Exploring the Power of Converse Events

  • Guillaume Aucher
  • Andreas Herzig
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 351)


D ynamic epistemic logic as viewed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki (BMS) and propositional dynamic logic (PDL) offer different semantics of events. On the one hand, BMS adds dynamics to epistemic logic by introducing so-called event models as syntactic objects into the language. On the other hand, PDL has instead transition relations between possible worlds. This last approach allows to easily introduce converse events. In this paper we add epistemics to this, and call the resulting logic epistemic dynamic logic (EDL). We show that BMS can be translated into EDL thanks to this use of the converse operator : it enables us to translate the structure of the event model directly within a particular axiomatization of EDL, without having to refer to a particular epistemic event model in the language (as done in BMS).We show that EDL is more expressive and general than BMS and we characterize semantically and syntactically in EDL this embedding of BMS.


Epistemic State Belief Revision Accessibility Relation Epistemic Logic Dynamic Logic 
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.


  1. Alchourrón C, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aucher G (2009) BMS revisited. In: Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2009), pp 24–33Google Scholar
  3. Aucher G (2010) Characterizing updates in dynamic epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), Toronto, Canada, to appearGoogle Scholar
  4. Aucher G, Herzig A (2007) From DEL to EDL: exploring the power of converse events. In: Mellouli K (ed) Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), Springer Verlag, LNCS, vol 4724, pp 199–209Google Scholar
  5. Baltag A (2000) A logic of epistemic actions. Tech. Rep., CWI,
  6. Baltag A, Moss LS (2004) Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139(2):165–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baltag A, Moss LS, Solecki S (1998) The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In: Proceedings of the TARK’98, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 43–56Google Scholar
  8. van Benthem J (2006) One is a lonely number: on the logic of communication. In: Chatzidakis Z, Koepke P, Pohlers W (eds) Logic Colloquium’02, ASL & A.K. Peters, Wellesley MA, pp 96–129, Tech. Rep. PP-2003-07, ILLC, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  9. van Benthem J, Kooi B (2004) Reduction axioms for epistemic actions. In: Schmidt R, Pratt-Hartmann I, Reynolds M, Wansing H (eds) AiML-2004: Advances in Modal Logic, University of Manchester, number UMCS-04-9-1 in Tech. Rep. Series, pp 197–211Google Scholar
  10. van Benthem J, Liu F (2004) Diversity of agents in games. Philosophia Scientiae 8(2):163–178Google Scholar
  11. van Benthem J, Pacuit E (2006) The tree of knowledge in action: Towards a common perspective. In: Governatori G, Hodkinson I, Venema Y (eds) Advances in modal logic Volume 6, King’s College Press, London, pp 87–106Google Scholar
  12. van Benthem J, van Eijck J, Kooi B (2006) Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11):1620–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Benthem J, Gerbrandy J, Pacuit E (2007) Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL. In: Samet D (ed) Theoretical aspect of rationality and knowledge (TARK XI), Brussels, pp 72–82Google Scholar
  14. van Ditmarsch H, Ruan J, van der Hoek W (2007a) Model checking dynamic epistemics in branching time. In: Formal approaches to multi-agent systems 2007 (FAMAS 2007), Durham UKGoogle Scholar
  15. van Ditmarsch HP (2002) Descriptions of game actions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information (JoLLI) 11:349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Ditmarsch HP, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2007b) Dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese library, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. van Ditmarsch HP, Ruan J, Verbrugge R (2007c) Sum and product in dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 18(4):563–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eijck J (2004) Reducing dynamic epistemic logic to PDL by program transformation. Tech. Rep. SEN-E0423, CWIGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagin R, Halpern JY, Moses Y, Vardi MY (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerbrandy J (1999) Bisimulations on planet kripke. PhD thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerbrandy J, Groeneveld W (1997) Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6(2):147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harel D, Kozen D, Tiuryn J (2000) Dynamic logic. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Herzig A, Lang J, Longin D, Polacsek T (2000) A logic for planning under partial observability. In: Proceedings of the National (US) Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’2000), Austin, Texas, pp 768–773Google Scholar
  24. Katsuno H, Mendelzon AO (1992) On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors P (ed) Belief revision, Cambridge University Press, pp 183–203 (preliminary version in Allen, J.A., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, pages 387–394. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991)Google Scholar
  25. de Lima T (2007) Optimal methods for reasoning about actions and plans in multi-agent systems. PhD thesis, Université de Toulouse, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  26. Pacuit E (2007) Some comments on history based structures. Journal of Applied Logic 5(4):613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parikh R, Ramanujam R (2003) A knowledge based semantics of messages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(4):453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plaza JA (1989) Logics of public communications. In: Ras ZW (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1989), North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  29. Sack J (2008) Temporal languages for epistemic programs. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(2):183–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sack J (2010) Logic for update products and steps into the past. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161(12):1231–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahlqvist H (1975) Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logics. In: Kanger S (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium 1973, North Holland, no. 82 in Studies in LogicGoogle Scholar
  32. Segerberg K (1995) Belief revision from the point of view of doxastic logic. Bulletin of the IGPL 3:534–553Google Scholar
  33. Segerberg K (1999) Two traditions in the logic of belief: bringing them together. In: Ohlbach HJ, Reyle U (eds) Logic, language and reasoning: essays in honour of Dov Gabbay, Trends in Logic, vol 5, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 135–147Google Scholar
  34. Yap A (2006) Product update and looking backward. Prepublications PP-2006-39, ILLCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Sciences, Technology and Communication (FSTC)University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.IRIT-LILaCToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations