Logics for Dynamic Epistemic Behavioral Strategies

  • Joshua Sack
Part of the Logic in Asia: Studia Logica Library book series (LIAA)


This paper shows how the probabilistic logic of communication and change can be used to reason about finite extensive-form games with incomplete or imperfect information and with probabilistic nature moves. The results of probabilistic behavioral strategies can be expressed, as well as the results of strategies that are sensitive not also just to the history of the game, but also to the beliefs of agents. Using this logic, game-theoretic concepts, such as best response, Nash equilibrium, and rationality can be expressed with respect to a finite set of possible strategies. Extensions to the logic are also proposed to allow for the comparison between one strategy and infinitely many others, thus providing less restricted expressions for best response, Nash equilibrium, and rationality.


Dynamic epistemic logic Valuation change Behavioural strategies Imperfect information games  



I would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments.


  1. 1.
    Achimescu, A.: Games and Logic for Informational Cascades. Master’s of Logic Thesis, ILLC (2014).
  2. 2.
    Achimescu, A., Baltag, A., Sack, J.: The probabilistic logic of communication and change. In: Presented at and Published in the Informal Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT’11) (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Achimescu, A., Baltag, A., Sack, J.: The Probabilistic Logic of Communication and Change, Manuscript (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S., Zvesper, A.: Keep ‘hoping’ for rationality: a solution to the backward induction paradox. Synthese 169, 705–737 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Benthem, J.: Rational dynamics and epistemic logic in games. Int Game Theory Rev 9(1), 13–45 (2007). (Erratum reprint, 9(2), 377–409)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Benthem, J.: Logic in Games. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Inf. Comput. 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Piterman, N.: Strategy Logic. Inf. Comput. 208, 677–693 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, T., Lu, J.: Probabilistic alternating-time temporal logic and model checking algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2007. FSKD 2007. pp. 35–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning about knowledge and probability. J. ACM 41(2), 340–367 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Cooperation, knowledge, and time: alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications. Studia Logica 75, 125–157 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pauly, M., Parikh, R.: Game logic—an overview. Studia Logica 75, 165–182 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sack, J., van der Hoek, W.: A modal logic for mixed strategies. Studia Logica 102, 339–360 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsCalifornia State University Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations