, 171:291 | Cite as

A dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for intentions and information changes in strategic games

Open Access


In this paper I present a dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for reasoning about information and intention changes in situations of strategic interaction. I provide a complete axiomatization for this logic, and then use it to study intentions-based transformations of decision problems.


Intentions Rationality Interaction Transformation of decision problems Fixed points 



Many thanks to Johan van Benthem, Jens Ulrik Hansen, Barteld Kooi, Alexandru Baltag, Martin van Hees and the two anonymous referees of Synthese for their remarks and comments. The paper also greatly profited from discussions during the Seminar on Logics for Dynamics of Information and Preferences at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation in Amsterdam, and at the LOCCOL Workshop in September 2008 in Prague. Financial support from the Conseil de Recherches en Sciences Humaines du Canada, Scholarship scholarship #752-2006-0345 is gratefully acknowledged.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Alchourron C.E., Gardenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Areces C., ten Cate B. (2007) Hybrid logic. In: Blackburn P., Benthem J., Wolter F. (eds) Handbook of modal logic. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 821–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aumann R. (1999) Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge. International Journal of Game Theory 28: 263–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aumann R., Dreze J. (2008) Rational expectations in games. American Economic Review 98(1): 72–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltag A., Smets S., Zvesper J. (2009) Keep ‘hoping’ for rationality: A solution to the backward induction paradox. Synthese 169(2): 301–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn P., de Rijke M., Venema Y. (2001) Modal logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn P., van Benthem J., Wolter F. (Eds.) (2006) Handbook of modal logic. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandenburger A. (2007) The power of paradox: Some recent developments in interactive epistemology. International Journal of Game Theory 35: 465–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bratman M. (1987) Intention, plans and practical reason. Harvard University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bratman M. (1999) Faces of intention; selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Bratman M. (2009) Intention, belief, practical, theoretical. In: Timmerman J., Skorupski J., Robertson S. (eds) Spheres of reason. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratman M., Israel D., Pollack M. (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4: 349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen P., Levesque H. (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2–3): 213–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagin R., Halpern J., Moses Y., Vardi M. (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Gargov G., Goranko V. (1993) Modal logic with names. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22(3): 607–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M., Tambe, M., & Wooldridge, M. (1999). The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In Intelligent agents V: Agent Thories, Architectures, and Languages. 5th International Workshop, ATAL’98. Proceedings. pp. 1–10. Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Bisimulations on planet kripke. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, ILLC. Dissertation Series DS-1999-01.Google Scholar
  18. Girard, P. (2008). Modal logics for belief and preference change. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  19. Gul F., Pesendorfer W. (2001) Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69(6): 1403–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, J. (2009). Hybrid public announcement logic (Manuscript).Google Scholar
  21. Harman G. (1976) Practical reasoning. Review of Metaphysics 29(3): 431–463Google Scholar
  22. Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2008-02.Google Scholar
  23. McClennen E. (1990) Rationality and dynamic choice: Foundational explorations. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborne M., Rubinstein A. (1994) A course in game theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of Public Communications. In M. Emrich, M. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems: Poster session program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, pp. 201–216.Google Scholar
  26. Rott H. (2001) Change, choice and inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Ford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Roy O. (2009) Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese 169(2): 335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ten Cate, B. (2002). Internalizing epistemic actions. In M. Martinez (Ed.), Proceedings of the NASSLLI 2002 student session, Stanford University, pp. 103–123.Google Scholar
  29. ten Cate, B. (2005). Model theory for extended modal languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2005-01.Google Scholar
  30. van Benthem J. (2007a) Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 17(2): 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Benthem J. (2007b) Rational dynamic and epistemic logic in games. International Game Theory Review 9(1): 13–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Benthem, J. (to appear). Logical dynamics of information flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. van Benthem J., Girard P., Roy O. (2008) Everything else being equal: A modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(1): 83–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Benthem J., van Otterloo S., Roy O. (2006) Preference logic, conditionals, and solution concepts in games. In: Lagerlund H., indström S., Sliwinski R. (eds) Modality matters: Twenty-five essays in honour of Krister Segerberg, Vol 53. University of Uppsala, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Hoek W., Jamroga W., Wooldrige M. (2007) Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2): 265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Ditmarsch, H., van de Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic, Vol. 337 of Synthese Library Series. Springer.Google Scholar
  37. van Hees M, Roy O. (2008) Intentions and plans in decision and game theory. In: Verbeek B. (eds) Reasons and intentions, Aldershot. England, Ashgate Publishers, pp 207–226Google Scholar
  38. Velleman J. (1997) How to share an intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57(1): 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1994) A theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Wooldridge M. (2000) Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, CambirdgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations