Announcements to Attentive Agents

  • Thomas Bolander
  • Hans van Ditmarsch
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Pere Pardo
  • François Schwarzentruber


In public announcement logic it is assumed that all agents pay attention to the announcement. Weaker observational conditions can be modelled in action model logic. In this work, we propose a version of public announcement logic wherein it is encoded in the states of the epistemic model which agents pay attention to the announcement. This logic is called attention-based announcement logic. We give an axiomatization of the logic and prove that complexity of satisfiability is the same as that of public announcement logic, and therefore lower than that of action model logic. An attention-based announcement can also be described as an action model. We extend our logic by integrating attention change. Finally, we add the notion of common belief to the language, we exploit this to formalize the concept of joint attention, that has been widely discussed in the philosophical and cognitive science literature, and we provide a corresponding axiomatization. This axiomatization also employs the auxiliary notion of attention-based relativized common belief.


Dynamic epistemic logic Axiomatization Satisfiability  Common belief Collective attention 



Hans van Ditmarsch is also affiliated to IMSc, Chennai, as research associate. We acknowledge support from European Research Council Grant EPS 313360. Andreas Herzig and Emiliano Lorini acknowledge support of the the ANR project EmoTES. We gratefully acknowledge two very informed and helpful reviewers of JoLLI. This work is based on a conference publication van Ditmarsch et al. (2013). All parts have been thoroughly revised. The section on attention change has been expanded considerably. A completely novel addition is the section on common belief and the axiomatization for that extension.


  1. Aucher, G. (2009). BMS revisited. In Proceedings of 12th TARK (pp. 24–33).Google Scholar
  2. Aucher, G., & Schwarzentruber, F. (2013). On the complexity of dynamic epistemic logic. In Proceedings of 14th TARK.Google Scholar
  3. Balbiani, P., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., & de Lima, T. (2010). Tableaux for public announcement logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balbiani, P., Gasquet, O., & Schwarzentruber, F. (2012). Agents that look at one another. Logic Journal of IGPL, 21(3), 438–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltag, A., Moss, L.S., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In Proceedings of 7th TARK (pp. 43–56). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. Bolander, T. (2014). Seeing is believing: Formalising false-belief tasks in dynamic epistemic logic. In A. Herzig, & E. Lorini, (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Social Intelligence (pp. 87–107), CEUR Workshop Proceedings No. 0074–1283-4.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. French, T., Hales, J., & Tay, E. (2014). A composable language for action models. In R. Goré, B. P. Kooi, & A. Kurucz (Eds.), Advances in modal logic 10 (pp. 197–216). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Gerbrandy, J. D. (1999). Bisimulations on planet kripke. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1999–01.Google Scholar
  10. Guiraud, N., Herzig, A., & Lorini, E. (2009). Speech acts as announcements. In Logic and the simulation of interaction and reasoning (p. 13).Google Scholar
  11. Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1992). A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54, 319–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heifetz, A., Meier, M., & Schipper, B. C. (2006). Interactive unawareness. Journal of Economic Theory, 130, 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herzig, A., & Lorini, E. (2013). A modal logic of perceptual belief, Synthese Library. In F. Lihoreau & M. Rebuschi (Eds.), Epistemology, context and formalism. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Kooi, B. (2007). Expressivity and completeness for public update logics via reduction axioms. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kooi, B., & Renne, B. (2011). Generalized arrow update logic. In Proceedings of 13th TARK (pp. 205–211). Poster presentation.Google Scholar
  16. Lorini, E., Tummolini, L., & Herzig, A. (2005). Establishing mutual beliefs by joint attention: Towards a formal model of public events. In Proceedings of Cognitive Science, (pp. 1325–1330). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In Proceedings of the 5th AAMAS (pp. 137–144).Google Scholar
  18. Plaza, J. A. (1989) Logics of public communications. In Proceedings of the 4th ISMIS (pp. 201–216). Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  19. Tommasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11), 1620–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Ditmarsch, H. (2000). Knowledge games. PhD thesis, University of Groningen. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2000-06.Google Scholar
  22. van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Schwarzentruber, F. (2013). Listen to me! public announcements to agents that pay attention—or not. In Proceedings of 4th LORI, (pp. 96–109). Springer. LNCS 8196.Google Scholar
  23. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2003). Concurrent dynamic epistemic logic. In V. F. Hendricks, K. F. Jørgensen, & S. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Knowledge contributors (Vol. 322, pp. 45–82). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2005). Dynamic epistemic logic with assignment. In Proceedings of 4th AAMAS (pp. 141–148). ACM.Google Scholar
  25. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). it Dynamic epistemic logic, vol 337 of synthese library. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. van Eijck, J. (2012). Perception and change in update logic. In J. van Eijck & R. Verbrugge (Eds.), Games, Actions and Social Software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7010, pp.119–140). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Wang, Y., & Cao, Q. (2013). On axiomatizations of public announcement logic. Synthese, 190(1 supp.), 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Bolander
    • 1
  • Hans van Ditmarsch
    • 2
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 3
  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pere Pardo
    • 2
  • François Schwarzentruber
    • 5
  1. 1.DTU ComputeTechnical University of DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.LORIA, CNRSUniversity of LorraineVandœuvre-lés-NancyFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, IRITUniversity of ToulouseToulouseFrance
  4. 4.IASTToulouseFrance
  5. 5.ENS RennesIRISARennesFrance

Personalised recommendations