A Modal Logic of Perceptual Belief

  • Andreas HerzigEmail author
  • Emiliano Lorini
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 369)


We present a logic which allows to reason about the relationship between an agent’s beliefs and the information that the agent obtains by his senses. Our logic reconstructs standard doxastic logic by primitives denoting that an agent receives from his senses the datum that some propositional variable is true or false. We give a sound and complete axiomatization and prove that the logic is decidable. We also discuss extensions of the basic logic by principles of introspection and a variant in terms of knowledge instead of belief. We finally extend the logic by events in the style of dynamic epistemic logics.


Belief Doxastic logic Dynamic epistemic logic Knowledge Perception 


  1. Aumann, R. (1999). Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge. International Journal of Game Theory, 28(3), 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Dretske, F. (1995). Meaningful perception. In D. N. Osherson & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 2): Visual cognition. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Harel, D., Kozen, D., & Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic logic. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Moisan, F., & Troquard, N. (2011a). A dynamic logic of normative systems. In T. Walsh (Ed.), International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Barcelona (pp. 228–233). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Troquard, N. (2011b). A dynamic logic of institutional actions. In Computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA): Vol. 6814. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 295–311). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kooi, B. P. (2003). Probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 381–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The cognitive structure of surprise: Looking for basic principles. Topoi, 26(1), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lorini, E., Tummolini, L., & Herzig, A. (2005). Establishing mutual beliefs by joint attention: Towards a formal model of public events. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (CogSci 2005), Stresa, (pp. 1325–1330). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Pfeiffer-Leßmann, N., Wachsmuth, I. (2009). Formalizing joint attention in cooperative interaction with a virtual human. In Proceedings of KI 2009: Advances in artificial intelligence, 32nd annual german conference on AI, Paderborn (pp. 540–547).Google Scholar
  14. Shanahan, M. (2002). A logical account of perception incorporating feedback and expectation. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2002), Toulouse (pp. 3–13). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  15. Tommasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. van der Hoek, W., Troquard, N., & Wooldridge, M. (2011). Knowledge and control. In Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’11), Taipei (pp. 719–726). ACM.Google Scholar
  17. van Ditmarsch, H. P., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese Library, 337, Springer.Google Scholar
  18. van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Lang, J., & Marquis, P. (2009). Introspective forgetting. Synthese, 169(2), 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Toulouse, CNRS, IRIT-LILaCToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations