Skip to main content

Notions of Instrumentality in Agency Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11224))

Abstract

We present a logic of agency called LAE whose language includes propositional constants for actions and expectations. The logic is based on Von Wright’s theory of agency in general and his analysis of instrumentality in particular. An axiomatization of the logic, including an independence of agents axiom, is provided and soundness and completeness are shown with respect to its intended class of frames. The framework of LAE will allow us to formally define a manifold of concepts involved in agency theories, including Von Wright’s four elementary forms of action, the notion of forbearance and notions of instrumentality that make reference to an agent’s expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term used by Von Wright for this behaviour is ‘doing p’. We avoid this expression because we reserve ‘doing’ for actions, and use ‘producing’ for results.

  2. 2.

    We want to stress that the term ‘expectation’ must not be regarded as an epistemic notion, such as knowledge. Although an agent can have expectations about the future, the agent might still have imperfect knowledge of these expected future states.

  3. 3.

    The use of propositional constants in modal logic can be traced back at least to [1].

  4. 4.

    The ‘independence of agents’ axiom is central to stit-logic; it ensures that when choices are made simultaneously, an agent cannot a priori limit the choices available to the others; see e.g. [4, pp. 217–218]. Axiom A6 allows for the possibility that an agent has contradictory expectations about the future which cannot be realized.

  5. 5.

    For instance, suppose that at w it started raining and I decided to take a walk without bringing an umbrella with me. Thus, I am in a state \(w'\) such that in the future of \(w'\) I will very likely get wet; however, had I decided to bring an umbrella with me at w, I would have ended in a state \(w''\) such that in the future of \(w''\) I would not have got wet. Therefore, one can also say that in the actual future of the counterfactual state \(w''\) I would not have got wet.

  6. 6.

    Future work can be devoted to extensions of the language of LAE including operators for concatenations and iterations of action-types, in the spirit of [7, 8].

  7. 7.

    In the context of ‘next moment’ agency logic there is no need to assign atomic symbols to moment/history pairs, as observed in [6].

  8. 8.

    Reference to histories provides a general framework suitable to express more complex notions related to indeterminism; for instance, one could add to the language of LAE an operator saying that something will always hold in one history passing through a given moment. Such an operator is not definable in terms of \(\square \) in infinite trees.

  9. 9.

    Notice that, by definition, actual can be a partial function (a moment may have no actual successor even if an agent expects it to have some) and has some remarkable difference with the ‘thin red line’ function of the stit-logic literature [4]; indeed, the thin red line function assigns to each moment m a unique history to which m belongs (the actual history w.r.t. m), whereas actual assigns to m only its actual successor, if the latter exists. This solves some objections raised in [4] against the use of functions to represent actuality in branching-time; for instance, while there are problems of ‘thin red line inheritance’ among states related by <, there is no problem of ‘actual successor inheritance’, since any two states related by < have different actual successors (if any).

References

  1. Anderson, A.R.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67(265), 100–103 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Åqvist, L.: Old foundations for the logic of agency and action. Studia Logica 72(3), 313–338 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bentzen, M.M.: Action type deontic logic. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 23(4), 397–414 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the Future. Agents and Choices in our Indeterminist World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Broersen, J.: A logical analysis of the interaction between ‘Obligation-to-do’ and ‘Knowingly Doing’. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 140–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70525-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, M., Ladner, R.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Herzig, A., Lorini, E.: A dynamic logic of agency I: STIT, capabilities and powers. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 19(1), 89–121 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Segerberg, K.: Getting started: beginnings in the logic of action. Studia Logica 51(3), 347–378 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. von Wright, G.H.: The Logical Problem of Induction. Barnes & Noble, New York (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  13. von Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  14. von Wright, G.H.: The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley (1972). Fourth impression

    Google Scholar 

  15. von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley (1977). Fourth impression

    Google Scholar 

  16. Xu, M.: Combinations of STIT and actions. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 19(4), 485–503 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the WWTF project MA16-28.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kees van Berkel or Matteo Pascucci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

van Berkel, K., Pascucci, M. (2018). Notions of Instrumentality in Agency Logic. In: Miller, T., Oren, N., Sakurai, Y., Noda, I., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cao Son, T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11224. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03097-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03098-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics