Combinations of Stit and Actions

Ming, Xu

doi:10.1007/s10849-009-9119-4

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, Horty articulates many of the idea sketched in this chapter in his important book (Horty 2001). Also, Xu (2010Xu ( , 2012 are interesting examples of STIT systems that have borrowed notions of action and strategy from the PDL tradition to form richer frameworks for strategic agency. We see our analysis as making a small push in the same direction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Logics of Choice and Change

Benthem

Pacuit

2014

Outstanding Contributions to Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is an attempt at clarifying the current scene of sometimes competing action logics, looking for compatibilities and convergences. Current paradigms for deliberate action fall into two broad families: dynamic logics of events, and STIT logics of achieving specified effects. We compare the two frameworks, and show how they can be related technically by embedding basic STIT into a modal logic of matrix games. Amongst various things, this analysis shows how the attractive principle of independence of agents' actions in STIT might actually be a source of high complexity in the total action logic. Our main point, however, is the compatibility of dynamic logics with explicit events and STIT logics based on a notion that we call 'control'-and we present a new system of dynamic-epistemic logic with control that has both. Finally, we discuss how dynamic logic and STIT face similar issues when including further crucial aspects of agency such as knowledge, preference, strategic behavior, and explicit acts of choice and deliberation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Logics of Choice and Change

Benthem

Pacuit

2014

Outstanding Contributions to Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15 See Herzig and Troquard [11, §3.1, n. 3]. 16 An entirely different approach to action types within stit semantics, motivated by different concerns, is proposed by Xu [27]; a comparison between Xu's approach and that developed in the present paper would be interesting, but is not attempted here. 17 It has recently come to our attention that Lorini, Longin, and Mayor [19] pursue a strategy similar to that explored here, introducing names, analogous to our labels, or action types, into a framework based on stit semantics.…”

Section: Connectionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Action Types in Stit Semantics

Horty

Pacuit

2017

The Review of Symbolic Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stit semantics grows out of a modal tradition in the logic of action that concentrates on an operator representing the agency of an individual in seeing to it that some state of affairs holds, rather than on the actions the individual performs in doing so. The purpose of this paper is to enrich stit semantics, and especially epistemic stit semantics, by supplementing the overall framework with an explicit treatment of action types. We show how the introduction of these new action types allows us to define a modal operator capturing an epistemic sense of agency, and how this operator can be used to express an epistemic sense of ability.

show abstract

“…12 See Hirsch, Hodkinson, and Kurucz [19]. 13 A noticeable exception is the combinations of STIT and actions explored by Xu [31]. 14 If we follow Belnap's reading, deliberative stit may prove more suitable than the Chellas stit, since the former does not allow for trivial truths to be seen to by any agent; the Chellas stit allows for this and does not seem to fit equally well the idea of a causal contribution to a change in the world.…”

Section: Axiomatics and Interesting Validitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This reading points out at the purely agentive side of strong rationality: in a game-theoretical context, rational agents do not play actions different from their best ones. 31 Weak rationality actually leads to the "dynamic" part of EMGL. While strong rationality consists in not choosing a strategy that is strictly dominated in the whole given EMGM, weak rationality consists in not choosing a strategy that is not strictly dominated in the sub-EMGM in question.…”

Section: Ex Interim Knowledge and Best Actions Between Matrix Game Lomentioning

confidence: 99%

Stit Logics, Games, Knowledge, and Freedom

Ciuni

Horty

2014

Outstanding Contributions to Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper has two main goals: highlighting the connections between Stit logics and game theory and comparing Stit logics with Matrix Game Logic, a Dynamic Logic introduced by van Benthem order to model some interesting epistemic notions from game theory. Achieving the first goal will prove the flexibility of Stit logics and their applicability in the logical foundations of game theory, and will lay the groundwork for accomplishing the second. A comparison between Stit logics and Matrix Game Logic is already offered in a recent work by van Benthem and Pacuit. Here, we push the comparison further by embedding Matrix Game Logic into a fragment of group Stit logic, and using the embedding to derive some properties of Matrix Game Logic-in particular, undecidability and the lack of finite axiomatizability. In addition, the embedding sheds light on some open issues about the so-called "freedom operator" of Matrix Game Logic.

show abstract

Combinations of Stit and Actions

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Connecting Logics of Choice and Change

Connecting Logics of Choice and Change

Action Types in Stit Semantics

Stit Logics, Games, Knowledge, and Freedom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About