Epistemic GDL: A logic for representing and reasoning about imperfect information games
Artificial Intelligence 294 (C):103453 (2021)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
Representing Imperfect Information of Procedures with Hyper Models.Y. Wang - 2015 - In Mamata Banerjee & S. N. Krishna (eds.), Logic and Its Applications. ICLA 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8923. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
On the logic of informational independence and its applications.Gabriel Sandu - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (1):29 - 60.
Dynamic Logics of Imperfect Information: From Teams and Games to Transitions.Pietro Galliani - 2018 - In Hans van Ditmarsch & Gabriel Sandu (eds.), Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game Theoretical Semantics. Springer. pp. 299-315.
Strategic Conversations Under Imperfect Information: Epistemic Message Exchange Games.Nicholas Asher & Soumya Paul - 2018 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 27 (4):343-385.
Propositional Logic of Imperfect Information: Foundations and Applications.Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen - 2001 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 42 (4):193-210.
Communication strategies in games.Jelle Gerbrandy - 2007 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17 (2):197-211.
Information Tracking in Games on Graphs.Dietmar Berwanger & Łukasz Kaiser - 2010 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (4):395-412.
Modelling def+easible reasoning by means of adaptive logic games.Peter Verdée - 2012 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 20 (2):417-437.
Reasoning with protocols under imperfect information.Eric Pacuit & Sunil Simon - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):412-444.
A New Game Equivalence, its Logic and Algebra.Johan van Benthem, Nick Bezhanishvili & Sebastian Enqvist - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (4):649-684.
A New Game Equivalence, its Logic and Algebra.Sebastian Enqvist, Nick Bezhanishvili & Johan Benthem - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (4):649-684.
What will they say?—Public Announcement Games.Hans van Ditmarsch & Thomas Ågotnes - 2011 - Synthese 179 (S1):57 - 85.
An interpretation of default logic in minimal temporal epistemic logic.Joeri Engelfriet & Jan Treur - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (3):369-388.
Analytics
Added to PP
2021-01-20
Downloads
17 (#641,144)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
2021-01-20
Downloads
17 (#641,144)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Epistemic GDL: A logic for representing and reasoning about imperfect information games.Guifei Jiang, Dongmo Zhang, Laurent Perrussel & Heng Zhang - 2021 - Artificial Intelligence 294 (C):103453.
Epistemic planning: Perspectives on the special issue.Vaishak Belle, Thomas Bolander, Andreas Herzig & Bernhard Nebel - 2023 - Artificial Intelligence 316 (C):103842.
References found in this work
Dynamic logic of preference upgrade.Johan van Benthem & Fenrong Liu - 2007 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17 (2):157-182.
A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief.Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence 54 (3):319-379.
Game description language and dynamic epistemic logic compared.Thorsten Engesser, Robert Mattmüller, Bernhard Nebel & Michael Thielscher - 2021 - Artificial Intelligence 292 (C):103433.
Cooperation, knowledge, and time: Alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications.Wiebe van der Hoek & Michael Wooldridge - 2003 - Studia Logica 75 (1):125-157.
