Dynamic Logic for Reasoning About Actions and Agents

  • J.-J. Ch. Meyer
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)


Dynamic logic is a logic to reason about the dynamics of (natural or artificial) systems in general, ranging from the effects of actions of human agents to the behavior of artificial agents and software systems. Therefore it is to be expected that in AI it can be fruitfully employed both to represent knowledge about the dynamics of the domain at hand as well as to describe/specify (the dynamic behavior of) AI systems themselves. A typical example of the former is the description of the effects of actions (of humans, for example) in the commonsense world, while the specification of a particular reasoning system would be of the latter type. In this paper a number of examples are given to illustrate the usefulness (and wide scope!) of dynamic logic for AI.


Dynamic logic dynamic deontic logic dynamic update logic logic of actions single agents multi-agent systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, A.R. (1958). A Reduction of Deontic Logic to Alethic Modal Logic. Mind 67, 1958, pp. 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apt K.R., Blair, H.A., and Walker A. (1988) Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988, pp. 89–148.Google Scholar
  3. Baltag, A., Moss, L.S., and Solecki, S. (1998) The Logic of Public Announcements, Common Knowledge, and Private Suspicions. In: Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (Proc. TARK 1998) (I. Gilboa, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  4. van Benthem, J. (1995) Temporal Logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 4: Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning (D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger & J.A. Robinson, eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp.241–350.Google Scholar
  5. Castelfranchi, C. and Falcone, R. (1998) Principles of Trust for MAS: Cognitive Anatomy, Social Importance, and Quantification. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS’98) (Y. Demazeau, ed.), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1998, pp. 72–79.Google Scholar
  6. Coenen, J. (1993) Top-Down Development of Layered Fault-Tolerant Systems and Its Problems — a Deontic Perspective. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1,2), 1993, pp.133–150.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cousot, P. (1990) Methods and Logics for Proving Programs. In: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 841–993.Google Scholar
  8. Dignum, F. and Conte, R., (1998) Intentional Agents and Goal Formation. In: Intelligent Agents IV (M.P. Singh, A. Rao & M.J. Wooldridge, eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 231–243.Google Scholar
  9. Dignum, F. and van Linder, B. (1997) Modeling Social Agents: Communication as Action. In: Intelligent Agents III (J.P. Müller, M.J. Wooldridge & N.R. Jennings, eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1997, pp. 205–218.Google Scholar
  10. Dignum, F.P.M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and Wieringa, R.J., (1996a) Free Choice and Contextually Permitted Actions. Studia Logica 57(1), 1996, pp. 193–220.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., Wieringa, R.J., and Kuiper, R. (1996b) A Modal Approach to Intentions, Commitments and Obligations: Intention plus Commitment Yields Obligation. In: Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems (Proc. DEON’96) (M.A. Brown & J. Carmo, eds.), Workshops in Computing, Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp. 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, C, Fisher, M. and Wooldridge, M. (1998) Resolution for Temporal Logics of Knowledge, J. of Logic and Computation 8(3), 1998, pp. 345–372.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunin-Keplicz, B. and Radzikowska, A. (1995) Epistemic Approach to Actions with Typical Effects. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (Proc. ECSQARU’95) (Chr. Froideveaux & J. Kohlas, eds.), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 946, Springer, Berlin, 1995, pp. 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emerson, E.A. (1990) Temporal and modal logic. In: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 995–1072.Google Scholar
  15. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M. (1995) Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, M. and Ladner, R. (1979) Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs. J. Comput. System Sci. 18, 1979, pp. 194–211.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerbrandy, J. (1999) Bisimulations on Planet Kripke. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. Gerbrandy, J. and Groeneveld, W. (1997) Reasoning about Information Change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6, 1997, pp. 147–169.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991) Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1), 1991, pp. 31–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halpern, J.Y. (1997) A Logical Approach to Reasoning about Uncertainty: a Tutorial. In: Discourse, Interaction and Communication (X. Arrazola, K. Korta & F.J. Pelletier, eds.), Kluwer, 1998, pp. 141–155.Google Scholar
  21. Harel, D. (1984) Dynamic Logic, in: D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II, Reidel, Dordrecht/Boston, 1984, pp. 497–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harel, D. (1979) First-Order Dynamic Logic. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 68, Springer, Berlin, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. Hoare, C.A.R. (1969) An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming. Comm. ACM 12, 1969, pp. 576–580.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and van Schagen, J.W. (1999) Formalizing Potential of Agents — The KARO Framework Revisited. In: Proc. of the 7th CSLI Workshop on Logic, Language and Computation (M. Faller, S. Kaufmann M. Pauly, eds.), CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1999, to appear.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, Z., Masuch, M., and Pólos, L. (1996) ALX, an Action Logic for Agents with Bounded Rationality. Artificial Intelligence 82, 1996, pp. 75–127.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hustadt, U., Dixon, C., Schmidt, R.A., Fisher, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and van der Hoek, W. (2000) Verification within the KARO Agent Theory, submitted.Google Scholar
  27. Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K. and Wooldridge, M. (1998) A Roadmap of Agent Research and Development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1, 1998, pp. 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kartha, G.N. and Lifschitz, V. (1994) Actions with Indirect Effects (Preliminary Report). In: Proc. KR’94, 1994, pp. 341–350.Google Scholar
  29. Kozen, D. and Tiuryn, J. (1990) Logics of Programs. In: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp.789–840.Google Scholar
  30. van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1995) Actions that Make You Change Your Mind: Belief Revision in an Agent-Oriented Setting. In: Knowledge and Belief in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence (A. Laux & H. Wansing, eds.), Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1995, pp. 103–146.Google Scholar
  31. van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1996) Formalizing Motivational Attitudes of Agents: On Preferences, Goals and Commitments. In: Intelligent Agents Volume II — Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (M. Wooldridge, J.P. Müller & M. Tambe, eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences (Subseries LNAI) 1037, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  32. van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1997) Seeing is Believing (And So Are Hearing and Jumping). Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6, 1997, pp. 33–61.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J.Ch. (1998) Formalizing Abilities and Opportunities of Agents. Fundamenta Informaticae 34(1, 2), 1998, pp. 53–101.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Lomuscio, A. (1999) Knowledge Sharing among Ideal Agents. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Birmingham, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. Lukaszewicz, W. and Madalinska-Bugaj, E. (1995) Reasoning about Action and Change using Dijkstra’s semantics for Programming Languages: Preliminary Report. In Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, 1995, pp. 1950–1955.Google Scholar
  36. Mally, E. (1926) Grundgesetze des Sollens, Elemente der Logik des Willens. Leuschner & Lubensky, Graz, 1926.Google Scholar
  37. Manchanda, S. and Warren, D.S. (1988) A Logic-Based Language for Database Updates. In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988, pp. 363–394.Google Scholar
  38. van der Meyden, R. (1990) The Dynamic Logic of Permission. Proc. 5th IEEE Conf. on Logic in Computer Science, Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 72–78.Google Scholar
  39. Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1998) A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol.29, pp. 109–136, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer, J.-J. Ch. and Doherty, P. (1999) Preferential Action Semantics (Preliminary Report). In: Formal Models of Agents (J.-J. Ch. Meyer & P.Y. Schobbens, eds.), Springer, to appear.Google Scholar
  41. Meyer, J.-J. Ch. and van der Hoek, W. (1995) Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. Meyer, J.-J. Ch., van der Hoek, W., and van Linder, B. (1999) A Logical Approach to the Dynamics of Commitments. AI Journal 113, 1999, 1–40.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Meyer, J.-J. Ch., Wieringa, R.J., and Dignum, F.P.M. (1998) The Role of Deontic Logic in the Specification of Information Systems. In: Logics for Databases and Information Systems (J. Chomicki & G. Saake, eds.), Kluwer, Boston/Dordrecht, 1998, pp. 71–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore, R.C. (1985) A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action. In: J.R. Hobbs & R.C. Moore (eds.), Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, Ablex, Norwood NJ, 1985, pp. 319–358.Google Scholar
  45. Pratt, V. (1976) Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic. In Proc. 17th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, 1976, pp. 109–121.Google Scholar
  46. Royakkers, L.M.M. (1998) Extending Deontic Logic for the Formalization of Legal Rules. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston, 1998.Google Scholar
  47. Sandewall, E. (1994) Features and Fluents: A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxfors, 1994.Google Scholar
  48. Sandewall, E. and Shoham, Y. (1994) Nonmonotonic Temporal Reasoning. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Vol. 4 (Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning) (D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger & J.A. Robinson, eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 439–498.Google Scholar
  49. Shanahan, M.P. (1996a) Noise and the Common Sense Informatic Situation for a Mobile Robot, Proc. AAAI’96, 1996, pp. 1098–1103.Google Scholar
  50. Shanahan, M.P. (1996b) Robotics and the Common Sense Informatic Situation, Proc. ECAI’96, 1996, pp. 684–688.Google Scholar
  51. Sierra, C, Godo, L., López de Màntaras, R. and Manzano, M. (1996) Descriptive Dynamic Logic and Its Application to Reflective Architectures. Future Generation Computer Systems 12, 1996, pp. 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soeteman, A. (1989) Logic in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston, 1989.Google Scholar
  53. Spruit, P.A., Wieringa, R.J., and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1995) Axiomatization, Declarative Semantics and Operational Semantics of Passive and Active Updates in Logic Databases. Journal of Logic and Computation 5(1), 1995, pp. 27–70.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spruit, P., Wieringa, R.J., and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1999) Regular Database Update Logics. 1999, submitted.Google Scholar
  55. Stirling, C. (1992) Modal and Temporal Logics, in: S. Abramsky, D.M. Gabbay & T.S.E. Maibaum (eds.). Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Vol. II, Carendon Press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 477–563.Google Scholar
  56. Veltman, F. (1996) Defaults in Update Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 1996, pp. 221–261.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. de Weerdt, M., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1999a) Imprecise Observations of Mobile Robots Specified by a Modal Logic. In: Proc. of the fifth annual conference of the Advanced School for Computing and Imaging (ASCI’99), (M. Boasson, J.A. Kaandorp, J.F.M. Tonino & M.G. Vosselman, eds.), Heijen, The Netherlands, June 15–17, 1999, pp. 184–190.Google Scholar
  58. de Weerdt, M., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1999b) Specifying Uncertainty of Mobile Robots by Means of a Modal Logic. in preparation.Google Scholar
  59. Wieringa, R.J. and Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1993) Applications of Deontic Logic in Computer Science: A Concise Overview. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, (J.-J. Ch. Meyer & R.J. Wieringa, eds.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1993, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
  60. von Wright, G.H. (1951) Deontic Logic. Mind 60, 1951, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. von Wright, G.H. (1964) A New System of Deontic Logic. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 1, 1964, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
  62. Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. (1995) Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2), 1995, pp. 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.-J. Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing Science Intelligent Systems GroupUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations