The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Games in Dynamic Epistemic Logic
Abstract
The author discusses games of both perfect and imperfect information at two levels of structural detail: players’ local actions, and their global powers for determining outcomes of the game. Matching logical languages are proposed for both. In particular, at the ‘action level’, imperfect information games naturally model a combined ‘dynamic‐epistemic language’– and correspondences are found between special axioms in this language and particular modes of playing games with their information dynamics. At the ‘outcome level’, the paper presents suitable notions of game equivalence, and some simple representation results.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Knowledge action interchanges presuppose abilities of agents such as Perfect Recall (Halpern & Vardi 1989, van Benthem 2001).”
From THE STORIES OF LOGIC AND INFORMATION (2008) · cites this paper as van Benthem 2001
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
THE STORIES OF LOGIC AND INFORMATION
van Benthem, J., & Martinez, M. (2008) · Philosophy of Information · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51726-5.50012-1 · Cited by 80
Diversity of Logical Agents in Games
Benthem, J. V., & Liu, F. (2004) · Philosophia Scientiae · doi:10.4000/philosophiascientiae.571 · Cited by 46
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Benthem, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Van Benthem, Johan
- ORCID
- Van Benthem, Johan
- Venue
- Bulletin of Economic Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 219-248
- ISSN
- 0307-3378 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8586
- OpenAlex
- W2136794369
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bulletin of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Advanced Topology and Set Theory
- Keywords
- dynamic epistemic logic, games, imperfect information, perfect information, information dynamics, game equivalence, axioms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
