Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 491–526 | Cite as

Merging Frameworks for Interaction

  • Johan van BenthemEmail author
  • Jelle Gerbrandy
  • Tomohiro Hoshi
  • Eric Pacuit


A variety of logical frameworks have been developed to study rational agents interacting over time. This paper takes a closer look at one particular interface, between two systems that both address the dynamics of knowledge and information flow. The first is Epistemic Temporal Logic (ETL) which uses linear or branching time models with added epistemic structure induced by agents’ different capabilities for observing events. The second framework is Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) that describes interactive processes in terms of epistemic event models which may occur inside modalities of the language. This paper systematically and rigorously relates the DEL framework with the ETL framework. The precise relationship between DEL and ETL is explored via a new representation theorem characterizing the largest class of ETL models corresponding to DEL protocols in terms of notions of Perfect Recall, No Miracles, and Bisimulation Invariance. We then focus on new issues of completeness. One contribution is an axiomatization for the dynamic logic of public announcements constrained by protocols, which has been an open problem for some years, as it does not fit the usual ‘reduction axiom’ format of DEL. Finally, we provide a number of examples that show how DEL suggests an interesting fine-structure inside ETL.


Dynamic epistemic logic Epistemic temporal logic Epistemic logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., & Jagadeesan, R. (1994). Games and full completeness for multiplicative linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59(2), 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balbiani, P., Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Hoshi, T., & de Lima, T. (2007). What can we achieve by arbitrary announcements? In: D. Samet (Ed.), Proceedings of TARK 2007 (pp. 42–51). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltag, A. (2008). Merging doxastic preferences by public communication. Slides of GLLC 15 talk.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., & Moss, L. (2004). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese: Knowledge, Rationality, and Action, 2, 165–224.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of common knowledge, public announcements and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK 98), (pp. 43–56).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Benthem, J. (2001). Games in dynamic epistemic logic. Bulletin of Economic Research, 53, 216–248.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Benthem, J. (2006). Modal frame correspondences and fixed-points. Studia Logica, 83, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Benthem, J. (2006). One is a lonely number: on the logic of communication. In Z. Chatzidakis, P. Koepke, & W. Pohlers (Eds.), Logic colloquium ’02. Lecture Notes in Logic, (Vol. 27, pp. 96–129). Cergy-Pontoise: ASL & A.K. Peters.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Benthem, J., & Degremont, C. (2008). Building between dynamic and temporal doxastic logics. Tech. Rep. PP-2008-34, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11), 1620–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Hoshi, T., & Pacuit, E. (2008). Merging frameworks for interaction. Tech. rep., ILLC Prepublications.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., & Pacuit, E. (2007). Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL. In: D. Samet (Ed.), Proceedings of TARK 2007 (pp. 72–81).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2004). Diversity of logical agents in games. Philosophia Scientiae, 8(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Benthem, J., & Martinez, M. (2008). The stories of logic and information. In P. Adriaans, J. van Benthem (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of information. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Benthem, J., & Pacuit, E. (2006). The tree of knowledge in action: Towards a common perspective. In G. Governatori, I. Hodkinson, & Y. Venema (Eds.), Proceedings of advances in modal logic (Vol. 6, pp. 87–106). Edmonton: King’s College.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2002). Modal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bonanno, G. (2004). Memory and perfect recall in extensive games. Games and Economic Behaviour, 47, 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese Library. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Eijck, J., & Wang, Y. (2008). PDL as a logic of belief revision. Amsterdam: CWI.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Bisimulations on planet kripke. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (DS-1999-01).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Dynamic epistemic logic. In L.S. Moss, J. Ginzburg, & M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (Vol. 2, pp. 67–84). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gerbrandy, J. (2007) Convergence failures in public announcement scenarios. Working paper, Department of Informatics, University of TorinoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Halpern, J., van der Meyden, R., & Vardi, M. (2004). Complete axiomatizations for reasoning about knowledge and time. SIAM Journal of Computing, 33(2), 674–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halpern, J., & Vardi, M. (1989). The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 38, 195–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hodkinson, I., & Reynolds, M. (2006). Temporal logic. In P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, & F. Wolter (Eds.), Handbook of modal logic. Studies in logic (Vol. 3, pp. 655–270). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoshi, T. (2007). Logics of public announcements with constrained protocols. Philosophy Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoshi, T. (forthcoming). Epistemic dynamism and protocol information. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelly, K. (1996). The logic of reliable inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The cognitive structure of surprise: Looking for basic principles. Topoi, 26, 133—149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In P. Stone, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’06) (pp. 137–144). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller, J., & Moss, L. (2005). The undecidability of iterated modal relativization. Studia Logica, 79(3), 373–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pacuit, E. (2007). Some comments on history based structures. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(4), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pacuit, E., & Parikh, R. (2007). Reasoning about communication graphs. In J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay, & B. Löwe (Eds.), Interactive logic, proceedings of the 7th Augustus de Morgan workshop. Edmonton: King’s College.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parikh, R., & Ramanujam, R. (2003). A knowledge based semantics of messages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plaza, J. (2007). Logics of public communications. Synthese: Knowledge, Rationality, and Action, 158(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sack, J. (2008). Temporal language for epistemic programs. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 17(2), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yap, A. (2006). Product update and looking backward. Tech. rep., ILLC Prepublciations (PP-2006-39).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan van Benthem
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jelle Gerbrandy
    • 4
  • Tomohiro Hoshi
    • 3
  • Eric Pacuit
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social SciencesTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Departimento di InformaticaUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations