1,"acl":1,"act":1,"action":1,"acts":2,"agent":1,"agree":1,"and":2,"based":1,"be":1,"by":1,"chaib":1,"commissive":1,"commissives":1,"commit":1,"commitment":2,"communication":1,"course":1,"criticised":1,"dignum":1,"draa":1,"fipa":1,"for":1,"forcing":1,"future":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":3,"lacking":1,"language":1,"native":1,"of":2,"offers":1,"pairs":1,"performatives":2,"promises":1,"refuse":1,"requests":1,"s":1,"searle":1,"semantics":2,"simulated":1,"speaker":1,"speech":2,"taxonomy":1,"that":1,"the":1,"theory":1,"this":1,"to":2,"trends":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"vows":1,"was":1}},{"dl":48,"n":"ACL Layering","s":"concepts/acl-layering","secs":[{"h":"ACL Layering","l":1,"t":"The organisation of an Agent Communication Language into distinct layers — typically a content layer (domain knowledge), a message layer (performative/illocutionary force), and a communication layer (transport/addressing) — so that each concern can evolve independently."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Trends in Agent Communication Language]] - [[KQML]] - [[FIPA-ACL]]"}],"tf":{"a":3,"acl":2,"addressing":1,"agent":2,"an":1,"and":1,"can":1,"communication":3,"concern":1,"content":1,"distinct":1,"domain":1,"each":1,"evolve":1,"fipa":1,"force":1,"illocutionary":1,"in":2,"independently":1,"into":1,"knowledge":1,"kqml":1,"language":2,"layer":3,"layering":1,"layers":1,"message":1,"of":1,"organisation":1,"performative":1,"so":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"transport":1,"trends":1,"typically":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Hygienic Macros","s":"concepts/hygienic-macros","secs":[{"h":"Hygienic Macros","l":1,"t":"Compile-time syntax transformers that automatically avoid unintended name capture between the macro's template and the use site. Racket's hygienic macro system is the foundation on which its language-extension and DSL facilities are built."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Creating Languages in Racket]] - [[Macros as Language Extension]]"}],"tf":{"and":2,"are":1,"as":1,"automatically":1,"avoid":1,"between":1,"built":1,"capture":1,"compile":1,"creating":1,"dsl":1,"extension":2,"facilities":1,"foundation":1,"hygienic":2,"in":2,"is":1,"its":1,"language":2,"languages":1,"macro":2,"macros":2,"name":1,"on":1,"racket":2,"s":2,"site":1,"syntax":1,"system":1,"template":1,"that":1,"the":3,"this":1,"time":1,"transformers":1,"unintended":1,"use":1,"vault":1,"which":1}},{"dl":60,"n":"Type 1 and Type 2 Obligations","s":"concepts/type-1-and-type-2-obligations","secs":[{"h":"Type 1 and Type 2 Obligations","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's two-party bookkeeping: a program that accepts a reservation incurs a Type 1 obligation (program→user) and imposes a Type 2 obligation (organisation→user). Their legal content is institution-defined; the spec only records the exchange."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Elephant 2000 - A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts]] - [[Obligation Exchange]] - [[Institutional Reality]]"}],"tf":{"1":2,"2":2,"2000":1,"a":5,"accepts":1,"acts":1,"and":2,"based":1,"bookkeeping":1,"content":1,"defined":1,"elephant":1,"exchange":2,"imposes":1,"in":1,"incurs":1,"institution":1,"institutional":1,"is":1,"language":1,"legal":1,"mccarthy":1,"obligation":3,"obligations":1,"on":1,"only":1,"organisation":1,"party":1,"program":2,"programming":1,"reality":1,"records":1,"reservation":1,"s":1,"spec":1,"speech":1,"that":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"two":1,"type":4,"user":2,"vault":1}},{"dl":50,"n":"Meta-protocol","s":"concepts/meta-protocol","secs":[{"h":"Meta-protocol","l":1,"t":"A protocol whose role is to negotiate, discover, or compose other protocols between peers, decoupling long-term application vocabulary from short-term transport choices — as in the ANP LLM protocol's document-exchange phase."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[A Scalable Communication Protocol for Networks of LLMs]] - [[Agent Network Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":1,"anp":1,"application":1,"as":1,"between":1,"choices":1,"communication":1,"compose":1,"decoupling":1,"discover":1,"document":1,"exchange":1,"for":1,"from":1,"in":2,"is":1,"llm":1,"llms":1,"long":1,"meta":1,"negotiate":1,"network":1,"networks":1,"of":1,"or":1,"other":1,"peers":1,"phase":1,"protocol":5,"protocols":1,"role":1,"s":1,"scalable":1,"short":1,"term":2,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"transport":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"whose":1}},{"dl":39,"n":"Parser Combinators","s":"concepts/parser-combinators","secs":[{"h":"Parser Combinators","l":1,"t":"Higher-order functions that compose smaller parsers into larger ones, allowing grammars to be expressed directly as programs in the host language. Popular in functional languages for embedded DSL parsing."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Seven Turrets Of Babel]]"}],"tf":{"allowing":1,"as":1,"babel":1,"be":1,"combinators":1,"compose":1,"directly":1,"dsl":1,"embedded":1,"expressed":1,"for":1,"functional":1,"functions":1,"grammars":1,"higher":1,"host":1,"in":3,"into":1,"language":1,"languages":1,"larger":1,"of":1,"ones":1,"order":1,"parser":1,"parsers":1,"parsing":1,"popular":1,"programs":1,"seven":1,"smaller":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"to":1,"turrets":1,"vault":1}},{"dl":44,"n":"Conditional Expression","s":"concepts/conditional-expression","secs":[{"h":"Conditional Expression","l":1,"t":"McCarthy's `(cond ...)` primitive: a selector among alternatives evaluated lazily. Its introduction let recursive functions be defined purely, without imperative control flow."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine]] - [[Towards a Mathematical Science of Computation]] - [[Conditional Expressions]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"alternatives":1,"among":1,"and":1,"be":1,"by":1,"computation":2,"conditional":2,"control":1,"defined":1,"evaluated":1,"expression":1,"expressions":2,"flow":1,"functions":2,"imperative":1,"in":1,"introduction":1,"its":1,"lazily":1,"let":1,"machine":1,"mathematical":1,"mccarthy":1,"of":2,"primitive":1,"purely":1,"recursive":2,"s":1,"science":1,"selector":1,"symbolic":1,"their":1,"this":1,"towards":1,"vault":1,"without":1}},{"dl":56,"n":"Push-Synopses","s":"concepts/push-synopses","secs":[{"h":"Push-Synopses","l":1,"t":"A generalisation of Push-Sum (Kempe, Dobra, Gehrke) that computes arbitrary linear synopses — random projections, sketches, histograms — by having each node maintain a weighted synopsis and halve on each exchange, preserving the mass-conservation invariant. Subsumes averaging, counting, and moment computation."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Gossip-Based Computation of Aggregate Information]] - [[Push-Sum]] - [[Aggregate Functions]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"aggregate":2,"and":2,"arbitrary":1,"averaging":1,"based":1,"by":1,"computation":2,"computes":1,"conservation":1,"counting":1,"dobra":1,"each":2,"exchange":1,"functions":1,"gehrke":1,"generalisation":1,"gossip":1,"halve":1,"having":1,"histograms":1,"in":1,"information":1,"invariant":1,"kempe":1,"linear":1,"maintain":1,"mass":1,"moment":1,"node":1,"of":2,"on":1,"preserving":1,"projections":1,"push":3,"random":1,"sketches":1,"subsumes":1,"sum":2,"synopses":2,"synopsis":1,"that":1,"the":1,"this":1,"vault":1,"weighted":1}},{"dl":94,"n":"Tombstones","s":"concepts/tombstones","secs":[{"h":"Tombstones","l":1,"t":"Design pattern for representing deletions monotonically: instead of removing a record, mark it with a tombstone that subsequent operations recognise as \"deleted\". The effective data becomes \"live records minus tombstoned records\", and the underlying state only ever grows. This converts a non-monotonic delete into a monotonic insert, enabling coordination-free operation in line with the **[[CALM Theorem]]**. Standard in log-structured storage (LSM trees), Cassandra, CRDTs like OR-Set, and distributed garbage-collection schemes."},{"h":"In this vault","l":7,"t":"- [[Keeping CALM - When Distributed Consistency is Easy]] - [[CALM Theorem]] - [[Coordination Avoidance]] - [[CRDTs]] - [[Immutable Data Structures]]"}],"tf":{"a":4,"and":2,"as":1,"avoidance":1,"becomes":1,"calm":3,"cassandra":1,"collection":1,"consistency":1,"converts":1,"coordination":2,"crdts":2,"data":2,"delete":1,"deleted":1,"deletions":1,"design":1,"distributed":2,"easy":1,"effective":1,"enabling":1,"ever":1,"for":1,"free":1,"garbage":1,"grows":1,"immutable":1,"in":3,"insert":1,"instead":1,"into":1,"is":1,"it":1,"keeping":1,"like":1,"line":1,"live":1,"log":1,"lsm":1,"mark":1,"minus":1,"monotonic":2,"monotonically":1,"non":1,"of":1,"only":1,"operation":1,"operations":1,"or":1,"pattern":1,"recognise":1,"record":1,"records":2,"removing":1,"representing":1,"schemes":1,"set":1,"standard":1,"state":1,"storage":1,"structured":1,"structures":1,"subsequent":1,"that":1,"the":3,"theorem":2,"this":2,"tombstone":1,"tombstoned":1,"tombstones":1,"trees":1,"underlying":1,"vault":1,"when":1,"with":2}},{"dl":57,"n":"Role-specialised Agents","s":"concepts/role-specialised-agents","secs":[{"h":"Role-specialised Agents","l":1,"t":"A multi-agent design pattern (common in LLM frameworks) where each agent is prompted into a distinct functional role — requirement analyst, coder, tester, documenter — and they collaborate via structured message passing. Trades coordination overhead for division-of-labour gains."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multi-Agent Collaboration in AI - Wasif Tunkel]] - [[Roles]] - [[Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)]]"}],"tf":{"a":2,"agent":3,"agents":1,"ai":1,"analyst":1,"and":1,"coder":1,"collaborate":1,"collaboration":1,"common":1,"coordination":1,"design":1,"distinct":1,"division":1,"documenter":1,"each":1,"for":1,"frameworks":1,"functional":1,"gains":1,"in":3,"into":1,"is":1,"labour":1,"llm":1,"message":1,"multi":2,"of":1,"operating":1,"overhead":1,"passing":1,"pattern":1,"procedures":1,"prompted":1,"requirement":1,"role":2,"roles":1,"sops":1,"specialised":1,"standard":1,"structured":1,"tester":1,"they":1,"this":1,"trades":1,"tunkel":1,"vault":1,"via":1,"wasif":1,"where":1}},{"dl":37,"n":"Negotiation","s":"concepts/negotiation","secs":[{"h":"Negotiation","l":1,"t":"Bargaining protocols (Rubinstein, Contract Net, auctions) by which agents reach agreement on tasks or vocabulary."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Multiagent Systems Sycara]] - [[Toward Automated Evolution of ACLs]] - [[Towards Automating the Evolution of Linguistic Competence]] - [[Contract Net Protocol]]"}],"tf":{"acls":1,"agents":1,"agreement":1,"auctions":1,"automated":1,"automating":1,"bargaining":1,"by":1,"competence":1,"contract":2,"evolution":2,"in":1,"linguistic":1,"multiagent":1,"negotiation":1,"net":2,"of":2,"on":1,"or":1,"protocol":1,"protocols":1,"reach":1,"rubinstein":1,"sycara":1,"systems":1,"tasks":1,"the":1,"this":1,"toward":1,"towards":1,"vault":1,"vocabulary":1,"which":1}},{"dl":41,"n":"Action Formalism","s":"concepts/action-formalism","secs":[{"h":"Action Formalism","l":1,"t":"Any logical system for representing actions and their effects (situation calculus, STRIPS, event calculus, fluent calculus); subject of the frame problem and ramification problem."},{"h":"In this vault","l":5,"t":"- [[Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence]] - [[Situation Calculus]] - [[Planning]]"}],"tf":{"action":1,"actions":1,"and":2,"any":1,"artificial":1,"calculus":4,"effects":1,"event":1,"fluent":1,"for":1,"formalism":1,"frame":1,"from":1,"in":1,"intelligence":1,"logical":1,"of":2,"philosophical":1,"planning":1,"problem":2,"problems":1,"ramification":1,"representing":1,"situation":2,"some":1,"standpoint":1,"strips":1,"subject":1,"system":1,"the":2,"their":1,"this":1,"vault":1}}]}