Action Theories

  • Andreas HerzigEmail author
  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Nicolas Troquard
Part of the Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy book series (SUTP)


We present the main logical theories of action. We distinguish theories identifying an action with its result from theories studying actions in terms of both their results and the means that result is obtained. The first family includes most prominently the logic of seeing-to-it-that and the logic of bringing-it-about-that. The second includes propositional dynamic logic and its variants. For all these logics we overview their extensions by other modalities such as modal operators of knowledge, belief, and obligation.

References and Recommended Readings

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T. A., & Kupferman, O. (1997). Alternating-time temporal logic. In Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balbiani, P., Lorini, E. (2013). Ockhamist propositional dynamic logic: A natural link between PDL and CTL. In Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation (WOLLIC 2013) (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 8071, pp. 251–265). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balbiani, P., Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2008). Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37(4), 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ∗ Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future: Agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [A compilation of a over a decade of work of the authors on agency in branching-time.].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belnap, N. (1991). Backwards and forwards in the modal logic of agency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 51(4), 777–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belnap, N., & Perloff, M. (1988). Seeing to it that: A canonical form for Agentives. Theoria, 54(3), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen, J. (2003). Modal action logics for reasoning about reactive systems. PhD thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broersen, J. (2011). Making a start with the STIT logic analysis of intentional action. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Broersen, J., Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2006). Embedding alternating-time temporal logic in strategic STIT logic of agency. Journal of Logic and Computation, 16(5), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown, M. A. (1992). Normal bimodal logics of ability and action. Studia Logica, 52, 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carmo, J., & Pacheco, O. (2001). Deontic and action logics for organized collective agency, modeled through institutionalized agents and roles. Fundamenta Informaticae, 48, 129–163.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chellas, B. F. (1969). The logical form of imperatives. Stanford: Perry Lane Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chisholm, R. M. (1964). The descriptive element in the concept of action. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ciuni, R., & Lorini, E. (2017). Comparing semantics for temporal STIT logic. Logique et Analyse (to appear).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ciuni, R., & Zanardo, A. (2010). Completeness of a branching-time logic with possible choices. Studia Logica, 96(3), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3), 213–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elgesem, D. (1993). Action theory and modal logic. Ph.D. thesis. Institut for filosofi, Det historiskfilosofiske fakultetet, Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elgesem, D. (1997). The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(2), 1–46.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ∗ Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. (2005). On the axiomatization of Elgesem’s logic of agency and ability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 403–431. [A semantics for the logic of bringing-it-about-that in terms of neighbourhood frames.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ∗ Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic logic. Cambridge: MIT Press. [A standard textbook for dynamic logics.].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D. (2004). C&L intention revisited. In D. Dubois, C. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Principles on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2004) (pp. 527–535). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herzig, A., & Lorini, E. (2010). A dynamic logic of agency I: STIT, abilities and powers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 19, 89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ∗ Horty, J. F. (2001). Agency and deontic logic. New York: Oxford University Press. [A thorough analysis of obligations to do in the models of branching-time and choice of agents.].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horty, J., & Belnap, N. (1995). The deliberative STIT: A study of action, omission, ability and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6), 583–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horty, J., & Pacuit, E. (2017). Action types in STIT semantics. Review of Symbolic Logic, 10, 617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kanger, S., Kanger, H. (1966). Rights and parliamentarism. Theoria, 32, 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kenny, A. (1975). Will, freedom, and power. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lindahl, L. (1977). Position and change: A study in law and logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lorini, E. (2013). Temporal STIT logic and its application to normative reasoning. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 23(4), 372–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lorini, E., & Demolombe, R. (2008). Trust and norms in the context of computer security: Toward a logical formalization. In R. Van der Meyden & L. Van der Torre (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2008) (LNCS, Vol. 5076, pp. 50–64). Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lorini, E., & Herzig, A. (2008). A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese KRA, 163(1), 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D., & Mayor, E. (2014). A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: Emotions, individuals and collectives. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(6), 1313–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (1988). A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meyer, J.-J. Ch., van der Hoek, W., & van der Linder, B. (1999). A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments. Artificial Intelligence, 113(1–2), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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 (pp. 319–358). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ∗ Pauly, M. (2002). A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 149–166. [A now classic article on group abilities in game and social choice theory.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Porello, D., & Troquard, N. (2014). A resource-sensitive logic of agency. In ECAI 2014 – 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 723–728).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porello, D., & Troquard, N. (2015). Non-normal modalities in variants of linear logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 25(3), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pörn, I. (1977). Action theory and social science: Some formal models (Synthese library, Vol. 120). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Santos, F., Jones, A. J. I., & Carmo, J. (1997). Action concepts for describing organised interaction. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceeding of Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-30) (Vol. 5, pp. 373–382). IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Santos, F., Jones, A. J. I., & Carmo, J. (1997). Responsibility for action in organisations: A formal model. In G. Holmström-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary action theory (Vol. 1, pp. 333–348). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Scherl, R., Levesque, H. J. (2003). The frame problem and knowledge producing actions. Artificial Intelligence, 144(1–2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Segerberg, K. (Ed.). (1992). “Logic of Action”: Special issue of Studia Logica (Vol. 51:3/4). Springer Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Segerberg, K. (1999). Two traditions in the logic of belief: Bringing them together. In H. J. Ohlbach & U. Reyle (Eds.), Logic, language and reasoning: Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay (Trends in logic, Vol. 5, pp. 135–147). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Troquard, N. (2014). Reasoning about coalitional agency and ability in the logics of “bringing-it-about”. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(3), 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Ditmarsch, H. P., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action. A logical inquiry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, .Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wansing, H., & Semmling, C. (2008). From BDI and STIT to BDI-STIT logic. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 17, 185–207.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zanardo, A. (1996). Branching-time logic with quantification over branches: The point of view of modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 61, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Herzig
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 1
  • Nicolas Troquard
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT)CNRSFrance
  2. 2.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations