A Complete and Decidable Axiomatisation for Deontic Interpreted Systems

  • Alessio Lomuscio
  • Bożena Woźna
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4048)


We solve the problem left open in [5] by providing a complete axiomatisation of deontic interpreted systems on a language that includes full CTL as well as the K i , O i and \({\mathcal{\widehat{\rm {K}}}}^j_i\) modalities. Additionally we show that the logic employed enjoys the finite model property, hence decidability is guaranteed. To achieve these results we follow and extend the technique used by Halpern and Emerson in [2].


Model Check Directed Acyclic Graph Inference Rule Decidability Algorithm Axiomatic System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching-time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 30(1), 1–24 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lomuscio, A., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: A model checker for multi-agent systems. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 450–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75(1), 63–92 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: A formalisation of violation, error recovery, and enforcement in the bit transmission problem. Journal of Applied Logic 2(1), 93–116 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nabialek, W., Niewiadomski, A., Penczek, W., Pólrola, A., Szreter, M.: VerICS 2004: A model checker for real time and multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Concurrency, Specification and Programming (CS&P 2004), Humboldt University. Informatik-Berichte, vol. 170, pp. 88–99 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raimondi, F., Lomuscio, A.: Automatic verification of multi-agent systems by model checking via OBDDs. Journal of Applied Logic (2005) (to appear in special issue on Logic-based agent verification)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wooldridge, M., Lomuscio, A.: A computationally grounded logic of visibility, perception, and knowledge. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 273–288 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woźna, B., Lomuscio, A., Penczek, W.: Bounded model checking for deontic interpreted systems. In: Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Logic and Communication in Multi-Agent Systems (LCMAS 2004). ENTCS, vol. 126, pp. 93–114. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessio Lomuscio
    • 1
  • Bożena Woźna
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations