The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diversity of Logical Agents in Games
Open accessAbstract
Les agents épistémiques peuvent avoir différents pouvoirs d’observation et de raisonnement, et nous montrons comment cette diversité prend place en logique dynamique de mise à jour.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existing epistemic logics differ on what they ascribe to agents (van Benthem & Liu 2004, Liu 2006) in terms of deductive powers, introspective abilities, observational powers, and memory capacity.”
From THE STORIES OF LOGIC AND INFORMATION (2008) · cites this paper as van Benthem & Liu 2004
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Halpern, J. Y. (1994) · Mathematical Social Sciences · doi:10.1016/0165-4896(94)90005-1 · Cited by 3,620
Blackburn, P. R., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001) · Cited by 2,479
Harel, D., Kozen, D. C., & Tiuryn, J. (2000) · Cited by 1,439
A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action
Moore, R. C. (1984) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 512
Games in Dynamic Epistemic Logic
Van Benthem, J. (2001) · Bulletin of Economic Research · doi:10.1111/1467-8586.00133 · Cited by 181
Self-citationA Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages
Parikh, R., & Ramanujam, R. (2003) · Journal of Logic Language and Information · doi:10.1023/a:1025007018583 · Cited by 174
One is a Lonely Number: on the logic of communication
van Benthem, J. (2003) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 112
Self-citationExtensive Games as Process Models
van Benthem, J. (2002) · Journal of Logic Language and Information · doi:10.1023/a:1015534111901 · Cited by 103
Self-citationSemantics of Interaction: an Introduction to Game Semantics
Abramsky, S. (1997) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511526619.002 · Cited by 100
Resource Bounded Belief Revision
Wassermann, R. (1999) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1023/a:1005565603303 · Cited by 72
Conditional Probability Meets Update Logic
van Benthem, J. (2003) · Journal of Logic Language and Information · doi:10.1023/a:1025002917675 · Cited by 39
Self-citationMemory and perfect recall in extensive games
Bonanno, G. F. (2003) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2003.06.002 · Cited by 38
A Mini-Guide to Logic in Action
van Benthem, J. (2004) · Cited by 6
Self-citationUpdating Epistemic Uncertainty —- an essay in the logic of information change
Rodenhäuser, B. (2001) · Cited by 4
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction
van Benthem, J. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511974533 · Cited by 512
Self-citationDynamic logic for belief revision
van Benthem, J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics · doi:10.3166/jancl.17.129-155 · Cited by 398
Self-citationDynamic logic of preference upgrade
van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2008) · Cited by 267
Self-citationMerging Frameworks for Interaction
van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Hoshi, T., & Pacuit, E. (2009) · Journal of Philosophical Logic · doi:10.1007/s10992-008-9099-x · Cited by 184
“Proposition 2 ([9, 15]) An ETL model H ∈ F({PE }) for some event model E iff H satisfies propositional stability, synchronicity, perfect recall, uniform no miracles, as well as epistemic bisimulation invariance.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationChanging for the Better Preference Dynamics and Agent Diversity
Liu, F., & Proefschrift, A. (2008) · Cited by 109
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Benthem, J. V., & Liu, F.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CN)
- ORCID
- Liu, Fenrong
- Venue
- Philosophia Scientiae
- Publisher
- OpenEdition
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 8-2
- Pages
- 163-178
- ISSN
- 1281-2463 (ISSN-L)
- 1775-4283
- OpenAlex
- W2042541021
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- fr
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Philosophia Scientae (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Cairn.info (submittedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- French digital mathematics library (Numdam) (submittedVersion)
- OpenEdition (OpenEdition) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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 › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Keywords
- epistemic agents, agent diversity
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
