A Logic of General Attention Using Edge-Conditioned Event Models (Extended Version)

Extracted source text · arXiv 2505.14539

	\begin{abstract}		
In this work, we present the first general logic of attention. Attention is a powerful cognitive ability that allows agents to focus on potentially complex information, such as logically structured 
%\sebwat{could also say 'non-atomic' but I find the former less technical and at this point of the abstract better} 
propositions,
%\sebwat{I found the repetition of 'complex' ugly and a bit confusing since it means two slight different things}, 
higher-order beliefs, or what other agents pay attention to.  This ability is a strength, as it helps to ignore what is irrelevant, but it can also introduce biases when some types of information or agents are systematically ignored. Existing dynamic epistemic logics for attention cannot model such complex attention scenarios, as they only model attention to atomic formulas. Additionally, such logics quickly become cumbersome, as their size grows exponentially in the number of agents and announced literals. Here, we introduce a logic that overcomes both limitations. First, we generalize edge-conditioned event models, which we show to be as expressive as standard event models yet exponentially more succinct (generalizing both standard event models and generalized arrow updates). Second, we extend attention to arbitrary formulas, allowing agents to also attend to other agents' beliefs or attention. Our work treats attention as a modality, like belief or awareness. We introduce attention principles that impose closure properties on that modality and that can be used in its axiomatization. Throughout, we illustrate our framework with examples of AI agents reasoning about human attentional biases, demonstrating how such agents can discover attentional biases.

        
		
		%Attention is the crucial cognitive ability that selects the information we receive and thereby shapes the beliefs we form. To allow an AI system to robustly reason about the beliefs of humans, it must thus be able to represent human attention. Recent work shows how to model attention and its interactions with beliefs in dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). However, this work only models attention to atomic formulas, and hence cannot model more complex attention scenarios where agents focus on complex information such as higher-order beliefs or utterances of other agents. Additionally, the work uses standard event models from DEL, which turn out to have conceptual limitations and scale poorly in a logic of attention. Here, we introduce a logic of general attention that seeks to overcome the mentioned limitations concerning expressivity, conceptual appropriateness, and computational scalability. First, we introduce edge-conditioned event models and show these to be as expressive as standard event models and yet exponentially more succinct. We also show them to be at least as succinct as generalized arrow updates. Second, we extend attention to apply to arbitrary formulas. We exemplify the potential AI applications of the developed framework by considering an AI agent that can reason about and infer problematic attentional biases in humans. 
		
		
%		Attention is central to how agents filter and learn complex information. However, existing dynamic epistemic logic frameworks focus on attention to atomic formulas only, and are not easy to deal with, as their size grows exponentially fast in the number of agents and literals announced. We introduce a logic for general attention that overcomes these limitations in two ways. First, we adopt edge-conditioned event models, which we show being as expressive as standard event models but exponentially more succinct than them. Second, we extend attention to arbitrary formulas, enabling agents to attend to complex propositional formulas as well as other agents’ beliefs or attention. We illustrate the framework with examples of AI agents that can now reason about attentional biases in humans and potentially help them discover their biases. 
%		
		
		
%	Attention is a core cognitive ability that filters the information we receive. Existing work proposed a dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) of attention where agents can pay attention to atomic formulas only. Here, we propose a logic for general attention that improves this work along two dimensions. First, while standard event models for propositional attention grow exponentially fast in the number of agents and literals announced, we adopt edge-conditioned event models which we show being as expressive as standard event models but exponentially more succinct. Second, we adopt the edge-conditioned framework to generalize the logic for propositional attention to a logic where attention can be applied to any arbitrary set of formulas. In the logic for general attention, agents can, for example, pay attention to complex propositional formulas or to the beliefs of some agents and not others. We exemplify our general framework with examples of AI agents that reason about humans with attentional biases directed for example at some agents and not others.
%	

	\end{abstract}
	
	\section{Introduction}
Attention is the crucial ability of the mind to select and prioritize specific subsets of available information 
%Attention helps agents deal with new information. It does so by prioritizing some information over other information 
\cite{watzl2017structuring}. Research in psychology suggests that agents who do not pay attention to something do not update their beliefs about it \cite{simons1999gorillas}. Therefore, 
%Limited attention is a strength, as it helps agents ignore irrelevant information. However, restricting which information is learned can also introduce biases
while the ability to focus attention is a strength, as it helps agents ignore irrelevant information, restricting which information is learned can also introduce biases \cite{johnson2024varieties}: an agent with limited attention may never learn about certain news, some aspects of a candidate’s application, or what certain individuals (e.g.\ of a specific gender or nationality) have to say. Researchers have begun to investigate the significance of attention-driven biases in both humans and AI \cite{johnson2024varieties,munton2023prejudice}. AI systems that can robustly reason about attention could potentially detect such attentional biases and correct them. 


As a step toward that aim, we provide the first logic of general attention, here captured in a dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) framework \cite{baltag1998logic}. Attention is treated as a modality that restricts which parts of an event an agent learns. %An agent who is not attending to a formula will be unable to distinguish an event that contains that formula from one that does not.
An agent who is not attending to a formula will mistake an event containing that formula for one that does not. Our work builds on earlier proposals that introduce DEL models of attention to capture its effects on agents’ beliefs. However, the first proposal only modeled a notion of all-or-nothing attention \cite{bolander2015announcements}, and later work extended it to apply to atomic propositions \cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
While the latter can treat cases where a member of a hiring committee systematically attends only to, say, the research parts of applicants’ CVs, 
%it cannot represent an AI system that directs its attention to whether a committee member has such an attentional bias. It can also not 
it cannot represent agents whose attention is biased against specific agents, 
e.g.\ paying attention to 
%whether candidate $a$ has achieved some result, but not whether $b$ achieved the same
what candidate $a$ has to say about a research topic, but not candidate $b$~\cite{munton2023prejudice,smith2020epistemic}. Or consider the distinction between an agent who aims to learn by paying attention to the world and an agent who aims to learn by attending to what others pay attention to -- the latter arguably being an important component of %the evolution of the human capacity for 
social learning
\cite{rendell2010copy,boyd2011cultural}. 
To model such cases, we need a notion of attention that applies to arbitrary formulas.%, i.e., we need attention as a modality.

A key obstacle to such a richer notion is that models for attention quickly become highly complex and their size grows at least exponentially large, even for all-or-nothing attention. A fully general theory requires technical innovations that allow to capture attention and its impact on beliefs in a tractable way.
To that goal, we adopt an edge-conditioned version of DEL \cite{bolander2018seeing} and generalize it so that every edge carries both a source and a target condition. Source conditions are used to encode an agent's current attentional state, while target conditions specify what the agent learns about her own attention. We show that this single modification allows for an exponentially more succinct reformulation of earlier event models for propositional attention \cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
%It also allows for a conceptually cleaner representation, as it distinguishes between information about the event that happens, which belongs to the event's preconditions, and information determining which events are considered possible, which is now a condition on the accessibility relation. Information about agents' attention is of the latter kind, as it pertains to the agent's perspective on the event (see also \cite{watzl2017structuring}, Ch. 13). 
We also show that edge-conditioned event models are as expressive as standard event models, establishing exponential succinctness of edge-conditioned event models over standard event models. We further provide an axiomatization of edge-conditioned models and show that they are as expressive as generalized arrow updates \cite{kooi2011generalized}
and as succinct as them. Taken together, these results imply that edge-conditioned models provide a novel % the first
 event model formalism that generalizes and unifies the two common alternative formalisms in DEL: standard event models and generalized arrow updates. Due to these properties, it seems a good candidate for a new standard formalism in DEL. 

%Second, we generalize previous work on attention in DEL, where agents only pay attention to atomic formulas \cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
%There are important applications for a logic of attention that this earlier work cannot deal with:
%for example, while it can treat cases where a member of a hiring committee systematically attends only to, say, the research parts of applicants' CVs, it cannot represent an AI system that directs its attention to whether a committee member has such an attentional bias. It can also not represent   
%%where a member of a hiring committee systematically attends only to, say, the research parts of applicants’ CVs while being overconfident that she is attending to everything, such a model cannot represent an AI system that is uncertain about whether a committee member has such an attentional bias. It can also not represent 
%agents whose attention is biased against %towards
%specific agents, 
%e.g.\ paying attention to whether candidate $a$ has achieved some result, but not whether $b$ achieved the same~%    
%%such as cases where a committee member pays no attention if candidate $a$ mentions to have achieved significant results, while she does pay attention if candidate $b$ mentions the same fact 
%\cite{munton2023prejudice,smith2020epistemic}. 
%Or consider the distinction between an agent who aims to learn by paying attention to the world and an agent who aims to learn by attending to what others pay attention to -- the latter arguably being an important component of the evolution of the human capacity for social learning
%\cite{rendell2010copy,boyd2011cultural}. 
%To model such cases, we need attention to arbitrary formulas. 

Thanks to the increased simplicity and clarity of the new formalisation, we can now generalize the framework along another dimension, namely to accommodate attention to arbitrary formulas (not merely atomic ones). In this richer framework attention becomes a modality, in that way resembling belief or awareness (though, unlike the latter, attention is intrinisically dynamic as it affects what agents learn from events, and it is not used to restrict their standing beliefs). We argue that the behaviour of that modality can be governed by a family of attention principles, namely closure conditions that can be used to axiomatize a specific logic of attention.
%Finally, largely due to the gained simplicity and clarity of the new formalization, we succeed in extending the entire framework along another axis, namely to handle attention to arbitrary formulas, not only propositional ones. 
%In this new framework, attention is a modality, in that way resembling belief or awareness (though, unlike the latter, attention is intrinisically dynamic as it affects what agents learn from events and attention is not used to restrict agents' beliefs).  %The behavior of that modality, we suggest, is governed by attention principles that impose closure properties on it. Such principles can be used to axiomatize a specific attention logic.
The logic of general attention can model agents who attend to the world, to what other agents believe, or to what other agents attend to.  It can thus be used to study social attention and learning and the attentional biases mentioned above in potentially complex multi-agent settings. 

In summary, the paper makes the following contributions:

\vspace{-1mm} 
\begin{enumerate}\setlength{\itemsep}{0mm}
	\item \emph{We present the first general theory of attention}, allowing agents to attend to arbitrary formulas. %Previous work was limited to, first, all-or-nothing attention~\cite{bolander2015announcements}, then attention to atomic propositions~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}.
		\item \emph{We provide the first event model formalism that generalizes and unifies 
			%the two common alternative formalisms in DEL: 
		standard event models and generalized arrow updates}. We show that this new formalism is always at least as succinct as both, and can be exponentially more succinct. 
		%Due to these properties, it seems a good candidate for a new standard formalism in DEL. 
		\item \emph{We provide the first principles for general attention} that can be used to axiomatize specific attention notions. 
		%and discuss the syntactic similarity to principles in awareness logic, opening up new avenues for connections between logics of awareness and logics of attention. 
	\end{enumerate}   


%
%\noteG{say that the AI agent will learn what the human agent pays attention to in critical situations such as hiring procedures, where it is important to make sure that the human has paid attention to all aspects of a candidate and has not excluded relevant information because of attentional biases.}

%I cite two of the most cited papers above in a body of work that models under what conditions it will be (evolutionarily) adaptive for an agent to learn from others (social learning) rather from the world directly. This body of literature on scoial learning has been extremely influential and I think it is a good feature of the current model that it can capture agent’s who pay attention to what other agents do or say and who thus may face a decision whether to focus on others or on the world.



	
%	The contributions of this paper are:
%	
%	\begin{enumerate}
%		\item Edge-conditioned event model and succinctness result with respect to standard DEL event models and generalized arrow updates
%		
%		\item General attention framework.
%	\end{enumerate}

%\begin{itemize}
%	\item We have announcements (agents say things) and revelations (the environment reveals things).
%
%\item in this paper we focus on DEL where event models have preconditions without dynamic modalities.
%
%
%\item sketch an application to AI : AI detecting attention biases.
%\end{itemize}
%
%

%   To sum up, the paper makes the following contributions: [have a look at the rebuttal] 

\vspace{-1mm} 
\if\extendedversion 1
The main text only contains proof sketches. Full proofs can be found in the appendix.  
\else
Due to page limits, we only provide proof sketches of results. \emph{All full proofs can be found in the extended version on Arxiv: \url{https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.07448}}. 
\fi
%in the Technical Appendix}. 
	%\noteG{at the link [insert link].}


\iffalse
	\begin{abstract}		
		%Attention is a powerful cognitive ability that allows agents to focus on potentially complex information, such as complex propositions and higher-order beliefs. Existing dynamic epistemic logics for attention, however, cannot model such complex attention scenarios, as they only model attention to atomic formulas. Additionally, such logics quickly become cumbersome to work with, as their size scales exponentially in the number of agents and announced literals. Here, we introduce a logic for general attention that overcomes both of these limitations. First, we adopt edge-conditioned event models, a class of event models which we show to be as expressive as standard event models yet exponentially more succinct. Second, we extend attention to arbitrary formulas, allowing agents to also attend to other agents' higher order beliefs or attention. We illustrate this framework with examples of AI agents reasoning about human attentional biases, demonstrating that such agents are able to discover existing attentional biases.
		
		
		Attention is the crucial cognitive ability that selects the information we receive and thereby shapes the beliefs we form. To allow an AI system to robustly reason about the beliefs of humans, it must thus be able to represent human attention. Recent work shows how to model attention and its interactions with beliefs in dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). However, this work only models attention to atomic formulas, and hence cannot model more complex attention scenarios where agents focus on complex information such as higher-order beliefs or utterances of other agents. Additionally, the work uses standard event models from DEL, which turn out to have conceptual limitations and scale poorly in a logic of attention. Here, we introduce a logic of general attention that seeks to overcome the mentioned limitations concerning
		expressivity, conceptual appropriateness, and computational scalability. First, we introduce edge-conditioned event models and show these to be as expressive as standard event models and yet exponentially more succinct. We also show them to be at least as succinct as generalized arrow updates. Second, we extend attention to apply to arbitrary formulas. We exemplify the potential AI applications of the developed framework by considering an AI agent that can reason about and infer problematic attentional biases in humans. 
		
		
		%		Attention is central to how agents filter and learn complex information. However, existing dynamic epistemic logic frameworks focus on attention to atomic formulas only, and are not easy to deal with, as their size grows exponentially fast in the number of agents and literals announced. We introduce a logic for general attention that overcomes these limitations in two ways. First, we adopt edge-conditioned event models, which we show being as expressive as standard event models but exponentially more succinct than them. Second, we extend attention to arbitrary formulas, enabling agents to attend to complex propositional formulas as well as other agents’ beliefs or attention. We illustrate the framework with examples of AI agents that can now reason about attentional biases in humans and potentially help them discover their biases. 
		%		
		
		
		%	Attention is a core cognitive ability that filters the information we receive. Existing work proposed a dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) of attention where agents can pay attention to atomic formulas only. Here, we propose a logic for general attention that improves this work along two dimensions. First, while standard event models for propositional attention grow exponentially fast in the number of agents and literals announced, we adopt edge-conditioned event models which we show being as expressive as standard event models but exponentially more succinct. Second, we adopt the edge-conditioned framework to generalize the logic for propositional attention to a logic where attention can be applied to any arbitrary set of formulas. In the logic for general attention, agents can, for example, pay attention to complex propositional formulas or to the beliefs of some agents and not others. We exemplify our general framework with examples of AI agents that reason about humans with attentional biases directed for example at some agents and not others.
		%	
		
	\end{abstract}
	
	\section{Introduction}
	Attention is the crucial ability of the mind to select and prioritize specific subsets of available information 
	%Attention helps agents deal with new information. It does so by prioritizing some information over other information 
	\cite{watzl2017structuring}. Research in psychology suggests that agents who do not pay attention to something do not update their beliefs and do not learn about it \cite{simons1999gorillas}. Hence,
	%Limited attention is a strength, as it helps agents ignore irrelevant information. However, restricting which information is learned can also introduce biases
	while the ability to focus 
	%attention 
	is a strength, as it helps agents ignore irrelevant information, restricting which information is learned can also introduce biases \cite{johnson2024varieties}: an agent with limited attention may never learn about certain news, some aspects of a candidate’s application, or what certain individuals 
	%(e.g. of a specific gender or nationality) 
	have to say. Researchers have begun to investigate the significance of attention-driven biases in both humans and AI \cite{johnson2024varieties,munton2023prejudice}. AI systems that can robustly reason about attention could potentially detect such attentional biases and correct them. 
	
	We provide a logic of general attention in a dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) framework \cite{baltag1998logic}. Attention is modelled as a modality that restricts which parts of an event an agent learns. An agent who is not attending to a formula is unable to distinguish an event that contains that formula from one that does not. 
	To model this, we first generalize the concept of  %introduce a version of 
	edge-conditioned event models \cite{bolander2018seeing}. These models provide a conceptually improved representation of how attention affects belief updates by distinguishing information about the occurring event (preconditions) from information that determines which events agents consider possible (edge conditions). Information about agents' attention is of the latter kind. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of edge-conditioned event models, show that these models are as expressive as standard event models, and can be exponentially more succinct. We also show that they are as expressive as generalized arrow updates \cite{kooi2011generalized}
	% from which they take inspiration, 
	and as succinct as them.
	
	Second, we generalize previous work on attention in DEL, where agents only pay attention to atomic formulas \cite{belardinelli2023attention}. While this work can treat cases where a member of a hiring committee systematically attends only to, say, the research parts of applicants’ CVs, it cannot represent an AI system that directs its attention to whether a committee member has such an attentional bias. It can also not represent   
	%where a member of a hiring committee systematically attends only to, say, the research parts of applicants’ CVs while being overconfident that she is attending to everything, such a model cannot represent an AI system that is uncertain about whether a committee member has such an attentional bias. It can also not represent 
	agents whose attention is biased toward specific agents, e.g.\ a committee member who pays no attention if candidate $a$ mentions to have achieved significant results while she does pay attention if candidate $b$ mentions the same fact \cite{munton2023prejudice,smith2020epistemic}. 
	Or consider the distinction between an agent who aims to learn by attending to what others pay attention to and an agent who aims to learn by paying attention to the world \cite{rendell2010copy,boyd2011cultural}. 
	To model such cases, we need attention to arbitrary formulas.
	We develop an edge-conditioned event model of general attention that achieves that. 
	
	
	%It treats attention as a modality. It can model agents who attend to the world, to what other agents believe, or to what other agents attend to.
	%
	%\noteG{say that the AI agent will learn what the human agent pays attention to in critical situations such as hiring procedures, where it is important to make sure that the human has paid attention to all aspects of a candidate and has not excluded relevant information because of attentional biases.}
	
	%I cite two of the most cited papers above in a body of work that models under what conditions it will be (evolutionarily) adaptive for an agent to learn from others (social learning) rather from the world directly. This body of literature on scoial learning has been extremely influential and I think it is a good feature of the current model that it can capture agent’s who pay attention to what other agents do or say and who thus may face a decision whether to focus on others or on the world.
	
	
	
	
	%	The contributions of this paper are:
	%	
	%	\begin{enumerate}
		%		\item Edge-conditioned event model and succinctness result with respect to standard DEL event models and generalized arrow updates
		%		
		%		\item General attention framework.
		%	\end{enumerate}
	
	%\begin{itemize}
	%	\item We have announcements (agents say things) and revelations (the environment reveals things).
	%
	%\item in this paper we focus on DEL where event models have preconditions without dynamic modalities.
	%
	%
	%\item sketch an application to AI : AI detecting attention biases.
	%\end{itemize}
	%
	%
	
	Due to page limits, we only provide proof sketches of results. \emph{All full proofs can be found in the Technical Appendix.} 
	
\fi




	\section{DEL and Propositional Attention}\label{section:del and propositional attention}
	We are going to work with multiple distinct languages, in all of which 
	%Common to them is that 
	we use $Ag$ to denote a finite set of \emph{agents} and $P$ to denote a finite set of \emph{propositional atoms}.\footnote{So all our languages take the sets $Ag$ and  $P$ as parameters, but this dependency is kept implicit throughout the paper.} 
	The symbol $\mathcal{L}$ 
	%(with or without subscript) is used to denote any of the introduced languages. All languages $\mathcal{L}$ are assumed to 
	%	We always use the symbol $\mathcal{L}$ (with or without subscript) for languages, and %they   
	%	%All considered languages 
	%	%will 
	%	all are assumed  to 
	%	% be
	%	  
	is used to denote any language extending the \emph{language of epistemic logic} $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$ given by the grammar: 
	\[
	%$
	\varphi::= \top \mid p \mid
	%\mid A_a p \mid 
	\neg\varphi\mid\varphi\wedge\varphi\mid B_a\varphi,
	%$ 
	%\mid [\mathcal{E}]\varphi, 
	\]  
	with $p \in P$, $a \in Ag$, and $B_a \varphi$ reads ``agent $a$ believes $\varphi$''. We define the other propositional connectives in the standard way. 
	%$\bot = \neg \top$ and the other logical connectives ($\vee$ and $\rightarrow$) in the standard way.\noteG{do we need this sentence? I needed to define $\bot$ for the max cons definition. Maybe now it can be removed/moved to the appendix?}
	%Throughout the paper, we use $Ag$ to denote a finite set of \emph{agents}, $At$ to denote a finite set of \emph{propositional atoms}, 
	Every language $\mathcal{L}$ has a set of \emph{atoms} $At(\mathcal{L})$ with $At(\mathcal{L}) \supseteq P$. 
	%When a model (a Kripke model, an event model or a generalized arrow update, cf.\ the definitions below) is defined for a language $\mathcal{L}$ with atom set $At$, we allso say that it is a model \emph{over} the atom set $At$. 
	%We use symbols $p,p_1,p_2,\dots$ 
	%    exclusively 
	%only for propositional atoms (elements of $P$), to 
	%clearly 
	%	distinguish them from other atoms (elements of $At(\mathcal{L}) \setminus P$). 
	A \emph{literal} is an element of $At(\mathcal{L}) \cup \{\neg p \colon p \in At(\mathcal{L})\}$, and a \emph{propositional literal} is an element of $P \cup \{\neg p \colon p \in P\}$. For $p\in At(\mathcal{L})$, we denote a literal by $\ell(p)$, where either $\ell(p)=p$ or $\ell(p)=\neg p$.
	%and, for $p\in P$, we denote a propositional literal by $\ell(p)$. 
	%		As usual, a \emph{literal} is either an atom or its negation. A \emph{propositional literal} is the negation of a propositional atom. 
	For any formula $\varphi$, $At(\varphi)$ denotes the set of atoms appearing in it. 
	%Each language has a satisfaction operator 
	%denoted 
	%$\vDash$,
	%interpreted over (pointed) Kripke models, defined below.       
	
	\paragraph{DEL}
	We now introduce the standard ingredients of DEL 
	%definitions of Kripke models, standard event models and product updates from DEL  
	\cite{baltag1998logic,ditmarsch2007dynamic}.
	\begin{definition}[Kripke model]\label{def: kripke model} A \emph{Kripke model} 
		%over atom set $At$
		for $\mathcal{L}$ 
		is a tuple $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ where $W 
		\not=\emptyset$ 
		is a finite set of \emph{worlds}, $R:Ag\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(W^{2})$ assigns an \emph{accessibility relation} $R_a$ to each agent $a\in Ag$, and $V:W\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(At(\mathcal{L}))$ is a \emph{valuation function}. Where $w$ is the \emph{actual world}, we call $(\mathcal{M},w)$ a \emph{pointed Kripke model}.
		%\footnote{If $\mathcal{M}$ is a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}$, it is also a Kripke model for any $\mathcal{L}'$ with $At(\mathcal{L}') = At(\mathcal{L})$, since its definition only depends on the set of atoms and agents, and the agent set is fixed. We will also refer to such Kripke models as \emph{Kripke models with atom set} $At(\mathcal{L})$.}
		% and where $W_d \subseteq W$ with $|W_d| > 1$ is a set of \emph{actual worlds}, we call $(\mathcal{M},W_d)$ a \emph{multi-pointed Kripke model}.
	\end{definition}
	%The following definition introduce standard event models \cite{baltag1998logic}. % Notice that they are defined so that the preconditions of events belong to $\mathcal{L}^-$, so in this paper we focus on event models with preconditions that are either propositional or epistemic.
	\begin{definition}[Standard event model]
		\label{def: standard event model} A \emph{standard event
			model} for $\mathcal{L}$ is a tuple $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$
		where $E
		\neq\emptyset$ 
		is a finite set of \emph{events}, $Q:Ag\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(E^{2})$ assigns an \emph{accessibility relation} $Q_a$ to each agent $a\in Ag$, and $pre:E\rightarrow\mathcal{L}$ assigns a \emph{precondition} 
		%from $\mathcal{L}$ 
		to each event.
		The set of event models for $\mathcal{L}$ is denoted by $\sem(\mathcal{L})$.
		% $e\in E$.
		%, and $post:E\rightarrow\mathcal{L}$ assigns a \emph{postcondition} to each event $e\in E$.
		%Where $e$ is the \emph{actual event}, we call $(\mathcal{E},e)$ a \emph{pointed standard event model}, and where $E_d\subseteq E$ with $|E_d| > 1$ is a set of \emph{actual events}, we call $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ a \emph{multi-pointed standard event model}.
		Where $E_d\subseteq E$ is a set of \emph{actual events}, $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ is a \emph{multi-pointed standard event model}. 
		If $E_d = \{e \}$ for some
		\emph{actual event} $e \in E$, then $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ is called a \emph{pointed standard event model}, also denoted $(\mathcal{E},e)$.\footnote{We often denote event models by $\mathcal{E}$ independently of whether we refer to an event model $(E,Q,pre)$, a pointed event model $((E,Q,pre),e)$ or a multi-pointed one, $((E,Q,pre),E_d)$. Their distinction will be clear from context.} 
		%Where $e\in E$ is a \emph{actual event}, $(\mathcal{E},e)$ is a \emph{pointed standard event model}.
		%	\noteG{issue with pointed/multi-pointed event models}
	\end{definition}
	
	%In what follows, we will often denote event models by $\mathcal{E}$ independently of whether we refer to an event model $(E,Q,pre)$ or a multi-pointed event model $((E,Q,pre),E_d)$. 
	%Similarly to \cite{belardinelli2023attention}, 
	
	%Intuitively, a Kripke model represents a state, and an event model represents an action or complex event. We now define the \emph{product update operator}, expressing how a state, encoded by a Kripke model, is updated as the consequence of the occurrence of an action, encoded as an event model. 
	Intuitively, a (pointed) Kripke model represents an epistemic state, while a (pointed) event model represents an epistemic action or event happening. The \emph{product update operator}, defined next, expresses how an epistemic state is updated as the consequence of an epistemic event.
	\begin{definition}
		[Standard product update]
		%[Product update with standard event models]
		\label{def: product update no post}  Let $\mathcal{M} = (W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model and $\mathcal{E} = (E,Q,pre)$ an event model, both %over atom set $At$. 
		for the same language $\mathcal{L}$. 
		The \emph{product update} of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{E}$ is $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E} = (W',R',V')$ where:\footnote{The meaning of $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e)$ depends on the semantics of $\mathcal{L}$. 
			Semantics of specific languages $\mathcal{L}$ are introduced later.} 
		
		\vspace{1pt}
		\noindent	
		\hspace{1pt}
		$W'=\{(w,e)\in W\times E\colon (\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e)\}$,
		%	We will introduce the semantics of specific languages below.}
	
	\vspace{1pt}
	\noindent	
	\hspace{1pt}
	$R'_a=\{((w{,}e),(v{,}f))\in (W')^2\colon (w{,}v)\in R_a,  (e{,}f)\in Q_a\}$,
	
	\vspace{1pt}
	\noindent	
	\hspace{1pt}
	$V'((w,e))=\{p\in At(\mathcal{L}) \colon p\in V(w)\}$.
	
	\noindent	
	%		Given a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and a pointed standard event model $(\mathcal{E}, e)$, if $(\mathcal{M}, w )\vDash pre(e)$, then the \emph{product update} of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with $(\mathcal{E},e)$ is the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{E},e)= (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}, (w,e))$.
	%%		Given a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and a pointed event model $(\mathcal{E}, e)$, we say that $(\mathcal{E},e)$ is \emph{applicable} in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ iff $\mathcal{M}, w \vDash pre(e)$. In that case, the \emph{product update} of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with $(\mathcal{E},e)$ is the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{E},e)= (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}, (w,e))$.
	%Given a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and a pointed event model $(\mathcal{E},e)$, we say that the event model is \emph{applicable} in the Kripke model if $(\mathcal{M},w) \models pre(e)$, and their \emph{product update} is then  
	%the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{E},e)= (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}, (w,e))$. 
	%Given further a multi-pointed event model $(\mathcal{E}, E_d)$, we say that $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ is \emph{applicable} in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ if there exists a unique $e \in E_d$ such that $\mathcal{M}, w \vDash pre(e)$. In that case, we define the \emph{product update} of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ as the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{E},E_d) = (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}, (w,e))$ where $e$ is the unique element of $E_d$ satisfying $(\mathcal{M}, w) \vDash pre(e)$.		
	%	\noindent	
	Given a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and a pointed or multi-pointed event model $(\mathcal{E}, E_d)$, we say that $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ is \emph{applicable} in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ iff there exists a unique $e' \in E_d$ such that $(\mathcal{M}, w) \vDash pre(e')$. In that case, we define the \emph{product update} of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ as the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{E},E_d) = (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}, (w,e'))$.
	%, where $e$ is the unique element of $E_d$ satisfying $(\mathcal{M}, w) \vDash pre(e)$.\noteG{Gaia: Do we need to repeat "where $e$ is the unique element of $E_d$ satisfying $(\mathcal{M}, w) \vDash pre(e)$"?}
\end{definition}
We define the language of \emph{DEL with standard event models} $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ as the language given by the grammar of $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$ extended with the clause $\varphi ::= [\mathcal{E}] \varphi$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is a pointed or multi-pointed standard event model. 
The formula 
$[\mathcal{E}] \varphi$ reads ``after $\mathcal{E}$ happens, $\varphi$ is the case''. Notice that $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}) = P$.
\begin{definition}[Satisfaction]\label{def: static truth} \label{def:satisfaction} 
	Let $(\mathcal{M},w )= ((W,R,V),w)$
	be a pointed Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. Satisfaction of $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$-formulas in $(\mathcal{M},w )$  is given by the following clauses extended with the standard clauses for propositional logic:
	%For any $q\in At\cup H, a\in Ag,$ and  $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}^-$, the satisfaction of $\mathcal{L}^-$-formulas in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ is given by the following clauses extended with the standard clauses for the propositional connectives:
	\noindent \begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{lll}
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash p$ & iff & $p\in V(w)$, \text{ where $p \in At(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$}\tabularnewline
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash B_a\varphi$ & iff & $(\mathcal{M},v) \vDash \varphi$ for all $(w,v)\in R_a$\tabularnewline
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash [\mathcal{E}]\varphi$ & iff & 
			if $\mathcal{E}$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ then \\
			&&$(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{E} \vDash \varphi$.
		\end{tabular}
		\par\end{center}	%Where $(\mathcal{M},w)^\varphi = (\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{E}(\varphi)$ is the update of the Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ with the event model $\mathcal{E}$ where $\varphi$ occurs.
	We say that a formula $\varphi$ is \emph{valid} if $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \varphi$ for all pointed Kripke models $(\mathcal{M},w)$, and in that case we write $\vDash \varphi$.
\end{definition}


\paragraph{The language of propositional attention}
We add new atomic proposition $A_a p$ called an \emph{attention atom}, for all $a \in Ag$ and $p \in P$. The set of \emph{attention
	atoms} is $H=\{A_a p \colon p\in P, a\in Ag\}$. % denote the 
%over $At$ and $Ag$. 
%\noteG{Gaia: Do we need to say ``over $At$ and $Ag$?''}
The \emph{language of propositional attention} $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is the language given by the grammar of $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ extended with the following clause: $\varphi ::= A_a p$, where $A_a p \in H$~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
We read $A_a p$ as ``agent $a$ pays attention to whether $p$''.%
% 
%It is a language of DEL~\cite{baltag1998logic} extended with a set of attention atoms. We use $H=\{A_a p \colon p\in At, a\in Ag\}$ to denote the set of \emph{attentionatoms} over $At$ and $Ag$. The \emph{language of propositional attention} $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is then given by letting $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}) = P \cup H$ and defining the general syntax of formulas by: 
%	With $p\in At, a\in Ag, A_a p\in H$ and $\mathcal{E}$ a pointed event model,\footnote{Defined further below. As usual in DEL, the syntax and semantics are defined by mutual recursion~\cite{ditmarsch2007dynamic}.}
%	define the \emph{language of propositional attention} $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ by:
%\footnote{$\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ takes the sets $Ag$ and  $At$ as parameters. This dependency will be kept implicit throughout the paper.} 
%	\[
%	\varphi::=\top\mid p\mid \neg\varphi\mid\varphi\wedge\varphi\mid B_a\varphi \mid [\mathcal{E}]\varphi.
%	\]
%	
%
%	
%
%	The \emph{language of propositional attention} $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is given by the following grammar:
%	\[
%	\varphi::=\top\mid p
%	\mid A_a p \mid \neg\varphi\mid\varphi\wedge\varphi\mid B_a\varphi \mid [\mathcal{E}]\varphi, 
%	\] 
%	where $p \in P$, $A_ap\in H$, $a \in Ag$ and $\mathcal{E}$ is a pointed or multi-pointed standard event model of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$. The formula 
% $B_a\varphi$ reads ``agent $a$  believes $\varphi$'', 
%	$[\mathcal{E}]\varphi$ reads ``after $\mathcal{E}$ happens, $\varphi$ is the case", and $A_a p$ reads ``agent $a$ pays attention to whether $p$''.
\footnote{\citeauthor{belardinelli2023attention}~[\citeyear{belardinelli2023attention}] used instead the notation $h_a p$ derived from the ``hearing'' atoms $h_a$ of Bolander \emph{et al.}~[\citeyear{bolander2015announcements}]. %We here introduce the notation $A_a p$ as it fits better with our later generalisation in Section~\ref{sect:general}.  
	The new notation $A_a p$ fits better with our generalizations in Section~\ref{sect:general}. 
}  %We denote with $\mathcal{L}^-$ the static fragment of the language $\mathcal{L}$, that is, the subset of $\mathcal{L}$ that does not contain formulas with dynamic modalities. 
%As the elements of $H$ are atomic formulas of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$, we let $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}) = P \cup H$. %\cup \{ \top \}$. 
%	We now define satisfaction of formulas of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$.
%Defined further below. As usual in DEL, the syntax and semantics are defined by mutual recursion~\cite{ditmarsch2007dynamic}.
%@We now ... provide the definition of satisfaction of formulas from the static language $\mathcal{L}^-$ at a pointed Kripke model. \noteG{issue with the dynamic language (and in many other places)}The satisfaction of dynamic formulas requires the introduction of product updates and so it will be presented afterwards.
We have $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}) = P \cup H$.
Satisfaction of formulas in $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is exactly as in Definition~\ref{def: static truth}, except we replace $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ by $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ everywhere (the difference only amounts to the addition of the new set of atoms $H$).
\iffalse
\begin{definition}[Satisfaction]\label{def: static truth}
	Let $(\mathcal{M},w )= ((W,R,V),w)$
	be a pointed Kripke model of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$. Satisfaction of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$-formulas in $(\mathcal{M},w )$  is given by the following clauses extended with the standard clauses for the propositional connectives: 
	%For any $q\in At\cup H, a\in Ag,$ and  $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}^-$, the satisfaction of $\mathcal{L}^-$-formulas in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ is given by the following clauses extended with the standard clauses for the propositional connectives:
	\noindent \begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{lll}
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash q$ & iff & $q\in V(w)$, \text{ where $q \in At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA})$ }\tabularnewline
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash B_a\varphi$ & iff & $(\mathcal{M},v) \vDash \varphi$ for all $(w,v)\in R_a$;\tabularnewline
			$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash [\mathcal{E}]\varphi$ & iff & 
			if $\mathcal{E}$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ then \\
			&&$(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{E} \vDash \varphi$;
		\end{tabular}
		\par\end{center}	%Where $(\mathcal{M},w)^\varphi = (\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{E}(\varphi)$ is the update of the Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ with the event model $\mathcal{E}$ where $\varphi$ occurs.
	We say that a formula $\varphi$ is \emph{valid} if $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \varphi$ for all pointed Kripke models $(\mathcal{M},w)$, and in that case we write $\vDash \varphi$.
\end{definition}
\fi







\begin{example}\label{ex:static}
	Ann is about to review the CV of an applicant for a position in her lab. To ensure an unbiased hiring process, her lab has adopted an AI agent to detect the presence of attentional biases and assess whether some aspects of the candidates' CVs receive more attention than others. The AI agent does not have any information about which aspects Ann is prioritizing, and only knows that she has not read the CV yet and so has no information about it. However, it correctly assumes that Ann overestimates her own attentional capacities: Ann believes that she (and everybody else) will pay attention to every aspect of the CV. In reality, Ann focuses more on the candidate's research track record, and does not pay so much attention to other important factors such as contributions to diversity. The AI agent has already read and paid attention to all aspects of the CV. This situation is represented in Fig.~\ref{figure: propositional attention}. We have e.g. $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash A_a p \land \neg A_a q$: Ann ($a$) pays attention to $p$ and not to $q$. We also have $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash B_b B_a(A_a p \land A_a q)$: the AI agent ($b$) thinks that Ann believes to be paying attention to all aspects of the CV.
	
	%			\noteG{to shorten once i know which example we want}Initially, Ann has no information about whether the applicant is strong in teaching or in research, and believes Bob also has no information about this. However, Bob knows the applicant already and believes she is strong in both teaching and research. Bob also knows that Ann has no information about the applicant. Then they read the applicant's CV together, which reveals that she is strong both in research and teaching. As a result, they commonly believe that this is the case. This situation is represented in Figure \ref{figure: propositional attention}. On the left we have a Kripke model representing the initial situation, where e.g. $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \neg B_a p \land \neg B_a q$: Ann does not believes $p$ and does not believe $q$. In the middle, we have the event model $(\mathcal{E},e)$ representing the revelation of $p\land q$ to Ann and Bob. On the right, we have the updated model where e.g. $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E},(w,e)) \vDash B_a (p \land q)\wedge B_a B_b(p \land q)$: Ann believes $p$ and $q$ and believes Bob believes this too.
	%			
	%			Consider the situation depicted in Example \ref{ex:static}, where Ann and Bob are about to look at the CV of an applicant. While Ann believes to be paying attention to all aspects of the applicant's CV, she is actually biased towards applicants who are experienced teachers, and so only pays attention to the teaching related aspects of the CV. Bob instead pays attention to everything in the CV.
	%		\begin{figure}
		%			\begin{tikzpicture}\tikzset{ 
				%					world/.style={}, 
				%					actual/.style={},
				%					cloudy/.style={cloud, cloud puffs=13, cloud ignores aspect, draw}}
			%				
			%				%KRIPKE MODEL on the left
			%			%% True state:
			%			\node [actual] (!) {$\underline{\s p,q}$};
			%			%Edge true state:
			%			\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=7,in=80,out=110] (!) node [above, xshift=4.5pt, yshift=9.5pt] {$\s b$};
			%			
			%			%%% INNER CLOUD
			%			\node[cloudy,right=of !] (cloudy) {$\s p?,\s q?$};
			%			% Cloud Loops
			%			\path (cloudy) edge [-latex,looseness=4.5,in=145,out=165] (cloudy);
			%			%Name loop
			%			\node [node distance=6pt,above=of cloudy, xshift=-15pt, yshift=-10pt] (loop name 1) {$\s a,b$};
			%			
			%			%BETWEEN DESIGNATED AND CLOUD
			%			\path (!) edge [-latex] (cloudy) node [above, xshift=20pt] {$\s a$};
			%			
			%			
			%			%EVENT MODEL in the middle
			%			%% True event:
			%			\node [rectangle, rounded corners, draw, right=of cloudy] (event) {$\underline{\s p\land q}$};
			%			\path (event) edge [-latex, looseness=7,in=80,out=110] (event) node [above, xshift=7.5pt, yshift=8pt] {$\s a,b$};
			%			
			%			%UPDATESD KRIPKE MDEL on the right
			%			%% True state:
			%			\node [actual, right=of event] (!) {$\underline{\s p,q}$};
			%			%Edge true state:
			%			\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=7,in=80,out=110] (!) node [above, xshift=4.5pt, yshift=9.5pt] {$\s b$};
			%			
			%			%%% RIGHT state
			%			\node [world, right=of !] (right) {$\underline{\s p,q}$};
			%			\path (right) edge [-latex, looseness=7,in=80,out=110] (right) node [above, xshift=7pt, yshift=8pt] {$\s a,b$};
			%			
			%			%BETWEEN true state and right state
			%			\path (!) edge [-latex] (right) node [above, xshift=20pt] {$\s a$};
			%			\end{tikzpicture}
		
		\begin{figure}
			\label{figure:prop-attention-first-example}
			\begin{center}
				\begin{tikzpicture}[auto]\tikzset{ 
						deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
						world/.style={}, 
						actual/.style={},
						cloudy/.style={cloud, cloud puffs=15, cloud ignores aspect, inner sep=0.5pt, draw}
					}
					\hspace{-10pt}
					%% True state:
					\node [actual] (!) {$\underline{\s \substack{p, q \\A_{Ag} p, \neg A_aq,
					% A_b p, 
					A_bq}}$};
					%Edge true state:
					\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=4,in=170,out=190] (!) node [above, xshift=-52pt, yshift=-4pt] {$\s b$};
					
					%%TOP RIGHT
					\node [world, right=of !, xshift=20pt, yshift=10pt] (1) {$\hspace{5mm}\s p?,\hspace{2pt}q?\hspace{5mm}$};
					%%% Square top right
					\node [deepsquare, fit={(1)},yshift=2pt](square) {};
					%Deepsquare name
					\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (square.north) [yshift=0pt]{$\s A_{Ag} p, A_{Ag}q$};
					% Deepsquare Loop
					\path (square) edge[-latex, loop, out=8, in=-8, looseness=4] node {$\s a,b$} (square);
					%		\path (square) edge [-latex,looseness=4.6,in=350,out=20] (square) node [right, xshift=25pt, yshift=2pt] {$\s a,b$};
					%BEtween actual and square
					\path (!) edge [-latex] (square.west) node [above, xshift=40pt, yshift=8pt] {$\s a$};
					
					
					%% BOTTOM  RIGHT
					\node [world, below=of 1, yshift=7pt] (2) {$\hspace{2.0mm}\s A_ap?,A_aq?\hspace{2.0mm}$};
					%%% Square bottom right
					\node [deepsquare, fit={(2)},yshift=2pt](square1) {};
					%Deepsquare name
					\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (square1.north) [yshift=0pt]{$\s A_b p, A_b q, p, q$};
					% Deepsquare Loop
					\path (square1) edge[-latex, loop, out=8, in=-8, looseness=3.5] node {$\s b$} (square1);
					%\path (square1) edge [-latex,looseness=4.4,in=355,out=15] (square1) node [right, xshift=35pt, yshift=2pt] {$\s b$};
					
					%BETWEEN DESIGNATED AND BOTTOM
					%  \path (!) edge[-latex] node{$\s b$} (square1.west);
					
					\path (!) edge [-latex] (square1.west) node [above, xshift=40pt, yshift=-25pt] {$\s b$};
					
					%	  \path (!) edge [-latex] (square1.west) node [above, xshift=40pt, yshift=-30pt] {$\s b$};
					
					%BETWEEN BOTTOM AND TOP
					\path[draw,-latex] ([yshift=4mm]2.north) to node[yshift=-0.7mm,xshift=0.5mm]{$\s a$} (1);
					%Anchor
					\node[above=of square1, yshift=-26pt] (anchor) {};
					%Edge	
					%\path (anchor) edge [-latex] (square.south) node [right=of anchor, xshift=-33pt, yshift=6pt] {$\s a$};
				\end{tikzpicture}
			\end{center}
			
			\caption{ 
				%\textbf{Right:} the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{F}(p\land q),(w,e))$, where $\mathcal{F}(p\land q)$ is given in Figure \ref{fig2:comparison}
				A pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}}$.  In the figure, $p$ stands for ``the applicant has published several papers in top-tier journals'', $q$ for ``the applicant has made significant contributions to diversity''. There are two agents, Ann ($a$) and the AI agent ($b$), i.e.\ $Ag=\{a,b\}$. We use the following conventions. For a set of agents $Ag'$, %we define 
				$A_{Ag'}p := \bigwedge_{a\in Ag'} A_ap $.
				%Worlds are represented either by a sequence of literals true at the world, or by a sequence of atoms some of which are followed by a question mark, such as $p_1?,...,p_n? q_1, ...,q_m$. This sequence is shorthand for the set of $2^n$ worlds corresponding to all possible truth-value assignments of the atoms $p_1,p_2,...,p_n$, where $q_1, ...,q_m$ are true at each of these worlds. 
				Worlds are represented either by a sequence of literals true at the world, or by such a sequence of literals where some of the atoms are followed by question marks: $p_1?,\dots,p_n?, \ell(q_1),\dots,\ell(q_m)$.
				%	by a sequence of literals, where e atom is followed by a question mark. An example of the latter is $p_1?,...,p_n? \ell(q_1), ...,\ell(q_m)$. 
				This is shorthand for the set of $2^n$ worlds corresponding to all possible truth-value assignments of the atoms $p_1,p_2,...,p_n$, where $\ell(q_1), ...,\ell(q_m)$ are true at each of these worlds.
				When a world appears inside a dashed box, all the literals in the label of that box are also true at the world. The actual world is underlined. The accessibility relations are represented by labelled arrows. An arrow from (or to) the border of a box means that there is an arrow from (or to) all the events inside the box. 
			}\label{figure: propositional attention}
		\end{figure} 
		
		%			\caption{Left: the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$. Middle: the pointed event model $(\mathcal{E},e)$. Right: the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E},(w,e))$. In the figure, $p$ stands for ``the applicant has strong teaching skills'', $q$ for ``the applicant has strong research skills''. There are two agents, Ann $a$ and Bob $b$. We use the following conventions. Worlds are represented either by a sequence of literals true at the world, or by a labelled cloud. A cloud labelled with $p_1?,...,p_n? q_1, ...,q_m$ is shorthand for the set of $2^n$ worlds corresponding to all possible truth-value assignments of the atoms $p_1,p_2,...,p_n$, and where $q_1, ...,q_m$ are true at each of them.
			%				%A questioned atom inside a cloud such as $p?$ represents two worlds: one where $p$ is true and one where $p$ is false. Intuitively this represents uncertainty about $p$. More generally, for a set of atoms $\{p_1?,p_2?,...,p_n?\}$, the figure implicitly represents $2^n$ worlds corresponding to all possible truth-value assignments of the atoms $\{p_1?,p_2?,...,p_n?\}$. For example, the combination $p?$ and $q?$ represents four worlds: $(p,q), (p,\neg q),(\neg p, q),$ and $(\neg p,\neg q)$. 
			%		Designated worlds are underlined. The accessibility relations are represented by labelled arrows. An arrow from (or to) the border of a cloud means that there is an arrow from (or to) all the events inside the cloud. Events are distinguished from worlds by the rectangle with rounded corners around them.  
			%			}\label{figure: DEL}
		%		\end{figure} 
\end{example}



Fig.~\ref{figure: propositional attention} models the external perspective on the situation, for simplicity of presentation. To represent the case where it is the AI agent $b$ itself using the logic to reason about the scenario, we would apply perspective shifts and consider the situation from the perspective of $b$ only %
%make the AI agent $b$ use the logic, however, we need to represent the situation from its internal perspective. We can do that by means of perspective shifts
\cite{bolander2021del}. 
%, such as in Bolander \cite{}, that restricts the model to the worlds that $b$ considers possible. Notice that this would make the Kripke model multi-pointed.

\paragraph{Standard event models for propositional attention}
%We now recall the (standard) event models for propositional attention~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
The propositional event models of \citeauthor{belardinelli2023attention}~[\citeyear{belardinelli2023attention}]
%, event models for propositional attention 
are intended to represent the %truthful
%\emph{revelation} 
revelation
of concurrent stimuli from the environment, of which an agent may pay attention to and receive only a portion.\footnote{We 
	%deliberately 
	choose the term \emph{revelation} over the term \emph{announcement}  
	%. This is 
	to emphasize that the information is not necessarily disclosed by an agent (announced), but may 
	%instead 
	simply 
	be something that is seen or heard~\cite{ditmarsch2023announced}. Revelations are here always truthful.} 
%In this paper, we will use the term \emph{revelation}, instead of the term ``announcement'' which is more standard in the DEL literature, to refer to the information that an event model discloses as being the case. We do not use the term ``announcement'' as the information is not necessarily disclosed by an agent, and may instead simply be something that is seen \cite{ditmarsch2023announced}.} 
Accordingly, a revelation is represented as a conjunction of propositional literals, that is, the conjunction of facts being revealed by the relevant stimuli. An agent may pay attention to only some aspects of the revealed stimuli and, hence, receive only some of these facts.
%An agent may pay attention to some aspects of those stimuli, thus attention is directed at a subset of the atoms appearing in those literals. 
Say agents $a$ and $b$ are shown a picture of $c$ wearing a blue hat and a red shirt. Use $p_1$ for ``$c$ is wearing a blue hat'' and $p_2$ for ``$c$ is wearing a red shirt''. Then the formula revealed by 
%seeing 
the picture is $p_1 \land p_2$, with the intuition that 
%and take the revealed formula to be $p_1 \land p_2$. The intuition here is that the revealed formula 
$p_1 \land p_2$ \emph{contains} the two pieces of information $p_1$ and $p_2$, and that $a$ and $b$ may attend to and receive different parts of it (e.g.\ agent $a$ may only pay attention to the hat, 
$p_1$, and agent $b$ only to 
the shirt, 
$p_2$). 
%$p_1 \land p_2$ \emph{contains} the two pieces of information $p_1$ and $p_2$, and that potentially agents receive different parts of that information (e.g.\ agent $a$ might only receive information about the hat, $p_1$, and agent $b$ only about the shirt, $p_2$). 
%visual stimuli that agents get parallelly exposed to. 

%The DEL framework for propositional attention by \cite{belardinelli2023attention} is based on \emph{multi-pointed}, standard event models. A \emph{multi-pointed, standard event model} $(\mathcal{E},E_d)=((E,Q,pre),E_d)$ is a standard event model $(E,Q,pre)$ as in Definition \ref{def: standard event model} but where, instead of a single actual event, we have a set $E_d\subseteq E$ of actual events. 

We use the following additional conventions. For a set of formulas $S$, 
$\bigwedge S$ denotes their conjunction. For $S=\emptyset$, define $\bigwedge S := \top$. Conjunctions of literals are assumed to be in a normal form where each atom occurs at most once and in a specific order.
%and they appear in a specific order.
% for details).
%All consistent conjunctions of literals are assumed in a normal form where: (i) each atom occurs at most once; (ii) $\top$ doesn't occur as a conjunct, unless the formula itself is $\top$; and (iii) the literals occur in a predetermined order (ordered according to a total order on $At$). This implies that given any disjoint sets of atoms $P^+$ and $P^-$, there exists a unique conjunction of literals (in normal form) containing all the atoms of $P^+$ positively and all the atoms of $P^-$ negatively. For conjuncts that are \emph{not} in this normal form, we assume them to be replaced by their corresponding normal form. 
A conjunction of literals $\varphi = \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \ell_i$ is said to \emph{contain} the literals $\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n$, and we write $\ell_i \in \varphi$. 
%and literal $\ell$, we say that $\varphi$ \emph{contains} $\ell$ if $\ell = \ell_i$ for some $i$, and in that case we often write $\ell \in \varphi$. 
%For any conjunctions of literals $\varphi$, $\mathit{Lit}(\varphi)$ is the set of literals it contains, i.e. $\mathit{Lit}(\varphi) = \{ \ell \colon \ell \in \varphi \}$. 
%starting with some conventions. 
%first recalling conventions from that paper. 
%, which are based on standard event models (Def. \ref{def: standard event model}). We will often simply call it the event model for propositional attention.
%The definition will rely on the following conventions from the aforementioned paper.
%As we are going to discuss the event models by \citeauthor{belardinelli2023attention}~[\citeyear{belardinelli2023attention}], in what follows we adopt the same formal preliminaries as in that paper. 
%The formulas in $At \cup H\cup \{ \top \}$ are called the \emph{atoms}, and a \emph{literal}  is an atom or its negation. 
%We typically use the symbol $p$ to denote propositional atoms (elements of $At$). 

The next definition recalls the propositional attention event models~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}. The function $id_E$ used in the definition is the identity function on $E$, that is, for every $e\in E, id_E(e)=e$.
\begin{definition}[Event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ \cite{belardinelli2023attention}]\label{e-varphi} 
Let $\varphi=\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots \wedge \ell(p_n)$ with all $p_i \in P$. %, where for each $p_i$, either $\ell(p_i)=p_i$ or $\ell(p_i)=\neg p_i$
The \emph{event model for propositional attention} representing the revelation of $\varphi$ is    
the multi-pointed event model $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)=((E,Q,id_{E}), E_d)$ for $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ defined by:
\begingroup
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{5pt}
\begin{multline*}
	\hspace{-8pt}		E=\{\bigwedge_{p \in S} \ell(p) \wedge  \bigwedge_{a \in Ag} \bigl(\bigwedge_{p \in X_a} A_ap \wedge \bigwedge_{p \in S \setminus X_a} \neg A_ap \bigr)  \colon \\[-0mm] S \subseteq \mathit{At}(\varphi) \text{ and for all } a \in Ag,X_a \subseteq S \}
\end{multline*}
\endgroup

%	\smallskip
\noindent$Q_a$ is such that $(e,f)\in Q_a$ iff the following holds for all $p$:

\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{-2pt} 
	\item[-] \textsc{Attentiveness}: if $A_ap\in e$ then $A_ap, \ell(p)\in f$;
	\item[-] \textsc{Inertia}: if $A_ap\notin e$ then $\ell(p)\not\in f;$
\end{itemize}  

\vspace{-1mm} % \noindent
$E_d=\{\psi\in E\colon \ell(p)\in \psi, \text{ for all } \ell(p)\in \varphi\}$. 
\end{definition}

This definition is exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-left}. 
As earlier shown, these event models grow exponentially both in the number of revealed literals and in the number of agents~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}. We will now %will %below %going to i
introduce \emph{edge-conditioned event models} that will help us represent these models more compactly, and generalize them more easily. 
%as well as to more easily generalize to the case of general attention.
%allow us to more easily generalize to the case of general attention. %(attention to arbitrary formulas). 
%As explained in \cite{belardinelli2023attention}, these event models grow exponentially on the number of revealed literals and on the number of agents. 
%\tobo{CONSIDER TO PUT BACK Indeed, for each subset of agents $A\subseteq Ag$ and each revealed literal $\ell(p)$, the event model contains at least one event where $A_a p$, $a\in A$, occur positively, and all $A_a p$, $a\in Ag\setminus A$ occur negatively. These event models also grow exponentially in the number of revealed atoms:
%for each subset $S$ of atoms in the revealed $\varphi$, it contains
%at least one event in which the set of propositional atoms occurring is exactly $S$.} 




\pgfdeclarelayer{background}
\pgfdeclarelayer{foreground}
\pgfsetlayers{background,main,foreground}


\begin{figure*}
\iffalse
\begin{multicols}{2}
	\begin{center}
		\vtop{\hbox{\resizebox{310pt}{180pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}\tikzset{deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2.5pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
							world/.style={node distance=12pt,inner sep=1pt},auto,align=center,
							atransitive/.style={-,black}, a/.style={-latex,black}, 
							b/.style={-latex,densely dotted}, 
							aloopy/.style={-latex, black, loop, in=60, out=20, looseness=3}, 
							bloopy/.style={-latex, dotted, loop, in=45, out=10, looseness=3}}
						\hspace{-30pt}
						%%%%NODES
						
						%%%FIRST LAYER 
						
						%% SQUARE 1
						%% True state:
						\node [world] (1) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 1, yshift=6pt] (2) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 2, yshift=6pt] (3) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 3, yshift=6pt] (4) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(1) +(0,4mm)$)(2)(3)(4)}] (square1) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (square1.north) {$\s  A_bp,  A_bq$};
						%% SQUARE 2
						%% True state:
						\node [world, right=of 1, xshift=25pt] (5) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 5, yshift=6pt] (6) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 6, yshift=6pt] (7) {$\s \neg A_a p, A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 7, yshift=6pt] (8) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(5) +(0,4mm)$)(6)(7)(8)}] (square 2) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 2) at (square 2.north) {$\s {\neg A_bp,  A_bq}$};
						
						%% SQUARE 3
						%% True state:
						\node [world, right=of 5, xshift=25pt] (9) {$\s  A_a p,   A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 9, yshift=6pt] (10) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 10, yshift=6pt] (11) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 11, yshift=6pt] (12) {$\s \neg A_a p,  \neg  A_aq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(9) +(0,4mm)$)(10)(11)(12)}] (square 3) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 3) at (square 3.north) {$\s { A_bp,  \neg A_bq}$};
						
						%% SQUARE 4
						%% True state:
						\node [world, right=of 9, xshift=25pt] (13) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 13, yshift=6pt] (14) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 14, yshift=6pt] (15) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
						\node [world, below=of 15, yshift=6pt] (16) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(13) +(0,4mm)$)(14)(15)(16)}] (square 4) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 4) at (square 4.north) {$\s {\neg A_bp, \neg A_bq}$};
						
						%% DEEPSQUARE AROUND FIRST LAYER
						\node[above=of 1, yshift=-18pt] (anchor1) {};
						\node [deepsquare, inner sep=5pt,  fit={(square1)(square 2)(square 3)(square 4)(anchor1)}] (outer) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (outer name) at (outer.north) {$\s \underline{p, q}$};
						
						%% SECOND LAYER 
						%% P-SQUARE 5
						%% True state:
						%%UPPER P SQUARE
						\node [world, below=of 8, yshift=-20pt, xshift=-20pt] (17) {$\s  A_b p$};
						\node [world, below=of 17, yshift=6pt] (18) {$\s\neg A_bp$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={(17)(18)}, inner sep=6.5pt] (square 5up) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5up.north) {$\s A_ap$};
						
						%%LOWER P SQUARE
						\node [world, below=of 18, yshift=-9pt] (19) {$\s  A_bp$};
						\node [world, below=of 19, yshift=6pt] (20) {$\s \neg  A_bp$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={(19)(20)}, inner sep=7pt] (square 5down) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5down.north) {$\s\neg A_ap$};
						
						%%Overall p Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(17) +(0,3mm)$)(18)(19)(20)}, inner sep=11.5] (square 5) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5.north) {$\s p$};
						
						%% SQUARE 6 (g square)
						%UPPER g DEEP SQUARE
						%% True state:
						\node [world, right=of 17, xshift=75pt] (21) {$\s  A_bq$};
						\node [world, below=of 21, yshift=6pt] (22) {$\s\neg A_bq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={(21)(22)}, inner sep=6.5pt] (square 6up) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6up.north) {$\s A_aq$};
						
						%%LOWER g DEEP SQUARE
						\node [world, below=of 22, yshift=-9pt] (23) {$\s   A_bq$};
						\node [world, below=of 23, yshift=6pt] (24) {$\s \neg  A_bq$};
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={(23)(24)}, inner sep=7pt] (square 6down) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6down.north) {$\s\neg A_aq$};
						
						%%overall g deepsquare
						%%Deepsquare
						\node [deepsquare, fit={($(21) +(0,3mm)$)(22)(23)(24)}, inner sep=11.5] (square 6) {};
						%Deepsquare name
						\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6.north) {$\s q$};
						
						%%%THIRD LAYER (TOP)
						\node [world, below=of 20, yshift=-7pt, xshift=51pt] (25) {$\s \top$};
						
						%%%%EDGES
						%%Edges between upper layer squares
						\path[a] (1) edge [-] (5) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
						\path[a] (5) edge [-] (9) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
						\path[a] (9) edge [-] (13) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
						%Transitive edges between upper layer squares
						\draw[atransitive] (1.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (9.north west);
						\draw[atransitive] (1.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (13.north west);
						\draw[atransitive] (5.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (13.north west);
						
						%% ALL b-loops
						\path[b] (square1) edge [looseness=5,in=115,out=130] node [yshift=-6pt]{}(square1);
						
						%% ALL a-loops in UPPER SQUARES
						%		\path[a] (1) edge [looseness=5,] (1);
						\draw[aloopy] (1) to (1);
						\draw[aloopy] (5) to (5);
						\draw[aloopy] (9) to (9);
						\draw[aloopy] (13) to (13);
						
						%% LOOPS ON Top
						\path[b] (25) edge [looseness=8,in=85,out=155] node [yshift=-6pt]{} (25);
						\path[a] (25) edge [looseness=7,in=95,out=155] node [yshift=-6pt]{} (25);
						
						
						%%EDGES FROM FIRST SQUARE LEFT
						% a-edges
						\draw[a] (2.west) to [bend right, out=-90,in=225,looseness=1.4] (square 5up.west);
						\draw[a] (3.west) to [bend right, out=-120,in=170,looseness=1.2] (square 6up.north west);
						\draw[a]   (4.south) to [bend right,in=240,looseness=1.5, out=280] (25.west);
						
						%%EDGES FROM SECOND SQUARE FROM LEFT
						% a-edges
						\draw[a] (6.west) to [bend right, out=330,in=220,looseness=1.15] (square 5up.west);
						% b-edge
						\draw[b] (square 2.south) to [bend right, in=200,looseness=0.5] node[yshift=-1pt, xshift=-3] { } (21.west);
						\draw[b] (square 2.south) to [bend right, in=200,looseness=0.5] node[yshift=-1pt, xshift=-3] { } (23.west);
						\draw[a] (8.west) to [bend left, out=290,in=255,looseness=2] (25.west);
						\draw[a] (7.east) to [out=-35,looseness=1] (square 6up.north west);
						
						%%EDGES FROM THIRD SQUARE FROM LEFT
						% a-edges
						\draw[a] (10.west) to [bend right, out=20,in=160,looseness=1.15] (square 5up.north east);
						\draw[a] (11.east) to [bend right, out=90,in=100,looseness=1] (square 6up.east);
						\draw[a] (12.east) to [bend right, out=70,in=110,looseness=2] (25.east);
						\draw[b] (square 3.south) to [bend right, in=170, out=20, looseness=0.7]  (17.east);		
						\draw[b] (square 3.south) to [bend right, xshift=1pt, in=130, out=15, looseness=1]  (19.east);		
						
						%%EDGES FOURTH SQUARE FROM LEFT
						% a-edges
						\draw[a] (14.east) to [bend right, out=115,in=180,looseness=1.5] (square 5up.north east);
						\draw[a] (15.east) to [bend left, out=90,in=140,looseness=1] (square 6up.east);
						\draw[a]   (16.south) to [bend right,in=120,out=80, looseness=1.5](25.east);
						% b-edges
						\draw[b] (square 4.south) to [bend right, xshift=1pt, in=125, out=75, looseness=1.5]  (25.east);		
						
						%%EDGES P-SQUARE
						\draw[-latex, a, loop, in=60, out=40, looseness=7] (square 5up) to (square 5up);
						\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=50, out=10, looseness=7] (17) to (17);
						\path [b] (17.east) edge [-, bend left, out=90, in=90, looseness=1.5] (19.east);	
						\draw[a] (square 5down.east) to [bend left] (25.north);		
						\draw[b] (18.west) to [bend right, out=270, in=238, looseness=2] (25.west);		
						\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=50, out=10, looseness=7] (19) to (19);
						
						\draw[b] (20.south) to [bend right, looseness=1]  (25.west);	
						
						%%EDGES G-SQUARE
						%%Loops
						\draw[-latex, a, loop, in=60, out=40, looseness=7] (square 6up) to (square 6up);
						\draw[-latex, b, loop,in=50, out=10, looseness=7] (21) to (21);
						\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=50, out=10, looseness=7] (23) to (23);
						%%OTher
						\path [b] (21.east) edge [-, bend left, out=90, in=90, looseness=1.5] (23.east);			
						\draw[a] (square 6down.west) to [bend right] (25.north);		
						\draw[b] (22.east) to [bend left, out=90, in=124, looseness=2] (25.east);		
						\draw[b] (24.south) to [bend left, looseness=1] (25.east);		
		\end{tikzpicture}}}}
	\end{center}\par 
	\begin{center}					
		\vtop{\hbox{\resizebox{230pt}{150pt}{	\begin{tikzpicture}
						\tikzset{scale=2, 
							world/.style={}, 
							actual/.style={}
						}
						%% True state:
						\node [actual,fill=white] (!) at (0,0) {$\s \underline{p \land q}$}; 
						\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=70,out=110] (!) node [above, xshift=9pt, yshift=17pt] {$\s i:(A_i p \land A_i q, A_i p \land A_i q)$};
						
						\node [world,fill=white] (1) at (-1,-1) {$\s p$};
						\begin{scope}[on background layer]
							\draw[-latex] (!) arc 
							[
							start angle=90,
							end angle=173,
							x radius=1,
							y radius =1
							] node[midway,left,xshift=-2pt] {$\s i:(A_i p \land \neg A_i q, A_i p)$};
						\end{scope}
						
						\path (1) edge [-latex, looseness=9,in=160,out=200] node [left] {$\s i:(A_i p, A_i p)$} (1);
						
						\node [world,fill=white] (2) at (1,-1) {$\s q$};
						
						\begin{scope}[on background layer]
							\draw[-latex] (!) arc 
							[
							start angle=90,
							end angle=7,
							x radius=1,
							y radius =1
							] node[midway,right,xshift=2pt] {$\s i:(A_i q \land \neg A_i p, A_i q)$};
						\end{scope}
						
						\path (2) edge [-latex, looseness=9,in=20,out=-20] node [right] {$\s i:(A_i q, A_i q)$} (2);
						
						
						\node [world] (T) at (0,-2) {$\s \top$};
						\begin{scope}[on background layer]
							\draw[-latex] (1) arc 
							[
							start angle=-180,
							end angle=-95,
							x radius=1,
							y radius =1
							] node[midway,left,xshift=0mm] {$\s i:(\neg A_i p, \top)$};
							
							\draw[-latex] (2) arc 
							[
							start angle=0,
							end angle=-85,
							x radius=1,
							y radius =1
							] node[midway,right,xshift=1mm] {$\s i:(\neg A_i q, \top)$};    
						\end{scope}
						
						\path (T) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=-110,out=-70] node [below,xshift=9pt] {$\s i:(\top, \top)$} (T);
						
						\path (!) edge[-latex,bend right=0] node[fill=white,above,yshift=-13pt,align=left,xshift=4pt]{$\s i:(\neg A_i p \land \neg A_i q, \top)$}
						(T);
						
						
		\end{tikzpicture}}}}
	\end{center}\par 
\end{multicols}
\caption{\textbf{Left}: Event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{F}(p\land q)$. The full edges are for Ann $a$, while the dotted edges for Bob $b$. We use the following conventions (also used in \protect\cite{belardinelli2023attention}). An event is represented by a list of literals. The formulas in the label of a dashed box are to be intended as conjuncts in the precondition of all events inside the box. The convention for the edges to (or from) a box is the same as above (see Figure \ref{figure: propositional attention}). \textbf{Right:} Edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{C}(p\land q)$. Events are represented by conjunctive formulas. When for all agents $i$ with $i\in \{a,b\}$, we have a (conditioned) edge $(e{:}\varphi_i,f{:}\psi_i) \in Q_i$, we add in the figure an arrow from $e$ to $f$ labelled by $i{:}(\varphi_i,\psi_i)$. This means that agent $i$ has an edge from $e$ to $f$ with source condition $\varphi_i$ and target condition $\psi_i$. We omit all edges of the form $(e{:}\emptyset, f{:}\emptyset)$.}\label{fig2:comparison}
\fi
%	\centering
%	\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
	%\subfloat{
		%\vtop{\hbox{
				\begin{center}
					\resizebox{310pt}{180pt}{\begin{tikzpicture}\tikzset{deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2.5pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
								world/.style={node distance=12pt,inner sep=1pt},auto,align=center,
								atransitive/.style={-,black}, a/.style={-latex,black}, 
								b/.style={-latex,dotted, thick}, 
								aloopy/.style={-latex, black, loop, in=60, out=20, looseness=3}, 
								bloopy/.style={-latex, dotted, loop, in=45, out=10, looseness=3, thick}}
							\hspace{-30pt}
							%%%%NODES
							
							%%%FIRST LAYER 
							
							%% SQUARE 1
							%% True state:
							\node [world] (1) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 1, yshift=6pt] (2) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 2, yshift=6pt] (3) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 3, yshift=6pt] (4) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(1) +(0,4mm)$)(2)(3)(4)}] (square1) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (square1.north) {$\s  A_bp,  A_bq$};
							%% SQUARE 2
							%% True state:
							\node [world, right=of 1, xshift=25pt] (5) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 5, yshift=6pt] (6) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 6, yshift=6pt] (7) {$\s \neg A_a p, A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 7, yshift=6pt] (8) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(5) +(0,4mm)$)(6)(7)(8)}] (square 2) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 2) at (square 2.north) {$\s {\neg A_bp,  A_bq}$};
							
							%% SQUARE 3
							%% True state:
							\node [world, right=of 5, xshift=25pt] (9) {$\s  A_a p,   A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 9, yshift=6pt] (10) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 10, yshift=6pt] (11) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 11, yshift=6pt] (12) {$\s \neg A_a p,  \neg  A_aq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(9) +(0,4mm)$)(10)(11)(12)}] (square 3) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 3) at (square 3.north) {$\s { A_bp,  \neg A_bq}$};
							
							%% SQUARE 4
							%% True state:
							\node [world, right=of 9, xshift=25pt] (13) {$\s  A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 13, yshift=6pt] (14) {$\s  A_a p, \neg A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 14, yshift=6pt] (15) {$\s \neg A_a p,  A_aq$};
							\node [world, below=of 15, yshift=6pt] (16) {$\s \neg A_a p, \neg  A_aq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(13) +(0,4mm)$)(14)(15)(16)}] (square 4) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 4) at (square 4.north) {$\s {\neg A_bp, \neg A_bq}$};
							
							%% DEEPSQUARE AROUND FIRST LAYER
							\node[above=of 1, yshift=-18pt] (anchor1) {};
							\node [deepsquare, inner sep=5pt,  fit={(square1)(square 2)(square 3)(square 4)(anchor1)}] (outer) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (outer name) at (outer.north) {$\s \underline{p, q}$};
							
							%% SECOND LAYER 
							%% P-SQUARE 5
							%% True state:
							%%UPPER P SQUARE
							\node [world, below=of 8, yshift=-20pt, xshift=-20pt] (17) {$\s  A_b p$};
							\node [world, below=of 17, yshift=6pt] (18) {$\s\neg A_bp$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={(17)(18)}, inner sep=6.5pt] (square 5up) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5up.north) {$\s A_ap$};
							
							%%LOWER P SQUARE
							\node [world, below=of 18, yshift=-9pt] (19) {$\s  A_bp$};
							\node [world, below=of 19, yshift=6pt] (20) {$\s \neg  A_bp$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={(19)(20)}, inner sep=7pt] (square 5down) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5down.north) {$\s\neg A_ap$};
							
							%%Overall p Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(17) +(0,3mm)$)(18)(19)(20)}, inner sep=11.5] (square 5) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 5) at (square 5.north) {$\s p$};
							
							%% SQUARE 6 (g square)
							%UPPER g DEEP SQUARE
							%% True state:
							\node [world, right=of 17, xshift=75pt] (21) {$\s  A_bq$};
							\node [world, below=of 21, yshift=6pt] (22) {$\s\neg A_bq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={(21)(22)}, inner sep=6.5pt] (square 6up) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6up.north) {$\s A_aq$};
							
							%%LOWER g DEEP SQUARE
							\node [world, below=of 22, yshift=-9pt] (23) {$\s   A_bq$};
							\node [world, below=of 23, yshift=6pt] (24) {$\s \neg  A_bq$};
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={(23)(24)}, inner sep=7pt] (square 6down) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6down.north) {$\s\neg A_aq$};
							
							%%overall g deepsquare
							%%Deepsquare
							\node [deepsquare, fit={($(21) +(0,3mm)$)(22)(23)(24)}, inner sep=11.5] (square 6) {};
							%Deepsquare name
							\node[fill=white] (square name 6) at (square 6.north) {$\s q$};
							
							%%%THIRD LAYER (TOP)
							\node [world, below=of 20, yshift=-7pt, xshift=51pt] (25) {$\s \top$};
							
							%%%%EDGES
							%%Edges between upper layer squares
							\path[a] (1) edge [-] (5) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
							\path[a] (5) edge [-] (9) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
							\path[a] (9) edge [-] (13) node [above, xshift=31pt, yshift=-1pt] {};
							%Transitive edges between upper layer squares
							\draw[atransitive] (1.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (9.north west);
							\draw[atransitive] (1.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (13.north west);
							\draw[atransitive] (5.north east) to [looseness=1.3, bend left] (13.north west);
							
							%% ALL b-loops
							\path[b] (square1) edge [looseness=5,in=115,out=130] node [yshift=-6pt]{}(square1);
							
							%% ALL a-loops in UPPER SQUARES
							%		\path[a] (1) edge [looseness=5,] (1);
							\draw[aloopy] (1) to (1);
							\draw[aloopy] (5) to (5);
							\draw[aloopy] (9) to (9);
							\draw[aloopy] (13) to (13);
							
							%% LOOPS ON Top
							\path[b] (25) edge [looseness=8,in=85,out=155] node [yshift=-6pt]{} (25);
							\path[a] (25) edge [looseness=7,in=95,out=155] node [yshift=-6pt]{} (25);
							
							
							%%EDGES FROM FIRST SQUARE LEFT
							% a-edges
							\draw[a] (2.west) to [bend right, out=-90,in=225,looseness=1.4] (square 5up.west);
							\draw[a] (3.west) to [bend right, out=-120,in=170,looseness=1.2] (square 6up.north west);
							\draw[a]   (4.south) to [bend right,in=240,looseness=1.5, out=280] (25.west);
							
							%%EDGES FROM SECOND SQUARE FROM LEFT
							% a-edges
							\draw[a] (6.west) to [bend right, out=330,in=220,looseness=1.15] (square 5up.west);
							% b-edge
							\draw[b] (square 2.south) to [bend right, in=200,looseness=0.5] node[yshift=-1pt, xshift=-3] { } (21.west);
							\draw[b] (square 2.south) to [bend right, in=200,looseness=0.5] node[yshift=-1pt, xshift=-3] { } (23.west);
							\draw[a] (8.west) to [bend left, out=290,in=255,looseness=2] (25.west);
							\draw[a] (7.east) to [out=-35,looseness=1] (square 6up.north west);
							
							%%EDGES FROM THIRD SQUARE FROM LEFT
							% a-edges
							\draw[a] (10.west) to [bend right, out=20,in=160,looseness=1.15] (square 5up.north east);
							\draw[a] (11.east) to [bend right, out=90,in=100,looseness=1] (square 6up.east);
							\draw[a] (12.east) to [bend right, out=70,in=110,looseness=2] (25.east);
							\draw[b] (square 3.south) to [bend right, in=170, out=20, looseness=0.7]  (17.east);		
							\draw[b] (square 3.south) to [bend right, xshift=1pt, in=130, out=15, looseness=1]  (19.east);		
							
							%%EDGES FOURTH SQUARE FROM LEFT
							% a-edges
							\draw[a] (14.east) to [bend right, out=115,in=180,looseness=1.5] (square 5up.north east);
							\draw[a] (15.east) to [bend left, out=90,in=140,looseness=1] (square 6up.east);
							\draw[a]   (16.south) to [bend right,in=120,out=80, looseness=1.5](25.east);
							% b-edges
							\draw[b] (square 4.south) to [bend right, xshift=1pt, in=125, out=75, looseness=1.5]  (25.east);		
							
							%%EDGES P-SQUARE
							\draw[-latex, a, loop, in=60, out=40, looseness=7] (square 5up) to (square 5up);
							\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=45, out=10, looseness=7] (17) to (17);
							\path [b] (17.east) edge [-, bend left, out=90, in=90, looseness=1.5] (19.east);	
							\draw[a] (square 5down.east) to [bend left] (25.north);		
							\draw[b] (18.west) to [bend right, out=270, in=238, looseness=2] (25.west);		
							\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=40, out=10, looseness=8] (19) to (19);
							
							\draw[b] (20.south) to [bend right, looseness=1]  (25.west);	
							
							%%EDGES G-SQUARE
							%%Loops
							\draw[-latex, a, loop, in=60, out=40, looseness=7] (square 6up) to (square 6up);
							\draw[-latex, b, loop,in=41, out=10, looseness=8] (21) to (21);
							\draw[-latex, b, loop, in=37, out=10, looseness=9] (23) to (23);
							%%OTher
							\path [b] (21.east) edge [-, bend left, out=90, in=90, looseness=1.5] (23.east);			
							\draw[a] (square 6down.west) to [bend right] (25.north);		
							\draw[b] (22.east) to [bend left, out=90, in=124, looseness=2] (25.east);		
							\draw[b] (24.south) to [bend left, looseness=1] (25.east);		
					\end{tikzpicture}} %}}
		\end{center}
		%}
	\vspace{-4mm}
	\caption{Event model $\mathcal{F}(p\land q)$ from \protect\cite{belardinelli2023attention}. 
	 Solid edges are for Ann ($a$), dotted for the AI agent ($b$). The figure adopts the same conventions as in the cited paper: An event is represented by a list of literals, corresponding to (some of the) literals that appear in the conjunctive precondition of the event itself. The formulas in the label of a dashed box are to be included as conjuncts in the precondition of all events inside the box. The convention for the edges is the same as in Fig.~\ref{figure: propositional attention}. See \protect\cite{belardinelli2023attention} for a detailed explanation of the figure.}\label{fig2:comparison-left}
	%The convention for the edges to (or from) a box is the same as the convention for edges to (or from) a box (see Figure \ref{figure: propositional attention}).}\label{fig2:comparison-left}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\textwidth}
%	\vtop{\hbox{
		%\resizebox{230pt}{150pt}
		\begin{center}
			\scalebox{1}
			{	\begin{tikzpicture}
					\tikzset{scale=2, 
						world/.style={}, 
						actual/.style={}
					}
					%% True state:
					\node [actual,fill=white] (!) at (0,0) {$\s \underline{p \land q}$}; 
					\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=70,out=110] (!) node [above, xshift=9pt, yshift=17pt] {$\s i:(A_i p \land A_i q, A_i p \land A_i q)$};
					
					\node [world,fill=white] (1) at (-1,-1) {$\s p$};
					\begin{scope}[on background layer]
						\draw[-latex] (!) arc 
						[
						start angle=90,
						end angle=173,
						x radius=1,
						y radius =1
						] node[midway,left,xshift=-2pt] {$\s i:(A_i p \land \neg A_i q, A_i p)$};
					\end{scope}
					
					\path (1) edge [-latex, looseness=9,in=160,out=200] node [left] {$\s i:(A_i p, A_i p)$} (1);
					
					\node [world,fill=white] (2) at (1,-1) {$\s q$};
					
					\begin{scope}[on background layer]
						\draw[-latex] (!) arc 
						[
						start angle=90,
						end angle=7,
						x radius=1,
						y radius =1
						] node[midway,right,xshift=2pt] {$\s i:(A_i q \land \neg A_i p, A_i q)$};
					\end{scope}
					
					\path (2) edge [-latex, looseness=9,in=20,out=-20] node [right] {$\s i:(A_i q, A_i q)$} (2);
					
					
					\node [world] (T) at (0,-2) {$\s \top$};
					\begin{scope}[on background layer]
						\draw[-latex] (1) arc 
						[
						start angle=-180,
						end angle=-95,
						x radius=1,
						y radius =1
						] node[midway,left,xshift=0mm] {$\s i:(\neg A_i p, \top)$};
						
						\draw[-latex] (2) arc 
						[
						start angle=0,
						end angle=-85,
						x radius=1,
						y radius =1
						] node[midway,right,xshift=1mm] {$\s i:(\neg A_i q, \top)$};    
					\end{scope}
					
					\path (T) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=-110,out=-70] node [below,xshift=9pt] {$\s i:(\top, \top)$} (T);
					
					\path (!) edge[-latex,bend right=0] node[fill=white,above,yshift=-7pt,align=left,xshift=4pt]{$\s i:(\neg A_i p \land \neg A_i q, \top)$}
					(T);
					
					
			\end{tikzpicture}} 
		\end{center} %}}
\vspace{-2.5mm} 
\caption{Edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{H}(p\land q)$. Events are represented by conjunctive formulas corresponding to the event's own precondition. When for all agents $i\in Ag$, we have a (conditioned) edge $(e{:}\varphi_i,f{:}\psi_i) \in Q_i$, we add an arrow from $e$ to $f$ labelled by $i{:}(\varphi_i,\psi_i)$. This means that agent $i$ has an edge from $e$ to $f$ with source condition $\varphi_i$ and target condition $\psi_i$. For example, the arrow from event $p\wedge q$ to event $p$ labelled by $i{:}(A_ip\wedge\neg A_iq,A_ip)$ corresponds to the edge $(p\wedge q{:} A_ip\wedge\neg A_iq,p{:}A_ip) \in Q_i$, for all $i\in Ag$. This edge models an agent who paid attention to $p$, but not to $q$, and therefore only learns $p$ and that she paid attention to $p$.
	%We omit all edges of the form $(e{:}\top, f{:}\top)$.
}\label{fig2:comparison-right}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
%\end{center}
\end{figure*}


\section{Edge-Conditioned Event Models}
%\noteG{	prior work by thomas on DEL with edge conditions, there is some work by Thorsten too. }
%	In this section, we introduce edge-conditioned event models and the corresponding product update definition. 

%Bolander~[\citeyear{bolander2018seeing}] first introduced edge-conditioned event models, but only with conditions at the source of edges. Here we generalize to also include conditions at the target of edges, hence creating a hybrid between standard event models and  \emph{generalized arrow updates} of \citeauthor{kooi2011generalized}~[\citeyear{kooi2011generalized}].

The idea behind edge-conditioned event models is to make the edges of event models conditional on formulas. For standard event models, $(e,f)\in Q_a$ means that event $f$ is accessible from event $e$ by agent $a$, and whenever that is the case, we draw an $a$-edge from $e$ to $f$.
% in the graph of the event model. 
In edge-conditioned event models, what is accessible at an event has become conditioned by formulas: $(e{:}\varphi, f{:}\psi)\in Q_a$ means that $f$ is accessible from $e$ by $a$ under %conditions $\varphi$ and $\psi$, or, more precisely, under 
the condition that $\varphi$ is the case at the source $e$ and $\psi$ is the case at target $f$. As we will see, this simple modification % of standard event models
has rather advantageous consequences, as it allows  us 
to represent event models significantly more %compactly and 
succinctly.

%%\begin{definition}[Edge-conditioned event model]
%%	An \emph{edge-conditioned event model} is a tuple $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ where $E$ and $pre$ 
%%	%and $post$ 
%%	are standard (i.e. as in Def. \ref{def: standard event model}), and where $Q\colon E\times E\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(Ag\times \mathcal{L}\times \mathcal{L})$ assigns each pair of events $(e,f)$ to a set of \emph{edge-conditions} $Q(e,f)$. For $(a,\varphi,\psi)\in Q(e,f)$, we call $\varphi$ the \emph{source condition} and $\psi$ the \emph{target condition}. Where $\mathcal{C}$ is an edge-conditioned event model and $E_d$ is a set of actual events, $(\mathcal{C},E_d)$ is a \emph{multi-pointed edge-conditioned event model}.
%%\end{definition}
%\begin{definition}[Product update] 
%	Let $\mathcal{M} = (W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model and $\mathcal{C} = (E,Q,pre)$ be an edge-conditioned event model. 
%	The \emph{ product update} of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{C}$ is the Kripke model $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{C} = (W',R',V')$ where $W$ and $V$ are standard (Def.\ref{def: product update no post}), and 
%	$R'_a=\{((w,e),(v,f))\in W'\times W'\colon (w,v)\in R_a\text{ and } \exists (a,\varphi,\psi)\in Q(e,f): (\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi \text{ and } (\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi\}$.
%\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Edge-conditioned event models]\label{def:edge-conditioned-event-model}
An \emph{edge-conditioned event model} for $\mathcal{L}$ is a tuple $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ where $E$ and $pre$ 
are standard (i.e.\ as in Def. \ref{def: standard event model}), and where $Q: Ag\rightarrow  \mathcal{P}(E\times \mathcal{L}\times E\times \mathcal{L})$ assigns to each agent a set of quadruples $(e,\varphi,f,\psi)$. 
% often abbreviated $(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)$.  
For $(e,\varphi,f,\psi)\in Q_a$, we call $(e,\varphi,f, \psi)$ a \emph{conditioned edge}, where $\varphi$ is the \emph{source condition} (at $e$) and $\psi$ is the \emph{target condition} (at $f$).
% \noteG{In this case, we will also say that $\varphi$ is a source condition of $e$ and $\psi$ is a target condition of $f$.} 
We often abbreviate %Notationally, an edge
$(e,\varphi,f,\psi)$ as %will also be written 
$(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)$ 
to emphasize that it is an edge from $e$ to $f$, where the source $e$ has
%n extra 
condition $\varphi$, and the target $f$ 
%has
%n extra 
condition $\psi$. % attached.
The set of edge-conditioned event models for $\mathcal{L}$ is denoted by $\ecem(\mathcal{L})$.
Where
% $\mathcal{C}$ is an edge-conditioned event model and
$e$ is the \emph{actual event}, $(\mathcal{C},e)$ is a \emph{pointed edge-conditioned event model}.
%Where $\mathcal{C}$ is an edge-conditioned event model and $E_d$ is a set of actual events, $(\mathcal{C},E_d)$ is a \emph{multi-pointed edge-conditioned event model}.
\end{definition}
%\noteG{shall we have multi-pointed or single pointed edgys here? I'd say single-pointed, because we never use the multi-pointed again (well except in the proofs e.g. exponential succinctness))Notice that the multi-pointed version is just out-commented }

%An example of an edge-conditioned event model is pres Figure \ref{fig2:comparison-right}, and in particular in the next section which introduces edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention.
\begin{definition}
[Edge-conditioned product update]
%[Product update with edge-conditioned event models] 
\label{def:edge-conditioned-product-update}
Let $\mathcal{M} = (W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model and $\mathcal{C} = (E,Q,pre)$ an edge-conditioned event model, both 
%over atom set $At$. 
for  the same language $\mathcal{L}$.  
The \emph{product update} of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{C}$ is $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{C} = (W',R',V')$ where $W'$ and $V'$ are standard (Def.~\ref{def: product update no post}), and 
$R'_a=\{((w,e),(v,f))\in (W')^2 \colon (w,v)\in R_a \text{ and } \exists \varphi,\psi \in \mathcal{L} \text{ such that } (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a, (\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi \text{ and } (\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi\}$.		
A pointed edge-conditioned event model $(\mathcal{C}, e)$ is called \emph{applicable} in a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$
if 
%and a pointed edge-conditioned event model $(\mathcal{C}, e)$, if 
$(\mathcal{M}, w )\vDash pre(e)$, and 
then the \emph{product update} of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with $(\mathcal{C},e)$ is the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (\mathcal{C},e)= (\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{C}, (w,e))$.
\end{definition}

Edge-conditioned event models were first introduced by Bolander~[\citeyear{bolander2018seeing}], but only with conditions at the source of edges. Adding conditions also at the target is technically straightforward and matches the conventions for generalized arrow updates~\cite{kooi2011generalized}. Despite the technical simplicity, it turns out to have significant advantages, including that this new formalism generalizes and is more succinct than both generalized arrow updates and standard event models, and that we acheive an exponential succinctness result for the event model for propositional attention that would not hold with only source conditions (Theorem~\ref{thm:exponential-succinctness} below). 


%The above definition generalizes to also include conditions at the target of edges. %This creates a hybrid between standard event models and  \emph{generalized arrow updates} by \citeauthor{kooi2011generalized}~[\citeyear{kooi2011generalized}], which condition edges on formulas in a similar fashion, but do not contain preconditions.
We define the language of \emph{DEL with edge-conditioned event models} $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ as the language given by the grammar of $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$ extended with the clause $[\mathcal{C}] \varphi$, where $\mathcal{C}$ is a pointed edge-conditioned event model.  
%	\begin{align*}
%		$\varphi ::= p \mid \neg \varphi \mid \varphi \wedge \varphi \mid B_a\varphi \mid [(\mathcal{C},e)]\varphi$,
%	\end{align*}
%	where $p\in P$, $a\in Ag$, and $(\mathcal{C},e)$ is a pointed edge-conditioned event model.
The semantics of $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ is defined as for $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ (Def.~\ref{def:satisfaction}), except that the product update in the semantics of $[\mathcal{C}]\varphi$ uses Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-product-update}.
%	\end{definition}	

\begin{table} %[h]
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\caption{\label{tab:logic}Axiomatization of DEL with edge-conditions ($\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$).}   %($\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}}$).}  
%} 
%Dynamic epistemic logic with edge-conditions $\Lambda$. It is assumed that $(\mathcal{C},e)=((E,Q,pre),e)$ is a pointed edge-conditioned event model.}

\vspace{-2mm} 
\begin{tabular}{l} \toprule
All prop.\ tautologies and
$B_{a}(\varphi\rightarrow \psi)\rightarrow (B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_a\psi)$. \\
%				$B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_{a}B_{a}\varphi$ \\
%				$\neg B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_{a}\neg B_{a}\varphi$\\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)] p \leftrightarrow (pre(e)\rightarrow p)$ \\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)] \neg \psi \leftrightarrow( pre(e) \rightarrow \neg [(\mathcal{C},e)]\psi)$ \\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)](\psi\wedge\chi)\leftrightarrow([(\mathcal{C},e)]\psi\wedge[(\mathcal{C},e)]\chi)$\\
$\displaystyle[(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi \leftrightarrow (pre(e)\rightarrow \! \bigwedge_{\mathclap{(e:\chi,f:\chi')\in Q_a}}\hspace{6pt}(\chi\rightarrow B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)))$\\
From $\varphi$ and $\varphi\rightarrow\psi$, infer $\psi$. 
From $\varphi$ infer $B_a\varphi$.\\
From $\varphi\leftrightarrow \psi$, infer $\chi[\varphi\slash p]\leftrightarrow \chi[\psi\slash p] $ (substitution).
% \footnote{This is standard notation for substitution, although it looks similar to the notation for the dynamic modality.}
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{theorem}[Soundness and completeness]\label{thm: soundness and completeness}
Table~\ref{tab:logic} provides a sound and complete axiomatization of DEL with edge-conditioned event models.
% (i.e.\ the language $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$).    
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch] 
The first line and last two lines of Table~\ref{tab:logic} provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of the underlying epistemic language $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$~\cite{fagin1995reasoning}. Completeness of the logic of the full language $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ then follows by standard reduction arguments~\cite{ditmarsch2007dynamic}: we have reduction axioms (lines 2--5 of Table~\ref{tab:logic}) for translating any formula involving the $[\mathcal{C}]$ modality into a formula without it, hence reducing the completeness proof to completeness of the underlying epistemic logic. For soundness, we verify the validity of the reduction axiom for the belief modality, the validity of the others being standard.   
%The rest is standard. %(lines 3--6).   
%. The full proof of soundness, in particular of the reduction axioms for the $[\mathcal{C}]$ modality, is given in the Technical Appendix.
%about the consequences of belief updates, is proved in the Technical Appendix.  
\end{proof}


We define $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}$ as the language given by the grammar of 
$\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ extended with the clause $\varphi ::= A_a p$, with $A_a p \in H$. 
%as when defining $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ from $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. 
It is the language that uses edge-conditioned event models and includes the attention atoms. 
Note that $At(\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}) = At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA})= P \cup H$. 
We % will 
exemplify Definition \ref{def:edge-conditioned-event-model}
%the new models
%edge-conditioned event models 
by defining an edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention that corresponds to the standard event model 
%for propositional attention 
of Definition~\ref{e-varphi}.  



\begin{definition}[Edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention] \label{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention}
Let $\varphi=\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots \wedge \ell(p_n)$ with $p_i \in P$.
%, where for each $p_i$, either $\ell(p_i)=p_i$ or $\ell(p_i)=\neg p_i$. 
The \emph{edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention} representing the revelation of $\varphi$ is the pointed edge-conditioned event model		
$\mathcal{H}(\varphi)=((E,Q,id_E),\varphi)$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}$ defined by:
%		 as follows. The set of events is  $E=\{\bigwedge_{p\in S} \ell(p) \colon S\subseteq At(\varphi)\}$, and the actual event is $e = \varphi$. The edge relation $Q$ is defined as follows: for all $a\in Ag$ and all $T\subseteq S \subseteq At(\varphi)$, we include in $Q_a$ the tuple $	(\bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap \land \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S\setminus T}}\neg A_ap, \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap)$.

\smallskip
\begingroup
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-7pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-5pt}
$E=\{\bigwedge_{p\in S} \ell(p) \colon S\subseteq At(\varphi)\}$,

%		\noindent
%	\setlength{\multlinegap}{-1pt} 


\begin{multline*}
Q_a = \{ 	(\bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap \land \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S\setminus T}}\neg A_ap, \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap):\\[-2pt] T \subseteq S \subseteq At(\varphi) \}.
\end{multline*}
\endgroup
%	$pre(e)=e$, for all $e\in E$.
%		\begin{multline*}
%		$Q_a=\\
%		\begin{dcases}
%			\{
%			(\bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap \land \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in S\setminus T}}\neg A_ap, \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}\ell(p){:} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p\in T}}A_ap) \\\hfill \hspace{20pt} T\subseteq S \subseteq At(\varphi)\\
%			\emptyset \hfill \text{otherwise}
%		\end{dcases}$
%			\end{multline*}
%	$pre(e)=e$, for all $e\in E$.
\end{definition}
Figure~\ref{fig2:comparison-right} shows $\mathcal{H}(p \land q)$, i.e.\ the same revelation as in Figure~\ref{fig2:comparison-left} (when $Ag = \{a,b\}$). The standard and the edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention correspond to each other by being
%in the sense that they are 
\emph{update equivalent}. %, which we define next.
%\noteG{In the definition, when a model (a Kripke model, an event model or a generalized arrow update, cf.\ definition provided in the Technical Appendix) is defined for a language $\mathcal{L}$ with atom set $At$, we will say that it is a model \emph{over} the atom set $At$. We use $At$ to denote a generic set of atomic formulas. }
%We now show that standard and edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention are equivalent, more precisely that they are \emph{update equivalent}.   
\begin{definition}[Update equivalence~\cite{kooi2011generalized,eijck2012action}] 
\label{def:update equivalence}
%Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a Kripke model, and
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a standard or edge-conditioned event model for $\mathcal{L}$ 
and $\mathcal{D}'$ a standard or edge-conditioned event model for $\mathcal{L}'$, where $At(\mathcal{L}) = At(\mathcal{L}')$.
%event models for languages having the same atom set $At$ (each of them can be either a standard or an  edge-conditioned event model). 
% and suppose that all three models are for languages over the same atom set $At$.    
%       (each of them can be either  a standard or an edge-conditioned event model).  
%For any Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ and event models $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$, 
We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \emph{update equivalent to} $\mathcal{D}'$ if for all Kripke models $\mathcal{M}$ with atom set $At(\mathcal{L})$,
%over $At$,  
$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{D}'$ are bisimilar.\footnote{If $\mathcal{M}$ is a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}$, it is also a Kripke model for any $\mathcal{L}'$ with $At(\mathcal{L}') = At(\mathcal{L})$, since its definition only depends on the set of atoms and agents, and the agent set is fixed. We also refer to such Kripke models as \emph{Kripke models with atom set} $At(\mathcal{L})$. The notion of bisimulation is standard in modal logic \cite{blac.ea:moda}. The definition is given in the Technical Appendix.}
%	, notationally $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}\leftrightarroweq\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}'$.
\end{definition}
Update equivalence means semantic equivalence, as bisimilar models agree on all formulas~\cite{blac.ea:moda}. 
%Event models have preconditions that might contain modalities $[\mathcal{E}]$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is in itself an event model.  ...  
%For all languages $\mathcal{L}$ containing an event model modality $[\mathcal{E}]$, we will use $\mathcal{L}^0$ to denote the sublanguage in which no preconditions   

%\begin{proposition}
%%	\noteG{prove instead that if you start from edgy for prop attention and apply the translation you arrive at *the* standard event model for prop attention }
%\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:F-H-equivalence} 
For any conjunction of propositional literals $\varphi$, 
%		For any $\varphi=\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots \wedge \ell(p_n)$ 
%\in \mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$
%, where for each $p_i$, either $\ell(p_i)=p_i$ or $\ell(p_i)=\neg p_i$, 
$\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ are update equivalent. 
%		the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ is update equivalent to the standard event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch]	
Let $\varphi = \ell(p_1) \land \cdots \land \ell(p_n)$ and let $\mathcal{M}$ be any Kripke model. We define a bisimulation relation  
from $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(\varphi) = (W,R,V)$ to $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{F}(\varphi) = (W',R',V')$ by $Z= \{ ((w,e),(w',e')) \in W \times W' \mid  w = w' \text{ and for all } i = 1,\dots,n: \ell(p_i) \in e \text{ iff } \ell(p_i) \in e' \}$. In other words, we match each event $\bigwedge_{p \in S} \ell(p)$ of $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ with all events of $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ that are of the form $\bigwedge_{p \in S} \ell(p) \land \cdots$. Then the proof proceeds by showing that $Z$ satisfies the [Atom], [Forth] and [Back] conditions of being a bisimulation relation. 
%We note that for each $S \subseteq At(\varphi)$,  
%via ``expanding'' each event $\bigwedge_{p\in S}\ell(p)$ of 
%$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ to include the second conjunct used in the definition of the events of $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$. See Technical Appendix.
%\noteG{Work in progress...}
\end{proof}
This theorem implies that the event models of Figs.~\ref{fig2:comparison-left} and~\ref{fig2:comparison-right} are equivalent, but the latter is clearly simpler and easier to follow. As it turns out, it is also exponentially smaller (Thm.~\ref{thm:exponential-succinctness}).  
%We will later, in Proposition~\ref{prop:F-H-equivalence}, show that in fact the two event models are equivalent, and also that edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention are always exponentially smaller than their standard event model counterparts. 
Moreover, while $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ 
%standard event model for propositional attention 
is multi-pointed, 
%the edge-conditioned event model
$\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$
is only pointed. Hence, by using edge-conditioned event models, we achieve several advantages in terms of simplicity and succinctness. There are also conceptual advantages. By separating the preconditions from the edge-conditions, these models introduce a conceptual distinction between the informational content pertaining to the event itself, which belongs to the event's preconditions, and information determining which events are considered possible by an agent, which is now a condition on the accessibility relation. Information about agents' attention is of the latter kind, as it pertains to the agent's perspective on the event (see also \cite{watzl2017structuring}, Ch. 13). 
%Attention affects what seems to happen from the agent's point of view (see also \cite{watzl2017structuring}, Ch. 13). 
It is not a part of the information that is revealed, but rather a condition on the accessibility relations (i.e., an edge-condition). Standard event models instead merge these distinct information types into a single construct, namely the preconditions.
%It also allows for a conceptually cleaner representation, as it distinguishes between information about the event that happens, which belongs to the event's preconditions, and information determining which events are considered possible, which is now a condition on the accessibility relation. Information about agents' attention is of the latter kind, as it pertains to the agent's perspective on the event (see also \cite{watzl2017structuring}, Ch. 13). 
%\tobo{Discuss why edgies are conceptually better, either here or somewhere else.}  

\begin{example}\label{ex: updated propositional attention} Continuing Example \ref{ex:static}, Ann has now reviewed the applicant's CV. She has learned that they published several papers in top-tier journals, but has not learned about their contribution to diversity, as she did not pay attention to it. The AI agent still has no information about what Ann paid attention to, and so thinks that Ann may have learned any part of the CV. This situation is depicted in Fig.~\ref{figure: update of propositional attention}, where e.g. $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(p\wedge q),(w,e))\vDash B_a p\wedge \neg B_a q \wedge \neg B_a \neg q$: Ann has only learned about the candidate's publications, overlooking their contributions to diversity. We also have $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(p\wedge q),(w,e))\vDash \neg B_b A_a p\wedge \neg B_b \neg A_a p \wedge \neg B_b A_a q\wedge \neg B_b \neg A_a q$: the AI agent still has no information about Ann's attention.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto]\tikzset{ 
		deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2.5pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
		world/.style={}, 
		actual/.style={},
		cloudy/.style={cloud, cloud puffs=15, cloud ignores aspect, inner sep=0.5pt, draw}
	}
	
	%% True state:
	\node [actual] (!) {$\underline{\s \substack{p, q \\A_a p, \neg A_aq, \\ A_b p, A_bq}}$};
	\path (!) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=4,in=105,out=70] node [above] {$\s b$} (!);
	
	%%TOP 
	%FIRST
	\node [world, right=of !, yshift=10pt] (1) {$\s p,q?$};
	%%% Square first 
	\node [deepsquare, fit={(1)}](square1) {};
	% Deepsquare Loop
	\path (square1) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=4.6,in=110,out=70] (square1) node [right, xshift=2pt, yshift=15pt] {$\s a,b$};
	%BEtween actual and square
	\path (!) edge [-latex] (square1) node [above, xshift=35pt, yshift=4pt] {$\s a$};
	
	%SECOND
	\node [world, right=of 1, xshift=-5pt] (2) {$\s p,q$};
	% Loop
	\path (2) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=110,out=60] (2) node [right, xshift=5pt, yshift=12pt] {$\s a,b$};
	
	
	%THIRD
	\node [world, right=of 2, xshift=-5pt] (3) {$\s p?,q$};
	%%% Square third
	\node [deepsquare, fit={(3)}](square3) {};
	% Deepsquare Loop
	\path (square3) edge [-latex, looseness=4.4,in=110,out=70] (square3) node [right, yshift=15pt, xshift=2pt] {$\s a,b$};
	
	%FOURTH
	\node [world, right=of 3, xshift=-5pt] (4) {$\s p?,q?$};
	%%% Square third
	\node [deepsquare, fit={(4)}](square4) {};
	% Deepsquare Loop
	\path (square4) edge [-latex, looseness=4.6,in=110,out=70] (square4) node [right, yshift=15pt, xshift=2pt] {$\s a,b$};
	
	%% Square Top
	%Anchor
	\node[left=of 1, xshift=29pt] (anchor1) {};
	\node[above=of 1, yshift=-20pt] (anchor2) {};
	\node[below=of 1, yshift=31pt] (anchor3) {};
	\node[right=of 4, xshift=-29pt] (anchor4) {};
	\node [deepsquare,fit={(anchor1)(anchor2)(anchor3)(anchor4)(1)(2)(3)(4)}](squareb) {};
	%Deepsquare name
	\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareb.north) [yshift=-0pt]{$\s A_{Ag} p, A_{Ag}q$};
	
	
	%% BOTTOM  WORLDS
	%% First
	\node [world, below=of 1, yshift=13pt] (1b) {$\s A_ap,\neg A_aq$};
	%BEtween bottom and top
	\path ([yshift=-3pt]1b.north) edge [-latex] (square1.south) node [right, yshift=8pt] {$\s a$};
	
	%%Second
	\node [world, below=of 2, right=of 1b, xshift=-26.5pt] (2b) {$\s A_ap,A_aq$};
	%BEtween bottom and top
	\path ([yshift=-3pt]2b.north) edge [-latex] (2.south) node [right, yshift=8pt] {$\s a$};
	
	%%Third
	\node [world, below=of 3, right=of 2b, xshift=-26.5pt] (3b) {$\s \neg A_ap,A_aq$};
	%BEtween bottom and top
	\path ([yshift=-3pt]3b.north) edge [-latex] (square3.south) node [right, yshift=8pt] {$\s a$};			
	
	%%Fourth
	\node [world, below=of 3, right=of 3b, xshift=-28pt] (4b) {$\s \neg A_ap,\neg A_aq$};
	%BEtween bottom and top
	\path ([yshift=-3pt]4b.north) edge [-latex] (square4.south) node [right, yshift=8pt] {$\s a$};			
	
	%% Square bottom
	\node [deepsquare,fit={(1b)(2b)(3b)(4b)}](squareb) {};
	%Deepsquare name
	\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareb.south) [yshift=-0pt]{$\s p, q, A_b p, A_b q$};
	% Deepsquare Loop
	\path (squareb) edge [-latex, looseness=5,in=182,out=177] (squareb) node [left, xshift=-102pt, yshift=0pt] {$\s b$};
	
	%BETWEEN DESIGNATED AND BOTTOM BOX
	\path (!) edge [-latex] (squareb.north west) node [above, xshift=30pt, yshift=-10pt] {$\s b$};
	
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{The pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(p\land q),(w,e))$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}$, with $\mathcal{H}(p\land q)$ given in Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-right}. We use the same conventions as before and omit worlds that are inaccessible by all agents.
}\label{figure: update of propositional attention}
\end{figure} 
\end{example}

%	\begin{definition}[DEL with edge-conditioned event models] 



\section{Expressivity and succinctness} 
% of edge-conditioned event models}
Before introducing our logic of general attention, we examine key  %will 
%explore some general 
properties %of the newly introduced 
of edge-conditioned event models,
%. They turn out to have advantages over existing event model formalisms, so they 
which may be of independent interest for DEL and its applications.  %and its applications. 
%We first compare edge-conditioned event models and standard event models. %When using the term \emph{event model} without specifying whether it is a standard or edge-conditioned one, it means it can be either. 
%We no longer consider multi-pointed event models, they were only needed to define the standard event models for propositional attention.
% be a standard event model or an edge-conditioned one. % and later to generalized arrow updates~\cite{kooi2011generalized}. 

%We are now going to explore the correspondence of edge-conditioned event models and two classes of models that are well established in the literature, that is, standard event models introduced above \cite{baltag1998logic}  and  (generalized) arrow updates that we will introduce below \cite{kooi2011arrow,kooi2011generalized}. We show that the class of edge-conditioned event models is as expressive as the other two model classes. 

%	To show equal expressivity, we use the notion of \emph{update equivalence}, adapted from \cite{kooi2011generalized,kooi2011arrow,eijck2012action}. The term \emph{event models} is used below to refer to either standard event models or edge-conditioned event models.




















%	We  show that edge-conditioned event models can represent every update that standard event models and generalized arrow updates can express, i.e. the class of edge-conditioned event models is as expressive as the other two classes of models.  
%	\paragraph*{Standard Event Models} We start with the correspondences between edge-conditioned event models and standard event models. The next definition shows how to transform any standard event model into an edge-conditioned model. 
\begin{definition}[Transformation of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models]
\label{def: translation SEM into ECEM}
%[Transformation $T_1$ of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models]
%[Translation from $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ to $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$]\noteG{This transformation is called $T_1$ but it introduces $T_2$ too? Same for the next transformation}
By mutual recursion, we define mappings $T_1: \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}) \to \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ and
$T_2: \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL} \to \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$. %and a mapping $T_2$. % from standard event models to edge-conditioned event models: 
Define $T_1$ by $T_1(E,Q,pre) = (E,Q',pre')$ where for each $a \in Ag$,  
$Q'_a=\{(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\colon (e,f)\in Q_a\}$, and for each $e \in E$, $pre'(e) = T_2(pre(e))$. Define $T_2$ by:
\begingroup
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}	
\[
\begin{array}{ll} 
T_2(p) = p, \text{ for }  p \in P &
T_2(\neg \varphi) = \neg T_2 (\varphi) \\
T_2(\varphi \land \psi) = T_2(\varphi) \land T_2(\psi) &
T_2(B_a \varphi) = B_a T_2(\varphi) \\
T_2([(\mathcal{E},e)]\varphi) = [(T_1(\mathcal{E}),e) ] T_2(\varphi) 
\end{array}
\]
\endgroup
% Given a standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, we call $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ its \emph{transformation into an edge-conditioned event model}.
%%The \emph{transformation} $T$ of a standard event model $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$ into an edge-conditioned event model is given by $T(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre)$ where for each $a \in Ag$,  
%%	$Q'_a=\{(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\colon (e,f)\in Q_a\}$.
%%		Where $(\mathcal{E},e)$ is a pointed standard event model, $(T(\mathcal{E}),e)$ is its transformation into a pointed edge-conditioned event model.
%%Where $(\mathcal{E},E_d)$ is a multi-pointed standard event model, $(T(\mathcal{E}),E_d)$ is its transformation into a multi-pointed edge-conditioned event model.
\end{definition}	
\begin{theorem}\label{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}
%	Any standard event model is update equivalent to its transformation into an edge-conditioned event model. 
%Any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to its corresponding edge-conditioned event model $T_1(\mathcal{E})$.	
%\zref@labelbyprops{equivSEMEDGYcontent}{content}{
$\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$ %$\mathcal{E}$ 
is update equivalent to
% the edge-conditioned event model 
$T_1(\mathcal{E})$.
%} \zref{equivSEMEDGYcontent}{\zref@content}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch.] We show that for any Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ and  $\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$, 
%, given an arbitrary Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$, 
$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$, i.e.\ they have the same worlds and accessibility relations. The proof is by induction on the level of $\mathcal{E}$ in the DEL language hiearchy~\cite{kooi2011generalized}, i.e. on the depth of nesting of event model modalities inside $\mathcal{E}$. The proof is straightforward as the translation $T_1$ only (recursively) replaces edges $(e,f)$ with edges $(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)$ having trivial source and target conditions.\footnote{A transformation of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models was first provided by \cite[p. 161]{li2023phdthesis}. Notice that their tranformation is only for event models that do not contain dynamic preconditions, whereas ours includes them too.}
%noting that $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ is achieved from $\mathcal{E}$ by (recursively) setting all source and target conditions to $\top$.	
%As isomorphism is a special case of bisimulation, the result follows. 
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY} shows that any standard event model can be equivalently  represented as an edge-conditioned one. Hence, $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ is at least as expressive as $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. It turns out they are equally expressive, as any edge-conditioned event model can also be transformed into an equivalent standard one, 
%as we now show,   
%We now show this, 
using a construction inspired by 
% essentially by making all source and target conditions equal to $\top$.  
%The next proposition shows any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to its transformation $T(\mathcal{E})$, in other words, $\mathcal{E}$ and $T(\mathcal{E})$ are semantically the same. @move to after, and shorten...
%We now consider the opposite transformation, inspired by the construction in 
Kooi and Renne~%
%Next, we provide the transformation of an edge-conditioned event model into a standard event model. The definition has a structure that is similar to the transformation of generalized arrow updates into standard event models  provided in 
[\citeyear[Thm 4.7]{kooi2011generalized}]:
\begin{definition}[Transformation of edge-conditioned event models into standard event models]
\label{def: transformation edgys to SEMs}
%[Translation from $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ to $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$]
%		formation $T_1'$ of edge-conditioned event models into standard event models]
\label{def: edgies into standard}
For any edge-conditioned event model $(E,Q,pre)$ for $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ and any $e \in E$, let $\Phi(e)$ be the set of source and target conditions at $e$, i.e.\  $\Phi(e)=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a\}\cup \{\psi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (f{:}\varphi,e{:}\psi)\in Q_a\}$. Set $\Phi'(e)=\Phi(e)\cup \{\neg\varphi\colon \varphi\in \Phi(e)\}$ and let $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ denote the set of maximally consistent subsets of $\Phi'(e)$.
By mutual recursion, we define mappings $T_1': \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) \to \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$ %from edge-conditioned event models to standard event models and a mapping 
and $T_2':\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM} \to \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. The mapping $T_2'$ is as $T_2$ of Definition \ref{def: translation SEM into ECEM}, except we replace $T_i$ by $T_i'$ and $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{C}$. We define $T_1'$ by 
$T_1'(E,Q,pre) = (E',Q',pre')$ where:
%	Let $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ be an edge-conditioned event model. For $e\in E$, let $\Phi(e)$ be the set of source and target conditions at $e$, i.e.  $\Phi(e)=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\varphi')\in Q_a\}\cup \{\varphi'\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (f{:}\varphi,e{:}\varphi')\in Q_a\}$. Set $\Phi'(e)=\Phi(e)\cup \{\neg\varphi\colon \varphi\in \Phi(e)\}$ and call $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ the set of maximally consistent subsets of $\Phi'(e)$, i.e. 
%	$\mathsf{mc}(e)$ is such that for all $\Gamma\in \mathsf{mc}(e)$,  $\Gamma \not\vdash\bot$ and for all $\Gamma'\subseteq \Phi'(e)$ with $\Gamma\subset \Gamma'$, $\Gamma'\vdash \bot$.	
\begingroup 
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}
\[
\begin{array}{l}
E'= \{(e,\Gamma)\colon e\in E, \Gamma\in \mathsf{mc}(e)\}, \\
Q'_a  =  \{((e,\Gamma),(e',\Gamma'))\in E'\times E' \colon (e{:}\varphi, e'{:}\varphi')\in Q_a, \\
\qquad \quad \varphi\in \Gamma, \varphi'\in \Gamma'\}, \\
pre'((e,\Gamma)) = T_2'(pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma).
\end{array}
\]
\endgroup
%Given an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}$, we call $T_1'(\mathcal{C})$ its \emph{transformation into a standard event model}.
%The \emph{transformation }$T'$ of an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$  into a standard event model is given by $T'(\mathcal{C})=\{E',Q',pre'\}$ where 
\end{definition}


\begin{theorem}\label{prop: equivalence EDGY to SEM}
%Any edge-conditioned event model is update equivalent to its transformation into a standard event model. 
$\mathcal{C} \in \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ is update equivalent to $T_1'(\mathcal{C})$.
%For any edge-conditioned model $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to the standard event model $T_1'(\mathcal{E})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch.]Same proof idea as for Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, now using techniques from
	Kooi and Renne~[\citeyear[Thm 4.7]{kooi2011generalized}].
% 	\cite[Thm. 4.7]{kooi2011generalized}.
%We show that, given a Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$, $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T'(\mathcal{E})$. The proof proceeds similarly to the proof of \cite[Thm. 4.7]{kooi2011generalized}.
\end{proof}
We have now shown equal expressivity between standard event models and edge-conditioned ones, and hence also equal expressivity of $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ and $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$. Next, we %We now turn to 
show that edge-conditioned event models are more succinct than standard ones (can be exponentially smaller, Thm.~\ref{thm:exponential-succinctness}, and never more than linearly larger, Thm.~\ref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}). We use $|\mathcal{E}|$ for the size of an event model
 $\mathcal{E}$ (standardly defined and straightforwardly generalized to edge-conditioned event models, \if\extendedversion 0 see the extended version on Arxiv\else see appendix\fi). %Technical Appendix). 
%Sizes of event models are measured in the standard way~\cite{bolander2020del} which generalizes immediately to edge-conditioned event models (see the Technical Appendix for details). 
\begin{theorem} %[Linear growth] 
\label{thm:linear-growth-SEM}
For any $\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$, $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{E}|)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch]
As mentioned in the proof sketch of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, 
$T_1(\mathcal{E})$ is achieved from $\mathcal{E}$ by (recursively) adding $\top$ as both source and target condition on each edge $(e,f)$, and this only gives a linear blowup in size.  
\end{proof}



%	\noteG{How do edge conditioned event models encode our propositional attention event model, give the definition, say all the advantages: how many events do we have in the edgy version? Much more succinct.}

% This shows that edge-conditioned event models are never more than linearly larger than corresponding standard event models. Not only that, they can be exponentially smaller, as we now show. %We use $|\varphi|$ for the size of $\varphi$, i.e. the number of symbols it consists of.  

%Hence, edge-conditioned event models grow at most linearly larger than the corresponding standard event models, and can in fact also be exponentially smaller, as we now show.
\begin{theorem}[Exponential succinctness of edge-conditioned event models]
\label{thm:exponential-succinctness}
Let $p \in P$ and let $n = |Ag|$. Then:
% the following holds concerning %the 
%and let $\mathcal{H}(p)$ 
%The following holds concerning the
% edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention 
%$\mathcal{H}(p)$: 

\vspace{-1mm} 
\begin{enumerate}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is of size $O(n)$.
%\item The standard event model $T'_1(\mathcal{H}(p))$ has $\Omega(2^n)$ events.
\item Any standard event model that is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$ has at least $2^n$ events.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\vspace{-4mm} 
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch.]
Item 1 follows from inspecting Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-right}. 
%The proof of 1 and 2 generalizes what we can observe from comparing the event models in Figures~\ref{fig2:comparison-left} and \ref{fig2:comparison-right}, where the standard event model needs an event for each possible combination of the agents' attention sets.
 To prove 2, we consider any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$ update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$. For each subset $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, we define a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) = ((W,R,V),w_1)$ with $W = \{w_1,w_2\}$, $R_a = \{(w_1,w_2)\}$ for all $a \in Ag$, $V(w_1) = \{p \} \cup \{A_a p: a \in Ag'\}$ and $V(w_2) = \emptyset$.   
  % in which only the agents in $Ag'$ pay attention to $p$. Then $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} \otimes \mathcal{E}$   
%with $|Ag'|$ worlds, each of which is accessible to all agents in $Ag'$ and none of the others. 
Using Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-product-update} and Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention}, we show that the actual world 
of $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. Since $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$, then also the actual world of $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{E}$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. From this it follows that $\mathcal{E}$ has an actual event $e_d^{Ag'}$ with an $a$-edge to an event applicable in $w_2$ iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. For $Ag' \neq Ag''$, the events $e_d^{Ag'}$ and $e_d^{Ag''}$ must hence have different outgoing edges and thus be distinct.  This implies that there are at least as many distinct events in $\mathcal{E}$ as there are subsets of $Ag$, i.e. at least $2^{|Ag|}$. 
%must then have distinct designated worlds. 
%are distinct, as they have different sets of loops. Hence, $\mathcal{E}$ must contain at least $2^n$ distinct events.
%has a world $w_1$ with the same properties.
%it must also contain a world $w_2$ with the same properties.
%For $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{E}$ to be update equivalent to $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$, it must also contain such a world, but that requires the existence of an event $e_{Ag'}$ in $\mathcal{E}$ with a loop exactly for the agents in $Ag'$. This is true for all $Ag' \subseteq Ag$.
%When $Ag' \neq Ag''$, $e_{Ag'}$ and $e_{Ag''}$ have a different set of loops, and must hence be distinct. Thus $\mathcal{E}$ contains at least $|\mathcal{P}(Ag)| = 2^{|Ag|}$ distinct events.
  \end{proof}
This result shows that edge-conditioned event models can be exponentially smaller than their standard event model counterparts, and that exponential succinctness specifically holds for the event models for propositional attention (as comparing Figs.~\ref{fig2:comparison-left} and~\ref{fig2:comparison-right} also suggests).
%It follows from the theorem that also the 
%translation $T'_1(\mathcal{H}(p))$ of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ into a standard event model has size $O(2^n)$). 
%both that
%, specifically, 
%    We are now ready to prove the promised result that 
%edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention are exponentially more succinct than their standard event model 
%counterparts and, more generally, that edge-conditioned event models are exponentially more succinct than \emph{any} equivalent standard event models. 


%	One might think that we could have used the generalized arrow update model to make the propositional attention event model smaller and more tractabtab. While this is true, notice that it is guaranteed that generalized arrow updates are more succinct than standard event models in the propositional case only \cite[Thm. 3.15]{kooi2011generalized}, and we would like to generalize our propositional event models to event models for general attention, where attention could be applied to any arbitrary formula announced (not only propositional). Moreover, conceptually, edge conditions make more sense than arrow updates, as some information belongs to the event itself, while some information (the attention information) to the edges. \noteG{improve this paragraph}









\paragraph{Generalized arrow updates}
The \emph{generalized arrow updates} of Kooi and Renne~[\citeyear{kooi2011generalized}] are a distinct class of event models that are similar to our edge-conditioned event models in including source and target conditions. However, generalized arrow updates do not have preconditions, and so they do not straightforwardly generalize standard event models as our edge-conditioned event models do. They however still have the same expressivity as standard event models~\cite{kooi2011generalized}, and hence the same expressivity as edge-conditioned event models. A disadvantage of generalized arrow updates compared to edge-conditioned event models is that they can be less succinct than their standard event model counterparts~\cite[Thm.~3.14]{kooi2011generalized}. In the
\if\extendedversion 0 extended version of the paper on Arxiv\else appendix\fi, 
%Technical Appendix,
we show that edge-conditioned event models are also at least as succinct as generalized arrow updates, via  a result corresponding to Theorem~\ref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}. Therefore, edge-conditioned event models may be a good 
%general 
choice of event model formalism for DEL, as they are always at least as succinct as standard event models and generalized arrow updates, and sometimes exponentially more succinct. Furthermore, as they straightforwardly generalize standard event models, extensions such as with postconditions~\cite{ditmarsch2008semantic} become trivial for edge-conditioned event models, which is not true for generalized arrow updates.    







%are a class of event models that are more expressive than standard event models. They can express updates that depend on the source and target conditions of an event. We show that edge-conditioned event models are as expressive as generalized arrow updates.

%By the previous subsection, edge-conditioned event models and standard event models are semantically equivalent (more precisely, update equivalent). We now show a similar result for generalized arrow updates.

%As edge-conditioned event models are, roughly speaking, generalized arrow updates with preconditions, \noteG{can we say this?} the following transformation is similar to the transformation of generalized arrow updates into standard event models \cite{kooi2011generalized}. In particular, also in this case we need to define the set of maximally consistent subsets of the set of edge-conditions closed under negation.

%	\subsection{Succinctness}

% \noteG{	something about succinct del \noteG{by the way, maybe we should mention schwarzentruber et al.'s paper on succinct DEL}}

%	This section compares the size of edge-conditioned event models with the size of standard event models and generalized arrow updates. 




%	\subsection{Edge-Conditioned Event Models for Propositional Attention}

%In this definition introduces an edge-conditioned version for event models for propositional attention, and we will see that this kind of event models are exponentially more succinct than their standard version.




\section{A Logic for General Attention}\label{sect:general}
%\tobo{Assumptions about what has already been presented before arriving here: 1) the notion of a revelation;  }
We now generalize propositional attention to account for attention to, and revelation of, arbitrary formulas. 
%In this section, we build on edge-conditioned event models and generalize the propositional attention setting to account for attention to, and revelations of, arbitrary formulas.
% can be revealed and paid attention to.
%, hence turning the $A_a$ into modal operators 
%As we are going to see, the formalism we introduce is similar to the formalism adopted for the logic of general awareness \cite{fagin1987awareness}. Indeed, our discussion is inspired by that work, although attention here will be tied to the dynamics and so have an interpretation that sharply differs from awareness.
%We generalize the previous language of propositional attention $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ into the following
The  \emph{language of general attention} $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ is the language given by the grammar of $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ extended with the clause $\varphi ::= A_a \varphi$, where $a \in Ag$ and $A_a$ is a new modal operator.    
%given by the following grammar:
%\[
%	\varphi::=\top\mid p\mid \neg\varphi\mid\varphi\wedge\varphi\mid B_a\varphi 	\mid A_a \varphi \mid [\mathcal{E}]\varphi, 
%\]   
%where $a \in Ag, p \in At$ and \tobo{And $\mathcal{E}$...}. 
The formula $A_a \varphi$ reads ``agent $a$ pays attention to $\varphi$''. Note that, while in $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ the formula $A_a p$ is an atom, in $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ it is a modality applied to a propositional atom.  
%Note that $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is a sublanguage of $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ in the sense that $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ also contains all formulas of the form $A_a p$. However, in the case of $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$, $A_ap$ is an atomic formula, whereas in the case of $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ it's a modal formula, the modality $A_a$ applied to $p$. 
Additionally, in $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$, the formula $A_a p$ reads ``agent $a$ is paying attention to \emph{whether} $p$'', whereas in $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ it reads ``agent $a$ is paying attention \emph{to} $p$''. 

%We denote with $\mathcal{L}^-_{ga}$ the static fragment of the language $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$, that is, the subset of $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ that does not contain formulas with dynamic modalities.

Moving to general attention allows to formalize many new scenarios, namely all those where agents attend to more complex stimuli than just conjunctions of literals. For example, we may have $A_a ((p\vee q)\rightarrow r)$, meaning that agent $a$ is paying attention to the conditional $(p\vee q)\rightarrow r$. Such a conditional may represent the statement of a mathematical theorem, and %the formula
% saying that if either $p$ or $q$ is the case, then $r$ follows. 
%The formula 
$A_a ((p\vee q)\rightarrow r)$ then says that agent $a$ is paying attention to it. %  the theorem. 
Following \citeauthor{belardinelli2023attention}~[\citeyear{belardinelli2023attention}], we understand attention as being directed to truthful revelations.  
%via the channel idea, 
Attending to a theorem then means 
%being attuned to it, and 
that, if the theorem is revealed, maybe as part of a larger revelation such as a research talk,
% where several theorems are presented, 
the agent will learn its truth value. 

Another application is one where agents may pay attention (or not) to the utterances of other agents.
%Say that agent $a$ only pays attention to what agent $b$ says about $p$ and what agent $c$ says about $q$.  
Say that agent $a$ only pays attention to what agent $b$, but not agent $c$, says about $p$. 
%(as in cases of prejudice \cite{munton2023prejudice}).
% This may happen in situations of gender-based prejudice, in which $a$ may only pay attention when individuals of a specific gender talk about, say, a research result, but not when individuals of another gender mention the same 
%We might want to say that agent $a$ pays attention to what agent $b$ has to say about topic $t_1$ but not topic $t_2$. 
In DEL, the truthful and public announcement of a formula $\varphi$ by an agent $i$ can be represented by the singleton event model where the actual event has precondition $B_i \varphi$ 
%(i.e.\ a public announcement of $B_i \varphi$)
\cite{ditmarsch2023announced}. Such an announcement makes all agents know that $i$ believes $\varphi$. Then, to formalise the mentioned attention situation, 
%where $a$ pays attention to what $b$ says about $p$ and what $c$ says about $q$, 
we could use the formula $A_a B_b p\wedge A_a B_b \neg p \wedge \neg A_a B_c p \wedge \neg A_a B_c \neg p$: 
if agent $b$ truthfully announces the (believed) truth-value of $p$, then agent $a$ receives that announcement, but if agent $c$ does the same, 
%truthfully announces the truth-value of $p$, 
$a$ receives nothing. 
%. This is intended to mean that 
%if agent $b$ truthfully announces the (believed) truth value of $p$, then agent $a$ receives that announcement, and if agent $c$ truthfully announces the truth-value of $p$, $a$ does not receive the announcement. 
%If this is all that is true about $a$'s attention, then in all other cases $a$ learns nothing. 
%This is exactly how the semantics will work out. 
%Note that we cannot represent this example in the setting of propositional attention, i.e.\ in the language $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$. We need attention to non-atomic formulas to represent that $a$ only receives information about $p$ from $b$ and only information about $q$ from $c$. 
Other scenarios can be modeled, such as attention to the attention of other agents. For example, the formula $A_a A_b p$ 
%can be used to 
represents that $a$ pays attention to $b$ paying attention to $p$.
Besides added expressivity, it is also conceptually natural to treat attention as a modality, similarly to propositional attitudes such as belief, intention, and awareness.  %In addition to the added expressivity that comes from treating attention as a modality, it also seems conceptually naturally to treat it as such, similar to other propositional attitudes such as belief, attention and awareness. 
%\noteG{talk a bit about attention to attention of agents}
The language $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ is interpreted in attention models:
\begin{definition}[Attention model]
\label{def: attention model}
An \emph{attention model} is a tuple $\mathcal{M} = (W,R,V,\mathcal{A})$ where $(W,R,V)$ is a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ 
%(Def.~\ref{def: kripke model}) 
and $\mathcal{A}: Ag \times W \to \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{L}_\text{GA})$ is an \emph{attention function}. %As for the previous model types, 
For an \emph{actual world} $w$, $(\mathcal{M},w)$ is a \emph{pointed attention model}. 
\end{definition}
The notion of edge-conditioned product update (Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-product-update}) immediately extends to attention models by defining $\mathcal{A}(a,(w,e)) = \mathcal{A}(a,w)$ for all $(w,e)$ of the updated model. 
% (the attention function evaluates locally in each world, similarly to the valuation function). 
This simply means that each world preserves its attention assignments, similarly to how we treat the valuation function in the product update.
The set of formulas that agent $a$ is paying attention to at world $w$ is the \emph{attention set} $\mathcal{A}(a,w)$, also denoted by $\mathcal{A}_a(w)$.
%% We call $\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ the \emph{attention set} of agent $a$ at world $w$. 
The truth of $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ formulas is defined by the same clauses as for $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ with the following addition: 
$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash A_a \varphi \text{ iff }  \varphi \in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$. 
%In addition to the added expressivity of general attention allowing us to formalise more interesting application scenarios, 
%This formal setting 
%%also has the advantage of having very strong 
%has clear similarities to the formal setting of the logic of general awareness, as 

This setting has clear similarities with the logic of general awareness \cite{fagin1988belief}. This does not mean that our framework reduces to a formalism for awareness, as the crucial aspect of attention separating it from awareness is that attention determines what agents learn, as we will see, which awareness does not.\footnote{Awareness is a static notion, introduced to restrict the formulas that agents may reason and have explicit beliefs about, as a solution to the logical omniscience problem  \cite{fagin1988belief}.}
%However, in terms of the static language and models, they are equivalent. 
Yet, the two frameworks are equivalent in terms of static language and models. We also do not place any restriction on agents' attention sets, similarly to what happens in the logic of general awareness. We may have that $\varphi\wedge \psi\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ but $\psi \wedge \varphi \not\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$, or we may have that
% $\varphi\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ and $\neg\varphi \not\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$, or again that 
$\varphi, \psi  \in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ but $\varphi\wedge \psi\not\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$. Whether this freedom is reasonable depends on the specific applications one has in mind, which may require to impose a range of closure properties on $\mathcal{A}_a$, called \emph{attention principles}. Consider the following examples and suggested applications:

%\textbf{Closure under negations}: $\neg\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ iff $\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$.
%%An agent attends to a formula iff she attends to its negation. 
%This principle can be used for modelling `attention to whether $\varphi$'.
%%, where attending to $\varphi$ means asking: is $\varphi$ true or false?
%%%, or an attention notion that is akin to having an information channel open towards a specific formula. 
%%%and where attention does not involve resource constraints that depend on the length of a formula.
%However, it may not fit agents who have resource constraints, as attending to $\neg\varphi$ may be more expensive than attending to $\varphi$ \cite{khemlani2012negation}.
%%%, or situations  where negation is interpreted as absence (attending to the proposition ``an apple is on the table'' does not necessarily imply attending to ``there is no apple on the table'').
%%
%%%(does the agent have an information channel open for a certain kind of information?).

\textbf{Conjunctive closure}: \emph{$\varphi\wedge\psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ iff $\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ and $\psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$}.
%An agent attends to a conjunction iff she attends to a conjunct and she attends to the other conjunct. 
This principle makes sense when representing `divided attention': every time an agent attends to $\varphi \wedge \psi$ it is as if she is dividing attention between $\varphi$ and $\psi$ (i.e.\ she attends to $\varphi$ and attend to $\psi$ separately) and vice versa.
%More in general, it suits situations of discretized information where attending to the conjunction necessarily means attending to both conjuncts separately (and perhaps learn only one, if only one of them is revealed). The left to right conditional may be adopted in situations in which . 
This principle may not be natural in resource-limited settings, where it may be possible to attend to $\varphi$ and $\psi$ separately but not together.  

%It is not so natural if the information is not discretized, as the conjuncts may not be separable. 
%Natural in roughly the same circumstances as closure under negations. (for some applications, we might consider only the conditional)

\textbf{Commutativity}:  \emph{$\varphi\wedge \psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ iff  $\psi\wedge\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$}. %$\varphi\vee \psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ iff  $\psi\vee\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$.
%: An agent attends to a conjunction iff she attends to its reordered version.
We may treat the order of conjuncts %or disjuncts 
as irrelevant, e.g.\ when abstracting from the temporal order of information presented.

\textbf{Sublanguage closure}: \emph{If $\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$, and $\psi$ is a formula constructed from
atoms appearing in $\varphi$ (i.e.\ $At(\psi)\subseteq At(\varphi)$), then $\psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$}. This principle may represent agents who are interested in a specific issue, and so their attention focuses on anything that talks about it.


\textbf{Subformula closure}: \emph{If $\varphi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ and $\psi$ is a subformula of $\varphi$, then $\psi\in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$}. 
%: An agent attends to a formula iff she attends to all its subformulas. 
This principle is justified when modeling information that is such that agents cannot pay attention to it unless they attend to all its components. 
%It models a notion of `feature-based attention', where a complex feature cannot be attended unless all its components are attended (consider the task of attending to Waldo, where one needs to attend to its subfeatures to find it).
%%
%%Agents plausibly cannot have an attention channel open for a formula unless they also have a channel open for all its subformulas. 
%Recall the theorem example: an agent cannot learn the truth of a theorem unless she has learned the truth of all the substatements.

%\textbf{Systematic boosts or suppressions} We may also want to model agents who never engage in social attention (\sebwat{no higher order formulas}), who systematically pay attention to certain other agents or events (\sebwat{every formula involving agent i or atoms in some specific set}), or those who never do (\sebwat{no formula involving agent i or atoms in some specific set}).

\textbf{Agent $a$ ignoring agent $b$}: \emph{$B_b\varphi \not\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ for all $\varphi$ (or all $\varphi$ that are about a certain issue)}. 
%subset of formulas, if modelling ignoring $b$ on certain topics).
% Ignoring can also be regarding certain subsets of formulas, representing certain topics. 
%This models agents who systematically ignore the utterances of other agents.   
%$B_b\varphi \in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$, for all $b$ in a set of agents $ Ag'\subseteq Ag$; $B_c\varphi\not\in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$, for all agents $c$ in another set $Ag''\subseteq Ag$. 
This can model agents who  %do or 
systematically do not pay attention to the utterances of other agents%in certain groups
, as in attention-driven social biases \cite{munton2023prejudice}.

\textbf{Agent $a$ attending to agent $b$}: \emph{$B_b\varphi \in\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ for all $\varphi$}. This models agents who systematically pay attention to the utterances of other agents.
We may also model agents who engage in social attention by adding to $\mathcal{A}_a(w)$ formulas involving nested belief or attention modalities, and e.g.\ study social learning \cite{rendell2010copy}.

\textbf{Attention introspection}: \emph{$(w,v) \in R_a$ implies $\mathcal{A}_a(w) = \mathcal{A}_a(v)$}. This principle models agents who have no doubts regarding what they pay attention to. It makes sense to assume it, e.g. when agents are deliberately focusing on something. 



%\sebwat{important to keep in mind that many the principles that are plausible for awareness are not plausible for attention.}
\smallskip
Notice that each property discussed above can be easily turned into an axiom schema, and each axiom schema can be used in an axiomatization of the modelled attention notion. As a few examples, the axiom schema $A_a \varphi \wedge A_a \psi \leftrightarrow A_a (\varphi \wedge \psi)$ represents conjunctive closure; $A_a (\varphi \wedge \psi)\leftrightarrow A_a (\psi\wedge \varphi)$ represents commutativity; 
%for a given agent $b$, $A_aB_b\varphi$, for all $\varphi$ in the language, represents attending to agent $b$; 
the formulas $A_i\varphi \rightarrow B_iA_i\varphi$ and
$\neg A_i\varphi \rightarrow B_i\neg A_i\varphi$ represent attention introspection. Each of the considered principles corresponds to an axiom schema (or a combination of axioms).
 While many of these principles and their corresponding axioms are discussed in the awareness literature \cite{fagin1988belief}, in this settings they are interpreted differently, as attention is an intrinsically dynamic notion.
%It is important to keep in mind that since attention is about the learning dynamics whereas awareness is not, many the principles that are plausible for awareness are not be plausible for attention. 
Going beyond them, the correspondence to awareness logic allows to study the relation between attention and awareness, rarely discussed in the literature (but see \cite{fritz2016standard,belardinelli2024phdthesis}).
%The correspondence to awareness logic means that we can import existing definitions and discussions from the awareness logic literature, including discussions of which properties the awareness function might satisfy. For instance,  \tobo{Gaia, please add appropriate citation}.   

%There are other properties of attention that we can represent using these models. For example, we can represent ``social attending or ignoring'' by imposing   %\sebwat{no/only higher order formulas: i.e. formulas involving B or A or other epistemic operators})


\paragraph{Event models for general attention}
Suppose given a set 
$\Gamma\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$: the formulas that are revealed (or announced) by the occurring event. 
%The intuition 
%that guides our generalization of the propositional event model to the case of general attention 
%is that 
The intuition is now that every agent learns the subset of $\Gamma$ that they are paying attention to.
% In other words, %the intuition is that 
If $\psi \in \Gamma \cap \mathcal{A}_a(w)$, then agent $a$ learns $\psi$ at world $w$.  
%In the definition below, $id_E$ is the identity function on $E$, i.e. $id_E(e)=e$ for all $e\in E$.
%Suppose given a set of formulas $\Gamma\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$, i.e.\ the formulas that are revealed (or announced) by the occurring event. The intuition that guides our generalization of the propositional event model to the case of general attention is that every agent learns the subset of $\Gamma$ that they are paying attention to. In other words, the intuition is that if $\psi \in \Gamma \cap \mathcal{A}_a(w)$, then agent $a$ learns $\psi$ at world $w$. 
%The reader might want to compare the definition below with the definition of the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention (Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention}) to get a better intuition of how this generalise.

\begin{definition}[Event model for general attention $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma)$]
\label{def: edge-conditioned-general-attention}
%We introduce $A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} A_i \varphi$ and $\bar A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} \neg A_i \varphi$. 
Let  $\Gamma\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ be a set of \emph{revealed formulas}. 
The \emph{event model for general attention} representing the revelation of 
$\Gamma$ is the pointed edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma) = ((E,Q,id_E),\bigwedge \Gamma)$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{GA}}$ % ($\mathcal{R}$ for revelation) 
defined by:

\smallskip
\begingroup
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}
%\noindent 
$E = \{\bigwedge S\colon S\subseteq \Gamma\}$,

\vspace{-12pt}
\begin{multline*}
%\hspace{-11pt}
Q_a=\{(\bigwedge S{:} \!\bigwedge_{\varphi\in T} \!\!A_a \varphi  \land \hspace{2pt}\bigwedge_{\mathclap{\varphi\in S\setminus T}} \hspace{2pt}\neg A_a\varphi,\bigwedge T{:} \!\!\bigwedge_{\varphi\in T} \!\!A_a \varphi) \colon \\[-0.7mm]
T\subseteq S \subseteq \Gamma \}.
\end{multline*}
%	$e = \varphi$.
\endgroup
\end{definition}

This event model contains, for each subset $S$ of the revealed $\Gamma$, an event $\bigwedge S$. This represents the subset that an agent may learn by paying attention.
%the intuition that agents may learn a subset of what the event model reveals, the subset that they pay attention to. 
The intuition behind the tuple $(\bigwedge S{:} \bigwedge_{\varphi\in T}A_a \varphi  \land \bigwedge_{\varphi\in S\setminus T} \neg A_a\varphi,\bigwedge T{:} \bigwedge_{\varphi\in T}A_a \varphi) $ is that if $\bigwedge S$ is revealed at an event and agent $a$ pays attention only to the subset $T$ of
% the formulas contained in 
%the information contained in 
$S$, then at that event agent $a$ believes that only $\bigwedge T$ was revealed (as the event accessible from $\bigwedge S$ has precondition $\bigwedge T$), and $a$ also learns that she was paying attention to $T$ (as the event accessible from $\bigwedge S$ has (target) condition 
$\bigwedge_{\varphi\in T} A_a\varphi$). This is consistent with the intuition underlying propositional attention, but in a much more general setting. 
Lastly, notice that in the event model for general attention, $\bigwedge \Gamma$ is the actual event, representing the truthful revelation of $\Gamma$. 
%
%Given an attention model $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V,\mathcal{A})$, the \emph{induced Kripke model} for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}$ is $I(\mathcal{M}) = (W,R,V')$ where $V'(w) = V(w) \cup \{A_a p\in H: p \in \mathcal{A}_a(w)\}$ for all $w \in W$. The model $I(\mathcal{M})$ is the Kripke model that only accounts for the propositional part of the attention encoded in $\mathcal{M}$. If $\mathcal{C} \in \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$, we define $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{C}$ to mean $I(\mathcal{M}) \otimes \mathcal{C}$. 
%%, where $\mathcal{M}'$ is the induced Kripke model.  
%% and a set of revealed formulas $\Gamma$, we can define the \emph{updated attention model} $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{R}(\Gamma)$ as the attention model $(W,R,V',\mathcal{A})$ where $V'(w) = V(w) \cap \Gamma$ for all $w\in W$.
%%Note that any Kripke model $M=(W,R,V)$ for $L_{\text{PA}^+}$ can be identified with an attention model $M' = (W,R,V',A)$ for $L_\text{GA}$ where $V'(w) = V(w) \cap P$ and $A_a(w) = \{p \in P: A_a p \in V(w)\}$: They have the same worlds, same accessibility relations, and satisfy the same formulas in $P \cup \{ A_a p: p \in P\}$. 
%Given that, we have the following equivalence result, showing that event models for general attention generalizes event models for propositional attention (full proof in Technical Appendix). 
%\begin{proposition}
%Let $\ell(p_1),\dots,\ell(p_n)$ be propositional literals. Then 
%$\mathcal{R}(\{\ell(p_1),\dots,\ell(p_n)\})$ is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots\wedge \ell(p_n))$
%with respect to the class of attention models satifying closure under negations. 
%%for $p_1,\dots,p_n \in P$.
%% for all propositional literals $\ell(p_i)$. 
%\end{proposition}
%%\begin{proof}
%%Bla!
%%\end{proof}
%The `closure under negations' requirement encodes that attention in $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ is an `attention whether' notion. 
%Notice that the event model for general attention generalizes the event model for propositional attention: by restricting $\Gamma$ to a set of propositional literals $\ell(p_1),\dots,\ell(p_n)$, we obtain an edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention. 
%%Additionally, notice that by imposing closure under negations, and thus considering an `attention whether' notion, $\mathcal{H}(\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots\wedge \ell(p_n))$ and $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma)$ are update equivalent event models (full proof in the Technical Appendix). 
%Additionally, n

Notice that the attention introspection property is immediately preserved by this event model, as the target condition $A_a\varphi$, for all $\varphi\in T$, ensures that an agent knows what she attends to. The other attention principles are also preserved, as the dynamics do not modify agents' attention set. 
%The framework is also capable of modeling situations in which agents may fail to learn about their own attention. This is achievable by setting all target conditions to $\top$.
%
%\tobo{Maybe discuss preservation of properties of attention. And maybe discuss the variant of the event model that doesn't satisfy \textsc{attentiveness}.}
%

\begin{example}\label{ex: updated general attention}
%\begin{example}
\label{ex: general attention} 
Consider an enrichment of Example \ref{ex: updated propositional attention} and Fig.~\ref{figure: update of propositional attention}, where the AI now also pays  attention to Ann's utterances regarding the CV. In particular, the AI agent is focusing on whether Ann has information regarding $p$ and $q$, as that would mean that she paid attention to all aspects of the CV. More formally, we are considering a pointed attention model $(\mathcal{M}',w')$ for $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ that is entirely like $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(p\land q))$ from Fig.~\ref{figure: update of propositional attention}, except that we have $A_bB_ap\wedge A_b\neg B_ap \wedge A_bB_aq\wedge A_b\neg B_aq$ true at all $b$-accessible worlds (see \if\extendedversion 0 extended version for corresponding figure\else the appendix for the corresponding figure\fi).
%, that is, a world belonging to $\{(u,g)\in \mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{H}(p\land q)\colon ((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a\}\cup\{(w,e)\}$.
%\end{example}
Continuing the example, Ann has now submitted an online report to the AI agent with fillable text fields for research qualifications, teaching qualifications, contributions to diversity, etc. Ann writes $p$ for research qualifications (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{figure: propositional attention}), but nothing for diversity, corresponding to the revelation of $\Gamma = \{ B_a p, \neg B_a q, \neg B_a \neg q\}$.    
%comments the applicant. Ann writes that the applicant has published several papers in top-tier journals, and does not write anything regarding the applicant's contributions to diversity. 
From this, 
%From the report, 
the AI agent correctly infers that Ann has not paid attention to diversity issues. 
%	infers that Ann has not paid attention to some aspects of the applicant's CV. 
This situation is represented in
%see
Fig.~\ref{figure: updated general attention}, where $(\mathcal{M}'\otimes\mathcal{R}(\Gamma),(w',e))\vDash A_ap\wedge \neg A_a q\wedge B_b A_ap\wedge B_b \neg A_a q$: the AI agent correctly believes that Ann has not paid attention to all parts of the CV.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}\tikzset{ 
deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2.5pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
world/.style={}, 
actual/.style={},
cloudy/.style={cloud, cloud puffs=15, cloud ignores aspect, inner sep=0.5pt, draw}
}

%% True state:
\node [actual] (!) {$\underline{\s \substack{p,q \\A_a p, \neg A_aq}}$};
\path (!) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=4.5,in=105,out=70] node [left, xshift=-2pt] {$\s b$} (!);

%%TOP 
%World
\node [world, right=of !, xshift=-35pt, yshift=30pt] (1) {$\s p,q?, A_a p, A_aq$};
% Loop
\path (1) edge [-latex, looseness=5,in=5,out=355] (1) node [right, xshift=35pt, yshift=3pt] {$\s a,b$};
%BEtween actual and square
\path (!) edge [-latex] (1) node [above, xshift=19pt, yshift=14pt] {$\s a$};


%% BOTTOM  RIGHT 
\node [world, right=of !] (1b) {$\s \substack{p,q\\ A_ap,\neg A_aq}$};
%%Bottom right Loop
%\path (1b) edge [-latex, looseness=4.6,in=50,out=30] (1b) node [right, xshift=5pt, yshift=20pt] {$\s b$};
\path (1b) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=5,in=105,out=70] node [right] {$\s b$} (1b);

%BEtween bottom right and top
\path (1b) edge [-latex] (1.south) node [right, xshift=-22pt, yshift=18pt] {$\s a$};

%% SQUARE AROUND ACTUAL AND BOTTOM
%Anchor
\node[above=of !, yshift=-34pt] (anchor1) {};
\node [deepsquare,fit={(!)(1b)(anchor1)}
%{($(1) +(0,4mm)$)(2)(3)(4)}
](squareb) {};
%Deepsquare name
\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareb.south) [yshift=-2pt]{$\s A_b B_a \{p,q\}, A_b \neg B_a \{p,q\}$};


%BETWEEN actual and bottom world
\path (!) edge [-latex] (1b) node [above, xshift=34pt, yshift=-0pt] {$\s b$};

%% SQUARE AROUND ALL
%Anchor
\node[below=of !, yshift=25pt] (anchor1) {};
\node[left=of !, xshift=34pt] (anchor2) {};
\node[right=of 1b, xshift=-34pt] (anchor3) {};
\node [deepsquare,fit={($(!) +(4,0mm)$)(1)($(1b) +(-40mm,0)$)(anchor1)(anchor2)(anchor3)}](squareall) {};
%Deepsquare name
\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareall.north) [yshift=1pt]{$\s A_b p, A_bq$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

\caption{Attention model $(\mathcal{M}'\otimes\mathcal{R}(\{B_ap, \neg B_aq\}),(w',e))$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{GA}}$, where $(\mathcal{M}',w')$ is given in Example \ref{ex: updated general attention}. 
% with 
%$\mathcal{R}(\Gamma)$ is the event model for general attention with 
%$\Gamma=\{B_ap, B_aq\}$. 
We use the same conventions as before and additionally we let $B_a \{p,q\} := B_ap\wedge B_aq$. While earlier $A_ap$ occurring at $w$ represented that $A_a p \in V(w)$, here it represents that $p \in \mathcal{A}_a(w)$ (similarly for $\neg A_a p$).  
%represented an attention atom, here it represents a modal formula, representing that  	
}\label{figure: updated general attention}
\end{figure} 
\end{example}

This example illustrates how the logic of general attention may be used, for example by an AI agent, to reason about and discover the attentional biases of other agents. While the example is relatively basic, the underlying logical framework is very general, and can handle much more complex scenarios. 
%involving for example larger revelations, such as CV with several pages of information, or many more agents, such as more applicants and members of the hiring committee.

%\paragraph{Axiomatization} 
%Since we already provided a sound and complete axiomatization of DEL with edge-conditioned event models (Thm.~\ref{thm: soundness and completeness}), we only need to account for the new attention formulas. Since all formulas $A_a \varphi$ are preserved under update in the same way that atomic propositions $p$ are, we only need to add the following axiom schema to Table~\ref{tab:logic}: $[(\mathcal{C},e)] A_a \varphi \leftrightarrow (pre(e) \to A_a \varphi)$. In terms of reduction axioms for the event model for general attention, it is a special case of the universal reduction axioms for edge-conditioned event models (Table~\ref{tab:logic}). In addition to these axioms that provide an axiomatization of the base logic of general attention, we can also add axioms for the attention principles discussed above. For example, we can add the axiom schema $A_a \varphi \leftrightarrow A_a \neg \varphi$ to represent closure under negation, or $A_a \varphi \wedge A_a \psi \leftrightarrow A_a (\varphi \wedge \psi)$ to represent conjunctive closure. Each of the considered principles correspond to an axiom schema, and those schemas are clearly sound and complete for the described principles.  

%In $\mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$, agents are paying attention to \emph{whether} a propositional formula is true or false, i.e., if $A_a p$ holds and $p$ is revealed, $a$ will learn $p$, and if $\neg p$ is revealed, $a$ will learn $\neg p$. This corresponds exactly to closure under negation in $\mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ (an atom is attended to iff its negation is attended to). Hence, the logic of propositional attention comes out as the special case of the logic of general attention where we only consider revelations of sets of propositional literals $\Gamma$, and where we furthermore include the axiom for closure under negation. Without closure under negation, we allow a situation where an agent $a$ might notice $p$ if being revealed as true, but not if being revealed as false (which is definitely also relevant in some scenarios).   































%Adopting the principles discussed above, such a system could also use this logic to reason about whether another agent systematically ignores agents of a certain race of gender or certain types of news. Defor study the epistemic effects of social learning or higher-order attention (consider agents who always pay attention to what most others pay attention to). In all such cases, we can endow an AI system with the ability to reason about such agents. 
%\tobo{And then EXAMPLES of using it! The CV example. Something where non-propositional attention is crucial for the example. Like the AI agent asking the committee members about what they believe about the CV (to detect bias). Examples are pretty important, I'd say, as we don't have anything formal to prove about our general attention event model, at least nothing I can think of, except proving that it generalises the propositional attention event model.}


%\paragraph{Containment functions} 
%Before we can present the event model for general attention, we need a few more technical tools, the first of which is containment functions. Containment functions will be used to extract the information contained in a revelation.    
%
%In \cite{belardinelli2023attention}, the revealed formulas were conjunctions of literals $\ell(p_1) \land \dots \land \ell(p_n)$. We thought of the revelation as \emph{containing} those individual literals $\ell(p_1),\dots,\ell(p_n)$. If agents were shown a picture with a person wearing a blue hat and a red shirt, we might use $p_1$ for ``the person is wearing a blue hat'' and $p_2$ for ``the person is wearing a red shirt'', and take the revealed formula to be $p_1 \land p_2$. The intuition here is that the revealed formula $p_1 \land p_2$ \emph{contains} the two pieces of information $p_1$ and $p_2$, and that potentially agents receive different parts of that information (e.g. agent $a$ might only receive information about the blue hat, and agent $b$ only about the red shirt). 
%
%When allowing the revelation of arbitrary formulas, like for instance $p \to B_a (q \lor r)$, it is no longer trivial to determine what information such a  formula contains that agents might learn. Let us use $C$ for the \emph{containment function}. We can define containment functions formally as follows. 
%\begin{definition}[Containment functions] \label{def:containment-functions}
%A \emph{containment function} is a function $C: \mathcal{L}_\text{GA} \to \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{L}_\text{GA})$ satisfying
%\begin{description}\setlength{\itemsep}{0mm}
% \item[self-containment] $\varphi \in C(\varphi)$ for all $\varphi$.	
% \item[transitivity] If $\varphi \in C(\psi)$ and $\psi \in C(\gamma)$ then $\varphi \in C(\gamma)$.
% \item[conjunctive closure] $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n \in C(\varphi)$ iff $\varphi_1 \land \cdots \land \varphi_n \in C(\varphi)$.
% \item[truthfulness] If $\varphi \in C(\psi)$ then $\psi \models \varphi$.\footnote{Here the notation $\psi \models \varphi$ means that every attention model satisfying $\psi$ also satisfies $\varphi$.} 
%\end{description}  
%\end{definition} 
%A containment function takes a formula and returns a set of formulas, the formulas \emph{contained} in $\varphi$. It is intended that $C(\varphi)$ is the set of formulas representing the information contained in $\varphi$ that agents might or might not learn,\noteG{I think we need a sharper understanding of $C$. What does it mean that information is contained in $\varphi$? how do we understand it?} depending on whether they pay attention to it or not. In other words, if $\varphi$ is revealed, all agents learn a particular subset of $C(\varphi)$. In the setting of \cite{belardinelli2023attention}, we could simply define $C$ by $C(\ell(p_1) \land \dots \land \ell(p_n)) = \{ \bigwedge_{i \in S} \ell(p_i) \mid S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\} \}$. In this way, we think of a conjunction of literals to contain all the possible subconjunctions (including the literals $\ell(p_i)$ themselves). If $p \land q \land r$ is revealed, one agent might for instance learn $p \land q$ and another $p \land r$.   
%
%The conditions self-containment, transitivity, conjunctive closure and truthfulness of Definition~\ref{def:containment-functions} are not the only natural conditions one might impose on a containment function. They might not even always all be necessary for a containment function to make sense, \noteG{comment that comes to mind: but if this is teh case, then why do we have these principles?} but they represent the minimal set of principles necessary to allow us to define the event model for general attention in a natural and straightforward way.\noteG{question that comes to mind: are they merely technical principles then?} The conjunctive closure condition fits well with the earlier framework for propositional attention~\cite{belardinelli2023attention}, where the concurrent revelation of multiple literals is represented as a conjunction of those literals. The truthfulness condition makes sure that the information contained in a formula is only \emph{true} information. In this paper, we are only interested in agents learning true information, so only learning information that follows from what is being revealed.  
%
%Many different containment functions can be defined, and which definition is most relevant might depend on the application. Let us consider the most extreme variants of $C$ first. At one extreme, we might say that the only information in a non-conjuctive formula $\varphi$ is $\varphi$ itself, and unless an agent pays attention to $\varphi$, she will not learn anything when $\varphi$ is revealed. This corresponds to defining $C$ by $C(\varphi) = \{ \varphi \}$ for non-conjunctive formulas, the minimal definition satisfying the condition of being a containment function. \tobo{This definition of $C$ fits with the Paying Attention paper, consider to explain that later. Let's see how much discussion we can make fit.} At the other extreme, we might say that the information contained in $\varphi$ is anything that follows logically from $\varphi$, and if an agent pays attention to some $\psi$ that follows logically from $\varphi$, she will learn it if $\varphi$ is revealed. This corresponds to defining $C$ by $C(\varphi) = \{ \psi \in \mathcal{L} \mid \varphi \models \psi \}$. Note that this definition of $C$ trivially satisfies self-containment, transitivity, conjunctive closure and truthfulness. However, in some cases, this definition might indeed seem a bit extreme. We might not want to say that if $(p \lor q) \land (\neg p \lor r)$ is revealed and an agent pays attention to $q \lor r$, then she learns it, as it requires some computational effort to extract $q \lor r$ from $(p \lor q) \land (\neg p \lor r)$.
%
%In this paper, we will not go into details with all the different possible ways of defining $C$, but only consider a couple of choices that seem sensible. One sensible choice might be to say that agents can only learn (conjunctions of) subformulas of the revealed formula, as subformulas are explicit parts of the revealed formula. A containment function that restricts to conjunctions of subformulas would look like this $C(\varphi) = \{  \psi \in CSub(\varphi) \mid \varphi \models \psi \}$, where $CSub(\varphi)$ denotes the set of conjunctions of subformulas of $\varphi$. \tobo{we might want to define these subformulas and conjunctions of subformulas earlier in the paper.} \tobo{Consider here to also discuss the generalised subformula version, but let's wait and see how we're doing on space.}

%\paragraph{The event model for general attention}
%Suppose given a containment function $C$ and a revelation $\varphi$. The information contained in $\varphi$ is then $C(\varphi)$. However, which parts of this information is learned by the various agents depend on their attention sets. The intuition is that if $\psi \in C(\varphi) \cap \mathcal{A}_a(w)$, then agent $a$ will learn $\psi$ at world $w$: it's a piece of information contained in $\varphi$ \emph{and} agent $a$ is paying attention to it. This intuition guides our generalisation of the propositional event model to the case of general attention. The reader might want to compare the definition below with the definition of the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention (Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention}) in order to get a better intuition of how we generalise from propositional to general attention.
%
%\begin{definition}[General Attention Event Model $\mathcal{R}(\varphi)$]
%	%We introduce $A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} A_i \varphi$ and $\bar A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} \neg A_i \varphi$. 
%	Let  $\Gamma\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$ be a \emph{set of revealed formulas}. The \emph{general attention event model} for $\Gamma$ is $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma) = ((E,Q,id_E),\bigwedge \Gamma)$ ($\mathcal{R}$ for revelation) defined by: 
%	
%	$E = \{\bigwedge S\colon S\subseteq \Gamma\}$,
%	\begin{multline*}
%	Q_a=\{(\bigwedge S{:} \bigwedge_{\varphi\in X_a}A_a \varphi  \land \bigwedge_{\varphi\in S\setminus X_a} \neg A_a\varphi,\bigwedge X_a{:} \bigwedge_{\varphi\in X_a}A_a \varphi) \colon \\S \subseteq \Gamma \text{ and for all }a\in Ag, X_a\subseteq S\}, 
%	\end{multline*}
%	
%%	$e = \varphi$.
%\end{definition}
%%
%%\begin{definition}[General Attention Event Model $\mathcal{R}_C(\varphi)$]
%%We introduce $A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} A_i \varphi$ and $\bar A_i \Phi$ as an abbreviation for $\bigwedge_{\varphi \in \Phi} \neg A_i \varphi$. Given a containment function $C: \mathcal{L}_\text{GA} \to \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{L}_\text{GA})$ and a \emph{revealed formula} $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}_\text{GA}$, the \emph{general attention event model} for $C$ and $\varphi$ is $\mathcal{R}_C(\varphi) = ((E,Q,id_E),e)$ ($\mathcal{R}$ for revelation) defined by: 
%%
%%$E = C(\varphi)$,
%%%$Q_a\subseteq E\times E$ is such that, for all $\psi \in C(\varphi)$ and all subsets $\Phi \subseteq C(\varphi)$, we include in $Q_a$ the tuple $(\psi: A_a \Phi  \land \bar A_a (C(\psi)\setminus \Phi)   ,\bigwedge \Phi: A_a \Phi)$,\\
%%
%%$Q_a=\{(\psi: A_a \Phi  \land \bar A_a (C(\psi)\setminus \Phi),\bigwedge \Phi: A_a \Phi)| \psi \in C(\varphi), \Phi \subseteq C(\varphi)\}$, 
%%
%%$e = \varphi$.
%%\end{definition}
%The intuition behind the tuple $(\psi: A_a \Phi  \land \bar A_a (C(\psi)\setminus \Phi)   ,\bigwedge \Phi: A_a \Phi)$ is that if in an event, the formula $\psi$ is revealed, and if agent $a$ pays attention only to the subset $\Phi$ of the formulas contained in $\psi$, then agent $a$ believes that the event which happened was the one where only $\Phi$ was revealed, and agent $a$ also learns that she was paying attention to $\Phi$. This is consistent with the intuition underlying propositional attention, but in a much more general setting. 

%\tobo{I might be good to also prove that the above definition is well-defined, i.e. that e.g. the edges have the right form in relation to the set of events. Maybe as a Lemma before the definition? Anyway, I can think about that and how to best do it.}
%
%
%\tobo{Connect back to AAMAS0. Show how we are generalising it. Or just connect to the edge-conditioned version above, as that might be more straightforward to relate formally to. }

%\tobo{A lot can be discussed about various choices of attention function and which properties it has. It probably deserves a separate subsection/paragraph.}



\section*{Concluding Remarks}
In this paper, we first proposed a generalization of edge-conditioned event models that we used to model propositional attention. We showed that these models can be exponentially more succinct than standard event model, and never more than linearly larger. Then, we adopted them to capture attention to arbitrary formulas. In future work, we would like to further investigate the properties of our general attention framework and extend it to incorporate additional features of attention, such as capacity constraints. Limiting the attention resources of agents prompts questions about exactly which formulas the agent will learn. For example, consider an agent that has the capacity to attend to $n$ formulas at most. If $\Gamma$ reveals more than $n$ formulas, which formulas will the agent prioritize? To address this issue, we need an ordering of the formulas that determines which ones are attended first and thus learned. We will explore this topic in our next paper.

A standard limitation of classical DEL, inherited by our framework, is that agents cannot recover from false beliefs: If an agent believes $\neg p$ and a public announcement of $p$ occurs, the agent will come to believe every formula. The standard response is that these cases require to move to a richer framework, such as DEL based on plausibility models~\cite{baltag2008qualitative}. Adapting our logic of general attention to that framework is another interesting direction for future work.     





%focus on further modeling attention biases, and study a framework where  %The DEL formalism, however, has some well-known limitations that carry over to our case: we cannot account for updates of false beliefs, also regarding attention formulas. In the future, we plan to work towards solving this issue.

%In this paper, a significant amount of work went into defining the edge-conditioned event models that we needed to formalise our event models for general attention. [then we defend that choice]”. It’s so likely to be a discussion point about the paper amo

%%%% ijcai25.tex

\typeout{IJCAI--25 Instructions for Authors}

\def\extendedversion{1} % Set to 1 for extended version, 0 for short version

% These are the instructions for authors for IJCAI-25.

\documentclass{article}
\pdfpagewidth=8.5in
\pdfpageheight=11in

% The file ijcai25.sty is a copy from ijcai22.sty
% The file ijcai22.sty is NOT the same as previous years'
\usepackage{ijcai25withpagenumbers}

% Use the postscript times font!
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[small]{caption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{algorithm} 
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage[switch]{lineno}

% Comment out this line in the camera-ready submission
%\linenumbers

\urlstyle{same}

% the following package is optional:
%\usepackage{latexsym}

% See https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/theorems_and_proofs
% for a nice explanation of how to define new theorems, but keep
% in mind that the amsthm package is already included in this
% template and that you must *not* alter the styling.
%\newtheorem{example}{Example}
%\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

% Following comment is from ijcai97-submit.tex:
% The preparation of these files was supported by Schlumberger Palo Alto
% Research, AT\&T Bell Laboratories, and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
% Shirley Jowell, of Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, and Peter F.
% Patel-Schneider, of AT\&T Bell Laboratories collaborated on their
% preparation.

% These instructions can be modified and used in other conferences as long
% as credit to the authors and supporting agencies is retained, this notice
% is not changed, and further modification or reuse is not restricted.
% Neither Shirley Jowell nor Peter F. Patel-Schneider can be listed as
% contacts for providing assistance without their prior permission.

% To use for other conferences, change references to files and the
% conference appropriate and use other authors, contacts, publishers, and
% organizations.
% Also change the deadline and address for returning papers and the length and
% page charge instructions.
% Put where the files are available in the appropriate places.


% PDF Info Is REQUIRED.

% Please leave this \pdfinfo block untouched both for the submission and
% Camera Ready Copy. Do not include Title and Author information in the pdfinfo section
\pdfinfo{
	/TemplateVersion (IJCAI.2025.0)
}

 
% Use the postscript times font!
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}   % Mathematical fonts
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage[switch]{lineno}


\usepackage{hyperref}   % For hyperlinks in the PDF
\usepackage{stmaryrd}
\usepackage{array}

\usepackage{multicol}

\usepackage{mathtools} % This is to use the \mathclap command to reduce space between the \bigwedge index

%\usepackage{zref-xr,zref-user}
%\zexternaldocument*{supplementary}
%\usepackage{zref-user}
%\usepackage[...]{hyperref}
\usepackage{nameref}
\usepackage{zref-xr,zref-user}
\zxrsetup{toltxlabel}
\zexternaldocument*{supplementary}


% Comment out this line in the camera-ready submission
%\linenumbers

\urlstyle{same}

% the following package is optional:
%\usepackage{latexsym}

% See https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/theorems_and_proofs
% for a nice explanation of how to define new theorems, but keep
% in mind that the amsthm package is already included in this
% template and that you must *not* alter the styling.
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}%[theorem]
{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}%[theorem]
{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}%[theorem]
{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}%[theorem]
{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}%[theorem]
{Example}
%\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[color={1 1 0},type=typewriter]{pdfcomment}

\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\noindent \color{blue} \textsc{TODO}: #1}}
\newcommand{\opt}[1]{{\noindent \color{cyan} \textsc{OPT}: #1}}
\newcommand{\noteG}[1]{\noindent\textcolor{magenta}{$\boldsymbol{\blacktriangleright}$#1}}
\newcommand{\tobo}[1]{{\noindent \color{blue} \textsc{TOBO}: #1}}
\newcommand{\sebwat}[1]{{\noindent \color{green} \textsc{SW}: #1}}

\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\def\sem{\mathscr{E}}
\def\ecem{\mathscr{C}}
\def\gau{\mathscr{U}}

\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning,arrows,calc,fit,automata,shapes,backgrounds}

\newcommand{\s}{\scriptstyle}


\title{A Logic of General Attention Using Edge-Conditioned Event Models \\ (Extended Version)}


% Single author syntax
%\iffalse

\author{
	Gaia Belardinelli
	\and
	Thomas Bolander \and
	Sebastian Watzl \\
	\affiliations
	Stanford University\\
	Technical University of Denmark\\
	University of Oslo\\
	\emails
	gaiabel@stanford.edu,
	tobo@dtu.dk,
	sebastian.watzl@ifikk.uio.no
}

%\fi

% Multiple author syntax (remove the single-author syntax above and the \iffalse ... \fi here)

%\author{
	%	Gaia Belardinelli
	%	\and
	%	Thomas Bolander \and
	%	Sebastian Watzl \\
	%	\affiliations
	%	Stanford University\\
	%	Technical University of Denmark\\
	%	University of Oslo\\
	%	\emails
	%	gaiabel@stanford.edu,
	%	tobo@dtu.dk,
	%	sebastian.watzl@ifikk.uio.no
	%	}


%	\pagestyle{plain} 

\begin{document}
	
	\maketitle
	
\input{ijcai25body}

	\section*{Acknowledgments} 
Gaia Belardinelli is funded by Independent Research Fund Denmark (grant no.\ 4255-00020B).
Thomas Bolander is supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (grant no.\ 10.46540/4258-00060B). Sebastian Watzl is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101003208 (ERC Consolidator Grant 2020).

 
   
\appendix 
\section*{APPENDIX} 
 
  
\input{supplementary}


%	\section*{Ethical Statement}

%	There are no ethical issues.
%	


%% The file named.bst is a bibliography style file for BibTeX 0.99c
\bibliographystyle{named}
\bibliography{litt_std}

\end{document}


% !TEX root = ijcai25full.tex

\iffalse
\documentclass{article}
\pdfpagewidth=8.5in
\pdfpageheight=11in

% The file ijcai25.sty is a copy from ijcai22.sty
% The file ijcai22.sty is NOT the same as previous years'
\usepackage{ijcai25}

% Use the postscript times font!
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[small]{caption} 
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{ stmaryrd }
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage[switch]{lineno}

% Comment out this line in the camera-ready submission
%\linenumbers

\urlstyle{same}

\usepackage{amsfonts}   % Mathematical fonts
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{mathtools} % This is to use the \mathclap command to reduce space between the \bigwedge index
\usepackage{stmaryrd}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{multicol}

\newcommand{\tobo}[1]{{\noindent \color{blue} \textsc{TOBO}: #1}}



\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\def\sem{\mathscr{E}}
\def\ecem{\mathscr{C}}
\def\gau{\mathscr{U}}



% Comment out this line in the camera-ready submission
\linenumbers

\urlstyle{same}

% the following package is optional:
%\usepackage{latexsym}

% See https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/theorems_and_proofs
% for a nice explanation of how to define new theorems, but keep
% in mind that the amsthm package is already included in this
% template and that you must *not* alter the styling.
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[color={1 1 0},type=typewriter]{pdfcomment}

\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\noindent \color{blue} \textsc{TODO}: #1}}
\newcommand{\opt}[1]{{\noindent \color{cyan} \textsc{OPT}: #1}}
\newcommand{\noteG}[1]{\noindent\textcolor{magenta}{$\boldsymbol{\blacktriangleright}$#1}}

\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning,arrows,calc,fit,automata,shapes,backgrounds}

\newcommand{\s}{\scriptstyle}



% Following comment is from ijcai97-submit.tex:
% The preparation of these files was supported by Schlumberger Palo Alto
% Research, AT\&T Bell Laboratories, and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
% Shirley Jowell, of Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, and Peter F.
% Patel-Schneider, of AT\&T Bell Laboratories collaborated on their
% preparation.

% These instructions can be modified and used in other conferences as long
% as credit to the authors and supporting agencies is retained, this notice
% is not changed, and further modification or reuse is not restricted.
% Neither Shirley Jowell nor Peter F. Patel-Schneider can be listed as
% contacts for providing assistance without their prior permission.

% To use for other conferences, change references to files and the
% conference appropriate and use other authors, contacts, publishers, and
% organizations.
% Also change the deadline and address for returning papers and the length and
% page charge instructions.
% Put where the files are available in the appropriate places.


% PDF Info Is REQUIRED.

% Please leave this \pdfinfo block untouched both for the submission and
% Camera Ready Copy. Do not include Title and Author information in the pdfinfo section
\pdfinfo{
	/TemplateVersion (IJCAI.2024.0)
}

\title{Technical Appendix of:\\A Logic of General Attention Using Edge-Conditioned Event Models}

%\author{
%	Gaia Belardinelli
%	\and
%	Thomas Bolander \and
%	Sebastian Watzl \\
%	\affiliations
%	Stanford University\\
%	Technical University of Denmark\\
%	University of Oslo\\
%	\emails
%	gaiabel@stanford.edu,
%	tobo@dtu.dk,
%	sebastian.watzl@ifikk.uio.no
%}

%\usepackage{natbib} 
%\usepackage{xr-hyper} % For external referencing
%\usepackage{hyperref} 
\usepackage{zref-xr,zref-user}
\zexternaldocument*{ijcai25}



\begin{document}
	\maketitle
\fi

In this Technical Appendix, we prove the theorems stated in the main text.
% of \emph{A Logic of General Attention Using Edge-Conditioned Event Models}.




\section{Basic Definitions}

In this section, we provide the detailed definitions of the standard and well-known concepts from the literature that were mentioned or required in the main text, but where a detailed definition was not provided.  
%concepts used in the paper where a full definition was not provided in the paper itself, as well as some additional standard definitions needed for the proofs.  
\label{sec:basic_definitions}
\subsection{Isomorphisms and bisimulations}

%\noteG{In this Technical Appendix, when model (a Kripke model, an event model or a generalized arrow update, cf.\ definition provided below) is defined for a language $\mathcal{L}$ with atom set $At$, we will say that it is a model \emph{over} the atom set $At$. We use $At$ to denote a generic set of atomic formulas.}

The following definitions of isomorphism and bisimulation are standard in modal logic
%In this Technical Appendix, we are going to use the definition of isomorphism and bisimulations, which are standard in modal logic 
\cite{blac.ea:moda}. 
%\cite{blac.ea:moda}.
% but we give them here anyway. \noteG{Maybe we should move the two definition below out of this section? As they are also used after this section.}

%\noteG{The definitions below probably need to be updated as they do not specify what languages are the Kripke models for and so it is unclear what atomic formulas we check for. Similarly for all proofs below, they need to be updated. I left magenta comments where I think we need an update, but please double check that I have not missed something.}

\begin{definition}[Isomorphism]
	\label{def:isomorphism}
    Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{M}'=(W',R',V')$ a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}'$ where $At(\mathcal{L}) = At(\mathcal{L}')$. 
	% over the same atom set $At$. 
	An \emph{isomorphism} between $\mathcal{M}$ and  $\mathcal{M}'$ 
	% for languages over the same set of atoms $At$  
	is a bijection $f:W \rightarrow W'$ such that \begin{enumerate}
%	\item $At(\mathcal{L}) = At(\mathcal{L}')$;
	\item $p\in V(w)$ iff $p\in V'(f(w))$, for all $w\in W$ and $p\in At(\mathcal{L})$;
	\item $(w,v)\in R_a$ iff $(f(w),f(v))\in R_a'$, for all $w,v\in W$ and $a\in Ag$.
\end{enumerate}
When an isomorphism exists between two models, we say that they are \emph{isomorphic}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Bisimulation]\label{def: bisimulation}
	Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{M}'=(W',R',V')$ a Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}'$ where $At(\mathcal{L}) = At(\mathcal{L}')$. A \emph{bisimulation} between $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M}'$ 
    is a non-empty binary relation $Z\subseteq W \times W'$ such that for all $(w,w')\in Z$ and $a\in Ag$:

\noindent \begin{enumerate}
	\item{[Atom]}: $p\in V(w)$ iff $p\in V'(w')$, for all $p\in At(\mathcal{L})$;
\item{[Forth]}: If $(w,v)\in R_a$ then there exists $v'\in W'$ such that $(w',v')\in R'_a$ and $(v,v')\in Z$;
\item{[Back]}: If $(w',v')\in R'_a$ then there exists $v\in W$ such that $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $(v,v')\in Z$;
\end{enumerate}
A bisimulation between pointed Kripke models $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and $(\mathcal{M}',w')$ further has to satisfy that $(w,w')\in Z$. When a bisimulation exists between two models, we say that they are \emph{bisimilar}. 
\end{definition} 	

In the main text, we only defined update equivalence for non-pointed models. However, that definition immediately generalizes to (multi-)pointed models:
\begin{definition}[Update equivalence~\cite{kooi2011generalized,eijck2012action}] 
	\label{def:update equivalence}
	Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a standard or edge-conditioned event model for $\mathcal{L}$ 
	and $\mathcal{D}'$ a standard or edge-conditioned event model for $\mathcal{L}'$, where $At(\mathcal{L}) = At(\mathcal{L}')$.
	We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \emph{update equivalent to} $\mathcal{D}'$ if for all Kripke models $\mathcal{M}$ with atom set $At(\mathcal{L})$,
	%over $At$,  
	$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}'$ are bisimilar. 
	
	Where $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{D}'$ are (multi-)pointed event models, $\mathcal{D}$ is update equivalent to $\mathcal{D}'$, if for all pointed Kripke models $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with atom set $At(\mathcal{L})$:
\begin{itemize}
	\item$\mathcal{D}$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ iff $\mathcal{D}'$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$,
\item $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{D}$ and $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes \mathcal{D}’$ are bisimilar.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
%	Where D,D’ are (multi)pointed event models, D is update equivalent to D’ if for all pointed Kripke models (M,w) with atoms At(L), (M,w) \otimes D and (M,w) \otimes D’ are bisimilar.


\subsection{Generalized arrow updates}
The definitions of generalized arrow updates below are from the work of Kooi and Rennes~[\citeyear{kooi2011generalized}]. We have adapted the original formulations slightly to fit our notational conventions. 
% of product update via generalized arrow updates to our notation.
\begin{definition}[Generalized arrow update% 
	%\cite{kooi2011generalized}
	]
	A \emph{generalized arrow update} $\mathcal{U}$ for $\mathcal{L}$ is a pair $(O, \mathsf{a})$ consisting of a finite nonempty set $O$ of outcomes and an arrow function $\mathsf{a}:\mathcal{A}\times O\rightarrow \mathcal{L} \times O\times \mathcal{L}$, with notation $\mathsf{a}_a(o)=\mathsf{a}(a,o)$. The tuple $(\varphi, o',\varphi')\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$ is an \emph{$a$-arrow} with  \emph{source condition} $\varphi$, \emph{target} $o'$, and \emph{target condition} $\varphi'$. The set of \emph{generalized arrow updates} for $\mathcal{L}$ is denoted $\gau(\mathcal{L})$. 
	Where  $\mathcal{U}$ is a generalized arrow update and $o\in O$ is the \emph{actual outcome}, we call $(\mathcal{U},o)$ a \emph{pointed generalized arrow update}. 
	%Let $\mathfrak{U}(\mathcal{L})^-$ be the set of arrow updates for $\mathcal{L}^-$ and $\mathfrak{U}_*(\mathcal{L}^-)$ be the set of pointed arrow  updates for $\mathcal{L}^-$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Product update with generalized arrow updates% 
	%\cite{kooi2011generalized}
	]
	Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model and $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$ a generalized arrow update, both 
	%over atom set $At$.  
	for the same language $\mathcal{L}$. 
	The \emph{(product) update} of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{U}$ is the Kripke model $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{U}=(W',R',V')$ where
	

	%\begingroup
	%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{4pt}
	%\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{4pt}
	
	\smallskip %\noindent
	$W'=W\times O$
	
	\vspace{-5mm}
	\begin{multline*}
	R’_a=\{((w,o),(w’,o’))\in W’\times W’\colon (w,w’)\in R_a, \\ (\varphi , o’, \varphi’)\in \mathsf{a}_a(o),  (\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi, (\mathcal{M},w’)\vDash \varphi’\},
	\end{multline*}
	
	
	$V'(w,o)= \{ p \in At(\mathcal{L})\colon p\in V(w)\}$.\footnote{For any function $f$ that takes a pair $(x,y)$ as argument, we allow writing $f(x,y)$ for $f((x,y))$, so $V'(w,o)$ is short for $V'((w,o))$.}
	% \endgroup

	\smallskip
	The product update of a pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$ with a pointed generalized arrow update $(\mathcal{U},o)$ is the pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{U},(w,o))$.
\end{definition}
We define the \emph{language of generalized arrow updates} $\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}$ as the language given by the grammar of $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$ extended with the clause $\varphi ::= [\mathcal{U}] \varphi$, where $\mathcal{U}$ is a pointed generalized arrow update. The semantics is defined as for $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ (Def.~\ref{def:satisfaction}), except that the product update in the semantics of $[\mathcal{U}] \varphi$ uses the generalized arrow update definition above, and we take $\mathcal{U}$ to be applicable in \emph{any} pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w)$.  




\subsection{Sizes of formulas and models} 
\label{section:sizes} 
We define the sizes of formulas and event models. These are fairly standard definitions, see e.g. \cite{kooi2011generalized,bolander2020del,bolander2023parameterized}. Below we generalize to edge-conditioned event models. 
%In this Technical Appendix, we are going to use the notion of size of a standard event model, of an edge-conditioned event models, and of a generalized arrow update, which we therefore introduce here.
%\noteG{maybe also this definition should be moved out of this section. Maybe the sections idea is not a good one? It was to give some sense to this otherwise difficult to navigate appendix.}

%	\begin{definition}[Length and Size] 
		
		The \emph{length} (or \emph{size}) of a formula $\varphi$, notation $|\varphi|$, is defined as the length of its representation as a string (so the number of symbols it consists of). 
		The \emph{size} of a set $S$, notation $|S|$, is its cardinality. The \emph{size of a standard event model} $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$, notation $| \mathcal{E} |$, is defined by
	$$|\mathcal{E}| = |E| + \sum_{a \in Ag} | Q_a | + \sum_{e \in E} |pre(e)|$$
	%The \emph{size of an edge-conditioned event model} $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$, notation $| \mathcal{C} |$, is defined by
	%$$|\mathcal{C}| = | E| +  \sum_{(e,f)\in E^2} \sum_{(a,\varphi,\psi)\in Q(e,f)}|(a,\varphi,\psi)|+ \sum_{e \in E} |pre(e)|$$
	%
	%Where  $|(a,\varphi,\psi)|=5+|\varphi|+|\psi|$.
	
	
	The \emph{size of an edge-conditioned event model} $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$, notation $| \mathcal{C} |$, is defined by
	$$|\mathcal{C}| = | E| +   \sum_{a \in Ag} \bigl(|Q_a|\ + \!\!\!\!\sum_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} (|\varphi| + |\psi|) \bigr) + \sum_{e \in E} |pre(e)|$$	
	The \emph{size of a generalized arrow update} $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$, notation $| \mathcal{U} |$ is defined by 
	$$|\mathcal{U}| = | O| +   \sum_{a \in Ag}\sum_{o\in O} (|\mathsf{a}_a(o)|+\!\!\!\!\sum_{(\varphi, o,\psi)\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)} (|\varphi| + |\psi|))$$
	
   For pointed event models, we need to also include the size of pointing out the actual events. However, this is just one bit per event, so it can be incorporated by replacing $|E|$ with $2|E|$ above, a constant factor. It can hence be ignored in the asymptotic analyses, and we will for simplicity do so in the following.   


%\end{definition}


\subsection{Language hierarchies of DEL} 
\label{section:language hierarchies}
We now define language hierarchies of DEL, similarly to~\citeauthor{kooi2011generalized}~[\citeyear{kooi2011generalized}]. We call the modalities $[\mathcal{E}]$ of $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$, $[\mathcal{C}]$ of $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ and $[\mathcal{U}]$ of $\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}$ the \emph{dynamic modalities}. When we want to specify a dynamic modality that could be any of these, we use the notation $[\mathcal{D}]$, i.e.\ we use $\mathcal{D}$ as a placeholder for $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{C}$ or $\mathcal{U}$.
%We use the term \emph{event model} to refer to a standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}$ or a generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U}$. We also allow ourselves to refer to the outcomes of a generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U}$ as \emph{events}. We can  define the \emph{conditions} of an event model as the set formulas used in its preconditions, source and target conditions. For standard event   
For a standard event model $\mathcal{E} = (E,Q,pre)$, its set of \emph{conditions}, denoted $cond(\mathcal{E})$, is given by $cond(\mathcal{E}) = \{pre(e): e \in E \}$. For an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C} = (E,Q,pre)$ the corresponding set also includes the source and target conditions, that is, $cond(\mathcal{C}) = \{ pre(e): e \in E \} \cup \{ \varphi: (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi) \in Q_a \} \cup \{ \psi: (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi) \in Q_a \}$. For a generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U} = (O,\mathsf{a})$, the set of conditions is $cond(\mathcal{U}) = \{ \varphi: (\varphi,o,\psi) \in \mathsf{a}_a(o) \} \cup \{ \psi: (\varphi,o,\psi) \in \mathsf{a}_a(o) \}$. 
%an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}$ or a generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U}$, we define the \emph{conditions} of the event model as the set of formulas used in its preconditions, source and target conditions.
%a \emph{dynamic epistemic language} (DEL). We defin
%a language extending $\mathcal{L}_\text{EL}$ with a \emph{dynamic modality} $[\mathcal{E}] \varphi$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is a type of event model with preconditions from $\mathcal{L}$, i.e. $\mathcal{E}$ contains a set of events $E$ and a map $pre: E \to \mathcal{L}$. We are here specifically interested in the cases $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ and $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$. We use $pre(\mathcal{E})$ to denote the set of precondition formulas used in $\mathcal{E}$, i.e. $pre(\mathcal{E}) = \{ pre(e) \mid e \in E \}$. 



Let $\mathcal{L}$ be one of the languages $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$, $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ or $\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}$. 
We let $\mathcal{L}^0$ denote the language $\mathcal{L}$ without the dynamic modality, i.e.\ without the modal formulas $[\mathcal{D}] \varphi$. Formulas of $\mathcal{L}^0$ are called \emph{static formulas}. We now inductively define languages $\mathcal{L}^i$, $i > 0$, as follows. The language $\mathcal{L}^{i}$ consists of all the formulas $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}$ satisfying that for any subformula $[\mathcal{D}] \psi$ of $\varphi$, $cond(\mathcal{D}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}^{i-1}$. For instance, we have that $\mathcal{L}^{1}_\text{DEL}$ includes the dynamic modality $[\mathcal{E}]\varphi$, but only in cases when the preconditions in $\mathcal{E}$ are static formulas. We have $\mathcal{L} = \cup_{i \geq 0} \mathcal{L}^i$ due to the recursive construction of the language $\mathcal{L}$.   


When $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}^0$, we say that $\varphi$ is of \emph{level $0$} in the language hierarchy.   
%Let $\mathcal{L}^i = \emptyset$ for all $i < 0$. 
For $i > 0$, when $\varphi \in \mathcal{L}^i \setminus \mathcal{L}^{i-1}$, we say that $\varphi$ is of \emph{level} $i$ in the language hierarchy. Similarly, we say that an event model or generalized arrow update $\mathcal{D}$ is of \emph{level} $i$ in the language hierarchy when $cond(\mathcal{D}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}^i$ and 
$cond(\mathcal{D}) \not\subseteq \mathcal{L}^{i-1}$.
%\setminus \mathcal{L}^{i-1}$.

\section{Soundness and Completeness of DEL with Edge-Conditions}
%	\begin{theorem}[Soundness and completeness]
%		The axiomatization in Table \ref{tab:logic} is sound and complete.
%	\end{theorem}

\iffalse
\begin{table} %[h]
	\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
		\caption{\label{tab:logic}Axiomatization of DEL with edge-conditions ($\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$).}   %($\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}}$).}  
%} 
%Dynamic epistemic logic with edge-conditions $\Lambda$. It is assumed that $(\mathcal{C},e)=((E,Q,pre),e)$ is a pointed edge-conditioned event model.}

\vspace{-2mm} 
\begin{tabular}{l} \toprule
All prop.\ tautologies and
$B_{a}(\varphi\rightarrow \psi)\rightarrow (B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_a\psi)$. \\
%				$B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_{a}B_{a}\varphi$ \\
%				$\neg B_{a}\varphi\rightarrow B_{a}\neg B_{a}\varphi$\\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)] p \leftrightarrow (pre(e)\rightarrow p)$ \\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)] \neg \psi \leftrightarrow( pre(e) \rightarrow \neg [(\mathcal{C},e)]\psi)$ \\
$[(\mathcal{C},e)](\psi\wedge\chi)\leftrightarrow([(\mathcal{C},e)]\psi\wedge[(\mathcal{C},e)]\chi)$\\
$\displaystyle[(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi \leftrightarrow (pre(e)\rightarrow \! \bigwedge_{\mathclap{(e:\chi,f:\chi')\in Q_a}}\hspace{6pt}(\chi\rightarrow B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)))$\\
From $\varphi$ and $\varphi\rightarrow\psi$, infer $\psi$. 
From $\varphi$ infer $B_a\varphi$.\\
From $\varphi\leftrightarrow \psi$, infer $\chi[\varphi\slash p]\leftrightarrow \chi[\psi\slash p] $ (substitution).
% \footnote{This is standard notation for substitution, although it looks similar to the notation for the dynamic modality.}
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\fi	


	\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem 
		\ref{thm: soundness and completeness}}] (\emph{The axiomatization in Table \ref{tab:logic} is sound and complete.})
		Completeness follows by standard reduction arguments \cite{ditmarsch2007dynamic}, realising that we have reduction axioms for the dynamic modality applied to any of the other types of formulas. We show the soundness of the axiom for belief update. 
		$$[(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi \leftrightarrow \bigl(pre(e)\rightarrow\hspace{6pt} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}}\hspace{6pt}(\chi\rightarrow B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))\bigr)$$
		
		Let $(\mathcal{M},w)=((W,R,V),w)$ be a pointed Kripke model for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{ECM}}$ and let $(\mathcal{C},e)=((E,Q,pre),e)$ be a pointed edge-conditioned model for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{ECM}}$.
		
		($\Rightarrow$) 
		We want to show that by assuming $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)\rightarrow \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi\rightarrow B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$. So assume that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$ and that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$. 
		Then 
		%$(\mathcal{C},e)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and 
		$(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{C},(w,e))=((W',R',V'), (w,e))$ is the edge-conditioned product update of $(\mathcal{M},w)$ and $(\mathcal{C},e)$.
		By $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$ it follows that $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{C},(w,e))\vDash B_a\psi$, by semantics of the dynamic modality. Then $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{C},(u,g))\vDash \psi$ for all $((w,e),(u,g))\in R'_a$, by semantics of the belief modality.
		
		
		
		
		
		As we need to show that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash\bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi\rightarrow B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$, consider an edge-condition $(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a$ with arbitrary $f,\chi,\chi'$, and assume that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi$. As we need to show that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash B_a(\chi' \rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$, consider an arbitrary $(w,v)\in R_a$ and assume that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash  \chi'$. To prove the desired, it remains to show that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash[(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$.
		
		
		Now we have two cases: either $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash pre(f)$ or not.
		%We want to show that in both cases we can deduce that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$. 
		If $(\mathcal{M},v)\not\vDash pre(f)$, then it trivially follows that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$, by semantics of the dynamic modality. If instead $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash pre(f)$, then, by definition of edge-conditioned product update, $(v,f)\in W'$. As we earlier assumed that $(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a$, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi$, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash  \chi'$, and $(w,v)\in R_a$, then, by definition of edge-conditioned product update, we have that $((w,e),(v,f))\in R'_a$. Now recall that $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{C},(u,g))\vDash \psi$ for all $((w,e),(u,g))\in R'_a$. Then, also for $(v,f)$ it holds that $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{C},(v,f))\vDash \psi$, and, by semantics of dynamic modality, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$. Hence, in both cases, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$, as required.
		
		%Since this follows from the assumption that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \chi'$, then we have that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$. The pair $(w,v)\in R_a$ was chosen arbitrarily, so this holds for all worlds accessible from $w$, which, by definition of belief modality, implies that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)$. As this follows from the assumption that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi$, then $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)$, and since $(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a$ was a tuple chosen arbitrarily (i.e. with arbitrary $f,\chi,\chi'$), then $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$. This in turn follows from assuming $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$, so $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)\rightarrow \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$, as required.
		
		
		($\Leftarrow$) We want to show that by assuming that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)\rightarrow \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$. So let $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)\rightarrow \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$. Now we have two cases: either  $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$ or not. We want to show that in both cases we can derive that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$. If $(\mathcal{M},w)\not\vDash pre(e)$, then trivially $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$. So suppose that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$. By our initial assumption and modus ponens, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge_{(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a}(\chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi))$, that is, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)$ for all $(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a$. As we want to show that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},e)]B_a\psi$, consider the model $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C},(w,e))=((W',R',V'),(w,e))$ and take an arbitrary $((w,e),(v,f))\in R'_a$. We need to show that $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C},(v,f))\vDash \psi$.
		By definition of edge-conditioned product update, $((w,e),(v,f))\in R'_a$ implies that $(w,v)\in R_a$ and that there exists an edge-condition $(e{:}\chi,f{:}\chi')\in Q_a$ with $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \chi'$. Then, by $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi$, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \chi \rightarrow B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)$ and modus ponens, we know that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash  B_a(\chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi)$, that is, for all $(w,v')\in R_a$, $(\mathcal{M},v')\vDash  \chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$. As $(w,v)\in R_a$, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash  \chi'\rightarrow [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$, and since $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \chi'$, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$. Recall that $((w,e),(v,f))\in R'_a$, so $(v,f)\in W'$ and  $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash pre(f)$, by definition of product update. Then, by semantics of the dynamic modality, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash [(\mathcal{C},f)]\psi$ implies that  $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C},(v,f))\vDash \psi$, as required. 
		% 
		% As $((w,e),(v,f))\in R'_a$ was chosen arbitrarily, this holds for all such pairs, which, by semantics of the belief modality, means that $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C},(w,e))\vDash B_a\psi$. \tobo{Yes, right, but if you had above said "we then need to show that...", then you wouldn't here need to talk about arbitrariness and "all such pairs", but just say "as required". Not a big deal, but it would make the proof a bit shorter. Again, might be a matter of taste.}
		% By semantics of the dynamic modality, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash [\mathcal{C},e]B_a\psi$, as required.
	\end{proof}
	
	\section{Comparisons of Edge-Conditioned Event Models and Standard Event Models}


%\tobo{I shortened the formulation below to be the same as in the main paper.}

\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:F-H-equivalence}}](\emph{For any conjunction of propositional literals $\varphi$, 
		%		For any $\varphi=\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots \wedge \ell(p_n)$ 
		%\in \mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$
		%, where for each $p_i$, either $\ell(p_i)=p_i$ or $\ell(p_i)=\neg p_i$, 
		$\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ are update equivalent.})
	Let $\varphi=\ell(p_1)\wedge \dots \wedge \ell(p_n)$. Let $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)=((E,Q,pre), \varphi)$ be the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention representing the revelation of $\varphi$, and $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)=((E',Q',pre'),E_d)$ be the standard event model for propositional attention representing the same revelation. 
	Note that $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ is an edge-conditioned event model for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+}$ and $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ is a standard event model for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}}$, and that $At(\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}^+})=At(\mathcal{L}_{\text{PA}})$. Let $(\mathcal{M},w)=((W,R,V),w)$ be any pointed Kripke model with atom set $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA})$. 
	
As $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ are pointed and multi-pointed event models, respectively, Definition \ref{def:update equivalence} of update equivalence for multi-pointed models tells us that to show that $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ are update equivalent,
	we need to show that (1) $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$ iff $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ is, and (2) $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ are bisimilar. We start by showing (1). Notice that the actual event in $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ is $\varphi$ and all actual events in $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ contain $\varphi$. Then, we have two cases: either $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ or not. If not, then both event models are not applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$, and the desired holds. Consider now the case in which $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$. Then $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$, and we only need to show that also $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ is. As for all $a\in Ag$, there is a unique $T_a\subseteq At(\varphi)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\models \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(\bigwedge_{p_i\in T_a}A_a p_i\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in At(\varphi)\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p_i)$, then there is a unique event $e \in E_d$ containing $\varphi$ and $\bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(\bigwedge_{p_i\in T_a}A_a p_i\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in At(\varphi)\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p_i)$ that is such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash e$. By definition of applicability of multi-pointed event models, it follows that $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$, as required.
	
	We now show (2), namely that $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ are bisimilar.  
Notationally, let $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{H}(\varphi)=
	%=\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{H}(\varphi)}=
	((W',R',V'),(w,\varphi))$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\otimes \mathcal{F}(\varphi)=
	%\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{H}(\varphi)}= 
	((W'',R'',V''),(w,e))$. Additionally, for a set $X\subseteq At(\varphi)$ and agent $a\in Ag$, we define the following abbreviations: 
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $X:=\bigwedge_{p_i\in X} p_i$; 
		\item $\ell(X):=\bigwedge_{p_i\in X}\ell(p_i)$, where $\ell(p_i)$ is the literal from $\varphi$ built on $p_i$;
		\item $A_a X:=\bigwedge_{p_i\in X} A_a p_i$;
	\end{itemize}
	Recall that for any conjunction of literals $\psi = \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq n} \ell_i$ and any literal $\ell$, if $\ell = \ell_i$ for some $i$ we write $\ell \in \psi$. More generally, if $\chi$ is a subformula of $\psi$ we write $\chi \in \psi$.
	%Moreover, given two sets of atoms $S$ and $T$, we will use the following abbreviations $\bigwedge_{p\in T} A_a p:=A_a T$, and $\bigwedge_{p_i\in S}\ell(p_i):=\bigwedge S$. 
	
	%We show that $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ are bisimilar. 
	Consider the relation $Z\subseteq W'\times W''$, defined by $Z=$
	%	, for all $S\subseteq At(\varphi)$ and all  $T_a\subseteq S$, for all $a\in Ag$,
	%	$$((w,\bigwedge S),(w,\bigwedge S \wedge A_a T_a \wedge \neg A_a (S\setminus T_a) ))\in Z$$ \text{ iff } $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge_{p\in T_a} A_a p \wedge\bigwedge_{p\in S\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p$.
	\begin{multline*}
		\hspace{-10pt}	%	Z=
		\{((w,\bigwedge_{\mathclap{p_i\in S}}\ell (p_i) ),(w,\bigwedge_{\mathclap{p_i\in S}} \ell(p_i) \wedge \hspace{2pt}\bigwedge_{\mathclap{a\in Ag}\hspace{2pt}}\hspace{2pt} (\hspace{2pt}\bigwedge_{\hspace{2pt}\mathclap{p_i\in T_a}}A_a p_i \hspace{2pt}\wedge\hspace{2pt} \bigwedge_{\mathclap{p_i\in S\setminus T_a}}\neg A_a p_i)))\colon \\S\subseteq At(\varphi) \text{ and for all } a\in Ag, T_a\subseteq S\}
	\end{multline*}
	
	Using the abbreviations, the set can be written as:
	\begin{multline*}
		\hspace{-10pt}		Z=\{((w, \ell(S) ),(w, \ell(S) \wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag} (A_a T_a \wedge \neg A_a (S\setminus T_a)))\colon \\S\subseteq At(\varphi) \text{ and for all } a\in Ag, T_a\subseteq S\}
	\end{multline*}
	We first show that $Z$ is a bisimulation, i.e. that it satisfies the three requirements of bisimulations (see Definition \ref{def: bisimulation}). After that, we show that $((w,\varphi),(w,e))\in Z$.
	
	Let $S\subseteq At(\varphi)$ and, for all $a\in Ag$, let $T_a\subseteq S$. Consider $((w,\ell(S)),(w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a)))\in Z$.
	
	[Atom]: Let $p\in At(\mathcal{L}_\text{PA})$. Then $p\in V'((w,\ell(S)))$ iff (by def. of product update) $p\in V''((w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a S\setminus T_a)))$, which is the required.
	
	[Forth]: Let $b\in Ag$ and $((w,\ell(S)),(v,\ell(S')))\in R'_b$. We want to show that there exists a world $(v',\ell(S'')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a'\wedge \neg A_a S'' \setminus T_a'))\in W''$, such that: \begin{enumerate}
		\item[(1)] $((w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a),(v',\ell(S'')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a'\wedge \neg A_aS''\setminus T_a')))\in R''_b$; 
		\item[(2)] $((v,\ell(S')),(v',\ell(S'')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a'\wedge \neg A_aS''\setminus T_a')))\in Z$. 
	\end{enumerate}
	
	
	As $((w,\ell(S)),(v,\ell(S')))\in R'_b$, then $(v,\ell(S'))\in W'$, and by definition of product update $\ell(S')\in E$, with $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$ by definition of edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention. As $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$, then the standard event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{F}(\varphi)$ must contain, for all $T'_a\subseteq S'$, $a\in Ag$, an event $\ell(S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_aS'\setminus T'_a)$.
	So define $X_a=\{q\in S' \colon (\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_a q\}$, for all $a\in Ag$. Since $X_a\subseteq S'$, for all $a\in Ag$, then there is a unique event $f$ in $E'$ such that $$f=\ell(S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a X_a\wedge \neg A_aS'\setminus X_a).$$ 
  As $(v,\ell(S'))\in W'$, then by product update definition, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \ell(S')$. Hence, $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash f$ by construction of $f$, and since $pre(f)=f$, then $(v,f)\in W''$ by definition of product update. 
	
	We now want to show that $(w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a)),(v,f))\in R''_b$, i.e. property (1).
As $((w,\ell(S)),(v,\ell(S')))\in R'_b$, then by def. of edge-conditioned product update, $(w,v)\in R_b$. Then, to reach the desired result, we only need to show that $(\bigwedge \ell(S) \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a),f)\in Q'_b$, as then by definition of standard product update, we would have that $(w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a)),(v,f))\in R''_b$.
	
	By $((w,\ell(S)),(v,\ell(S')))\in R'_b$ and definition of edge-conditioned product update, there exists $\chi,\chi'\in \mathcal{L}_\text{PA}$ such that $(\ell(S){:}\chi,\ell(S'){:}\chi')\in Q_b$. By definition of the edge-conditioned event models for propositional attention, we must have that $\chi=A_b S' \wedge \neg A_b (S\setminus S')$ and $\chi'=A_b S'$, i.e., 
$(\bigwedge S{:}A_b S' \wedge \neg A_b (S\setminus S'), \bigwedge S'{:}A_b S')\in Q_b$ with $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash A_b S' \wedge \neg A_b (S\setminus S'))$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_b S'$. 
	
	As $(w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)))\in W''$ then by definition of product update $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_aS\setminus T_a)$. As we just saw that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash A_b S' \wedge \neg A_b (S\setminus S')$, it must be the case that $T_b = S'$, which implies that $A_b S' \wedge \neg A_b (S\setminus S')$ is a subformula of $\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$, i.e. both $A_b S'$ and $\neg A_b (S\setminus S')$ are its subformulas. 

	By definition of product update, $(w,\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)))\in W''$ furthermore implies that $\ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))\in E'$. 
	We now want to know under which conditions, for an event $g\in E'$, we can imply that $(\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)),g)\in Q'_b$. Since $A_b S'\in \ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$, then by \textsc{Attentiveness}, we must have
$\ell(S')\in g$ and $A_b S' \in g$, and since $\neg A_b (S\setminus S')\in \bigwedge S\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$, then by \textsc{Inertia} we must have that $\ell(S\setminus S')\not\in g$. Moreover, 
%\tobo{I don't get this sentence} for all $At(\varphi)\setminus S$, 
since $A_bAt(\varphi)\setminus S\not\in \ell(S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$, then $\ell(At(\varphi)\setminus S)\not\in g$. Hence, if $\ell(S')\in g, A_b S' \in g$ and $\ell(S\setminus S')\not\in g, \ell(At(\varphi)\setminus S)\not\in g$ then $(\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)),g)\in Q'_b$. Observe that this is the case for $f$: Recall that  $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_b S'$, and so by $(v,f)\in W'$ we know that $A_b S'\in f$. Moreover, by construction of $f$, $\ell(S')\in f , \ell(S\setminus S')\not\in f$ and $\ell(At(\varphi)\setminus S)\not\in f$. Hence, $(\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)),f)\in Q'_b$, as required.
	
	
	It remains to show that $((v,\ell(S')),(v,f))\in Z$, i.e.\ property (2).
	Notice that to show that the pair $((v,\ell(S')),(v,\ell(S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a X_a\wedge \neg A_aS'\setminus X_a)))$ belongs to $Z$, we only need to show that $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$ and $X_a\subseteq S'$, for all $a\in Ag$. It holds that $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$ as $(w,\ell(S'))\in W'$ and so $\ell(S')\in E$, by definition of product update, and $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$ by definition of edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention. It holds that $X_a\subseteq S'$, for all $a \in Ag$ by construction of $f$.
	
	[Back]: Let $b\in Ag$ and $((w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))),(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))))\in R''_b$. We want to show that there exists a world $(v',\ell(S''))\in W'$, such that: \begin{enumerate}
		\item[(1b)] $((w,\ell(S)),(v',\ell(S'')))\in R'_b$; 
		\item[(2b)] $((v',\ell(S'')),(v,\ell(S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a'\wedge \neg A_aS'\setminus T_a')))\in Z$. 
	\end{enumerate}
	
	As $((w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))),(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))))\in R''_b$ then $(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))\in W''$ and by definition of product update $\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a)\in E'$, with $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$, by def. of standard event model for propositional attention. Since $S'\subseteq At(\varphi)$, then the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ must contain $\ell(S')$ as an event. By $(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))\in W''$ we know that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))$, and in particular that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \ell (S')$, by definition of product update. This implies that $(v,\ell (S'))\in W'$. 
	
	We want to show that $((w,\ell (S)),(v,\ell (S')))\in R_b'$, i.e., property (1b). By our initial assumption that  $((w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))),(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))))\in R''_b$ and definition of product update, it follows that $(w,v)\in R_b$. Hence, what remains to show is that there is a conditioned edge $(\ell (S){:}A_b S'\wedge A_b(S\setminus S'), \ell(S'){:}A_b S')\in Q_b$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash A_b S'\wedge A_b(S\setminus S')$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_b S'$, as then we would know, by definition of edge-conditioned product update, that $((w,\ell (S)),(v,\ell (S')))\in R_b'$.
	
	By definition of edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention, we know that for all subsets $T$ of $S$, there is a conditioned edge $(\ell (S){:}A_b T\wedge A_b(S\setminus T), \ell(T){:}A_b T)\in Q_b$. As $\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a)\in E'$, then by definition of standard event model for propositional attention, $S'\subseteq S$. Hence, $(\ell (S){:}A_b S'\wedge A_b(S\setminus S'), \ell(S'){:}A_b S')\in Q_b$. 	Now we only need to show that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash A_b S'\wedge A_b(S\setminus S')$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_b S'$.

Since $(w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)))\in W''$ then $\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))\in E'$. 
	By $((w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))),(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))))\in R''_b$ and definition of standard event model for propositional attention, it must be the case that $(A_b S'\wedge \neg A_b(S\setminus S')$ is a subformula of $\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$.
	Then, by reasoning as in the proof of [Forth], we know that for all $g\in E'$ such that $(\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)),g)\in Q'_b$, $\ell(S')\wedge A_b S' \in g$ by \textsc{Attentiveness}, and $\ell(S\setminus S')\not\in g, \ell(At(\varphi)\setminus S)\not\in g$ by \textsc{Inertia}. By assumption we have that $((w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))),(v,\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))))\in R''_b$, which by definition of standard product update implies that $(\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)),\ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a)))\in Q'_b$. So we must have $A_bS'\in \ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))$. 
	Then, as we know that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \ell (S')\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T'_a\wedge \neg A_a(S'\setminus T'_a))$, we also know that $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash A_b S'$. 
	Moreover, by $(w,\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a)))\in W''$ and definition of product update, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash\ell (S)\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(A_a T_a\wedge \neg A_a(S\setminus T_a))$, and in particular $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash A_b S'\wedge \neg A_b(S\setminus S')$, as desired.


Lastly, we show that $((w,\varphi),(w,e))\in Z$. Recall that $\varphi\in e$, and that for all $a\in Ag$, there is a unique $T_a\subseteq At(\varphi)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\models \bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(\bigwedge_{p_i\in T_a}A_a p_i\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in At(\varphi)\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p_i)$, which implies that $\bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(\bigwedge_{p_i\in T_a}A_a p_i\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in At(\varphi)\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p_i)\in e$ by definition of product update. Hence, it must be the case that $e=\varphi\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in S}\ell(p_i)\bigwedge_{a\in Ag}(\bigwedge_{p_i\in T_a}A_a p_i\wedge \bigwedge_{p_i\in At(\varphi)\setminus T_a} \neg A_a p_i)$. 

As it holds that for all the literals in $\varphi$, they are constructed from atoms belonging to $At(\varphi)$ and for all $a\in Ag, T_a\subseteq At(\varphi)$, then clearly $((w,\varphi),(w,e))\in Z$, by definition of $Z$.
\end{proof}


%\end{definition}
	
%  \emph{Proof of Proposition 
%   \ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}} (For any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to the edge-conditioned event model $T_1(\mathcal{E})$.)
	%	\begin{proposition}
		
%	\end{proposition}
%\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition 11:}
%\begin{proof}
%		Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model, $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$ be a standard event model, and $T(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre)$ its transformation into a edge-conditioned event model. 
%		Notationally, let $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{E}=(W',R',V')$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes T(\mathcal{E})=(W^{T(\mathcal{E})},R^{T(\mathcal{E})},V^{T(\mathcal{E})})$.
%		
%	We show that $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T(\mathcal{E})$, i.e. that there exists a bijection $f:W' \rightarrow W^ {T(\mathcal{E})}$ such that \begin{enumerate}
%			\item $p\in V'((w,e))$ iff $p\in V^{T(\mathcal{E})}(f((w,e)))$, for all $(w,e)\in W'$ and $p\in At$;
%			
%			\item $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a^\mathcal{E}$ iff $(f((w,e)),f((v,f)))\in R_a^{T(\mathcal{E})}$, for all $(w,e),(v,f)\in W'$.
%		\end{enumerate}
%		
%		To that goal, first notice that $W'=W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$. This is because $(u,g)\in W'$ iff (by def. of standard product update) $(u,g)\in (W\times E)$ and  $(\mathcal{M},u)\vDash pre(g)$ iff (by def. of edge-conditioned product update) $(u,g)\in W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$.
%
%Now define $f$ as the identity function on $W'$, i.e. $f((w,e))=(w,e)$ for all $(w,e)\in W'$. Clearly, $f$ is a bijection, and since the valuation update is defined in the same way for standard and edge-conditioned event models, then we also have that $p\in V'((w,e))$ iff $p\in V^{T(\mathcal{E})}(f((w,e)))$. Hence, we only need to show that the second property of isomorphisms holds. 
%
%Notice that the following sequence of iff's is the case: $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a^\mathcal{E}$ iff (by definition of standard product update) $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $(e,f)\in Q_a$ iff (by definition of transformation $T$) $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $(a,\top,\top)\in Q(e,f)$ iff (by definition of edge-conditioned product update) $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a^{T(\mathcal{E})}$. Hence, the second property holds too, which means that $f$ is an isomorphism, as required.
%\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem
	\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}}] (\emph{$\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$ %$\mathcal{E}$ 
	is update equivalent to
	% the edge-conditioned event model 
	$T_1(\mathcal{E})$.})
	  Let $\mathcal{E} = (E,Q,pre)$ be a standard event model for $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. 	
	 We show that for any Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ with atom set $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}) = P$, $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$. As isomorphism is a special case of bisimulation, it then follows that $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is bisimilar to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$, i.e. $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to $T_1(\mathcal{E})$. %Note that $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}) = P$.
		
		The proof is induction on the level of $\mathcal{E}$ in the language hierarchy (cf.\ Section \ref{section:language hierarchies} above). The base case is 
		%$\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^0)$, i.e.\ 
		$cond(\mathcal{E})\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^0$, i.e. 
		all preconditions in $\mathcal{E}$ are static formulas. Inspecting Definition~\ref{def: translation SEM into ECEM}, we immediately see that for static formulas $\varphi$, we have $T_2(\varphi) = \varphi$. By definition of $T_1$, we have $T_1(\mathcal{E}) = (E,Q',pre')$ where for each $a \in Ag$, $Q'_a = \{(e{:}\top, f{:}\top): (e,f) \in Q_a \}$, and for each $e \in E$, $pre'(e) = T_2(pre(e))$. Since $pre(e)$ is a static formula, we have $T_2(pre(e)) = pre(e)$, and thus $pre' = pre$. In other words, $T_1(\mathcal{E}) = (E,Q',pre)$.  
		
		Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be any Kripke model with atom set $P$. 
		%$\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$ a standard event model, and $T_1(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre')$ its transformation into an edge-conditioned event model.
		Notationally, let $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{E}=(W',R',V')$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})=(W'',R'',V'')$. We need to show that $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$, i.e. we need to show that there is a bijection $f:W' \rightarrow W''$ that satisfies the two properties of isomorphism (Def.~\ref{def:isomorphism} above).  
%		\begin{enumerate}
%			\item $p\in V'(w,e)$ iff $p\in V^{T(\mathcal{E})}(f(w,e))$, for all $(w,e)\in W'$ and $p\in At$;
%		
%			\item $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a^\mathcal{E}$ iff $(f(w,e),f(v,f))\in R_a^{T(\mathcal{E})}$, for all $(w,e),(v,f)\in W'$.
%		\end{enumerate}
		To that goal, first notice that $W'=W''$. This is because $(u,g)\in W'$ iff (by def.\ of standard product update) $(u,g)\in W\times E$ and  $(\mathcal{M},u)\vDash pre(g)$ iff (by def. of edge-conditioned product update) $(u,g)\in W''$.
		
		Now define $f$ as the identity function on $W'$, i.e. $f(w,e)=(w,e)$ for all $(w,e)\in W'$. Clearly, $f$ is a bijection, and since the valuation is defined in the same way in the product update for standard event models and  the product update for edge-conditioned event models, then we also have that $p\in V'(w,e)$ 
		iff $p\in V''(f(w,e))$
		for all $p \in P$. Hence, it only remains to show that property 2 of Def.~\ref{def:isomorphism} 
		%the second property of isomorphisms 
		holds, i.e.\ that $f$ preserves the accessibility relations. 
		
		Notice that the following sequence of iff's is the case, for all $a\in Ag$: $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a'$ iff (by definition of standard product update) $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $(e,f)\in Q_a$ iff (by definition of transformation $T_1$) $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\in Q'_a$ iff (by definition of edge-conditioned product update) $((w,e),(v,f))\in R_a''$. This completes the proof of the base case.

		For the induction step, suppose $\mathcal{E}$ is of level $i+1$ in the language hierarchy, i.e.\ $cond(\mathcal{E})\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$. The induction hypothesis is the following assumption:
		For all Kripke models $\mathcal{M}$ and all  $\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$ 
		with $cond(\mathcal{E})\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i}$, 
		%of level $i$ in the language hierarchy, 
		$\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$ are isomorphic $(\dagger)$. 
		%We assume that for all Kripke models $\mathcal{M}$ and all event models $\mathcal{E}$ of level $i$ in the language hierarchy, $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$ are isomorphic.
		%   (induction hypothesis). We will refer to this assumption as $(\dagger)$, to distinguish it from the induction hypothesis used in the claim below. 
		By definition of $T_1$, we have as before that for each $e \in E$, $pre'(e) = T_2(pre(e))$. 
		%Let $e \in E$ be chosen arbitrarily. Since $pre(\mathcal{E})\subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, we have $pre(e) \in \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, and hence for any subformula $[\mathcal{E'}] \psi$ of $pre(e)$, we have $pre(\mathcal{E'}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i}$. It follows from the induction hypothesis that $\mathcal{E'}$ is update equivalent to $T_1(\mathcal{E'})$. 
		We again let $\mathcal{M} = (W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model, and use the same notation as above for $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E})$. 
		%Since the induction step only differs from the base case by $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ having a different precondition mapping than $\mathcal{E}$, several steps of the proof of the base case goes through without modification: $f$ is still the identity function on $W'$, and the valuation is still the same for standard and edge-conditioned event models.
		%We furthermore again let $f: W' \to W''$ be the identity function, and 
		We first show the following claim.
		% that will be used below.

		\medskip \noindent
		\emph{Claim 1}. Given $w \in W$ and $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}^{i+1}_\text{DEL}$, then $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \gamma$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2(\gamma)$. 
		
		\medskip
		\noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 1.} 
		The proof is by induction on the structure of $\gamma$: 
		\begin{itemize}
		   \item $\gamma = p$. We have $T_2(p) = p$, and the conclusion follows.
		   \item $\gamma = \neg \varphi$. Since $T_2(\neg \varphi) = \neg T_2(\varphi)$, the induction hypothesis immediately gives the result.
           \item $\gamma = \varphi \land \psi$. Since $T_2(\varphi \land \psi) = T_2(\varphi) \land T_2(\psi)$, the induction hypothesis immediately gives the result.
           \item $\gamma = B_a \varphi$. We have $T_2(B_a \varphi) = B_a T_2(\varphi)$, and again the induction hypothesis gives the result: $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash B_a \varphi$ iff for all $v$ with $(w,v) \in R_a$, $(\mathcal{M},v) \vDash \varphi$ iff (by induction hypothesis) for all $v$ with $(w,v) \in R_a$, $(\mathcal{M},v) \vDash T_2(\varphi)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash B_a T_2(\varphi)$.
           \item $\gamma = [(\mathcal{E}',e')]\varphi$, case $(\mathcal{M},w) \nvDash pre(e')$. In this case $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \gamma$ by definition of the semantics of the dynamic modality (since $(\mathcal{E}',e')$ is not applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$). By definition of $T_2$, we have $T_2([(\mathcal{E}',e')]\varphi) = [(T_1(\mathcal{E}'),e')]T_2(\varphi)$. By definition of applicability for edge-conditioned event models, $(T_1(\mathcal{E}'),e')$ is also not applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w)$, and hence $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash [(T_1(\mathcal{E}'),e')]T_2(\varphi)$, by the semantics of the dynamic modality.        
		   

		   \item $\gamma = [(\mathcal{E}',e')]\varphi$, case $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e')$.  
		 As above, by definition of $T_2$, we have $T_2([(\mathcal{E}',e')]\varphi) = [(T_1(\mathcal{E}'),e')]T_2(\varphi)$. 
		 %Since $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e)$, by the definition of the semantics of the dynamic modality, we have $(\mathcal{M},w) \models [(T_1(\mathcal{E}),e)] T_2(\varphi)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (T_1(\mathcal{E}),e) \vDash T_2(\varphi)$.   
		   Since $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}^{i+1}_\text{DEL}$, we have that $cond(\mathcal{E}') \subseteq \mathcal{L}^i_\text{DEL}$. By $(\dagger)$, we then get that $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}'$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E}')$ are isomorphic. 
		   %Since $(\mathcal{M},w) \otimes (T_1(\mathcal{E}),e) = (\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E}),(w,e))$, 
		   Thus: $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \gamma$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash 
 		   [(\mathcal{E}',e')]\varphi$ iff 
		   $(\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}', (w,e')) \vDash \varphi$ iff (by induction hypothesis)  $(\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}', (w,e')) \vDash T_2(\varphi)$ iff (since $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}'$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E}')$ are isomorphic) 
		   $(\mathcal{M} \otimes T_1(\mathcal{E}'), (w,e')) \vDash T_2(\varphi)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash [(T_1(\mathcal{E}'),e')]T_2(\varphi)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2(\gamma)$.
		\end{itemize}      
		This concludes the proof of the claim.

		\medskip
		By Claim 1, it in particular follows that for all $w \in W$ and $e \in E$, $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2(pre(e))$, i.e. $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e)$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre'(e)$. 
		Hence $W' = \{ (u,g) \in W \times E \mid (\mathcal{M},u) \vDash pre(g) \} = 
		\{ (u,g) \in W \times E \mid (\mathcal{M},u) \vDash pre'(g) \} = W''$. Thus, as in the base case, we can define $f$ as the identity function on $W'$, and we again get that $p \in V'(w,e)$ iff $p \in V''(f(w,e))$ for all $p \in P$. It then again only remains to show that $f$ preserves the accessibility relations, which is proved exactly as in the base case. 
	\end{proof}
	
	


%For any Kripke model $\mathcal{M}$ and any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}\leftrightarroweq\mathcal{M}\otimes T(\mathcal{E})$.
%\begin{proof} 
%	Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model, $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre)$ a standard event model, and $T(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre)$ its transformation into a edge-conditioned event model. 
%	Notationally, let $M^{\mathcal{E}}=(W',R',V')$ and $M^{T(\mathcal{E})}=(W^{T(\mathcal{E})},R^{T(\mathcal{E})},V^{T(\mathcal{E})})$.
%	
%	Notice that $W'=W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$. This is because the set of events and their preconditions are the same in standard event models and their edge-conditioned transformation, from which it follows that $(u,g)\in W'$ iff (by def. of standard product update) $(\mathcal{M},u)\vDash pre(g)$ iff (by def. of edge-conditioned product update) $(u,g)\in W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$.
%	
%	Consider a bisimulation $\mathcal{Z}\subseteq (W'\times W^{T(\mathcal{E})})$ defined by $((u,g),(u',g'))\in \mathcal{Z}$ iff $(u,g)=(u',g')$. 
%	%$u=u'$ and $g=g'$. 
%	We show that it satisfies the three requirements of bisimulations for Kripke models. Let $((u,g),(u',g'))\in \mathcal{Z}$. 
%	
%	[Atom]:  Since $(u,g)=(u',g')$, then $(u,g)$ and $(u',g')$ satisfy the same atomic formulas, both by def. of standard product update and by def. of edge-conditioned product update.
%	
%	[Forth]: Let $a\in Ag$ and $((u,g),(v,f))\in R^\mathcal{E}_a$. We want to show that there exists a state $(v',f')\in W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$ such that $((u',g'),(v',f'))\in R^{T(\mathcal{E})}_a$ and $((v,f),(v',f'))\in \mathcal{Z}$. As $W'=W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$, we know that $(v,f)\in W^{T(\mathcal{E})}$ and, by definition of $\mathcal{Z}$, we know that $(u,g)=(u',g')$, then if we show that $((u,g),(v,f))\in R^{T(\mathcal{E})}_a$, then we reach the desired conclusion, as by definition of $\mathcal{Z}$, $((v,f),(v,f))\in \mathcal{Z}$. As $((u,g),(v,f))\in R^\mathcal{E}_a$, then by definition of standard product update, $(u,v)\in R_a$ and $(g,f)\in Q_a$. By definition of the transformation of $\mathcal{E}$ into an edge-conditioned event model, it follows that $Q(g,f)=\{(a, \top,\top)\}$, and so, by definition of edge-conditioned product update, $((u,g),(v,f))\in R^{T(\mathcal{E})}_a$.
%	
%	[Back]: Proceeds similarly to the Forth condition.
%	
%	Hence, we can conclude that there exists a bisimulation between $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes{T(\mathcal{E})}$.
%\end{proof}
	

\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{prop: equivalence EDGY to SEM}}](%
	%\emph{For any edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{C}$ is update equivalent to the standard event model $T'_1(\mathcal{C})$.}
	\emph{$\mathcal{C} \in \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ is update equivalent to $T_1'(\mathcal{C})$.})
	The proof follows the structure of the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}. 
		We first recall the definition of the transformation $T'_1$ (Def.~\ref{def: transformation edgys to SEMs}): 
	 For any edge-conditioned event model $(E,Q,pre)$ for $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ and any $e \in E$, let $\Phi(e)$ be the set of source and target conditions at $e$, i.e.  $\Phi(e)=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a\}\cup \{\psi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (f{:}\varphi,e{:}\psi)\in Q_a\}$. Set $\Phi'(e)=\Phi(e)\cup \{\neg\varphi\colon \varphi\in \Phi(e)\}$ and let $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ denote the set of maximally consistent subsets of $\Phi'(e)$, i.e. $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ is such that for all $\Gamma\in \mathsf{mc}(e)$ the following holds: 1) $\Gamma\subseteq \Phi'(e)$; 2) $ \not\vDash\Gamma\rightarrow \bot$; 3) for all $\Gamma'\subseteq \Phi'(e)$ with $\Gamma\subset \Gamma'$, $\vDash\Gamma'\rightarrow  \bot$.
	By mutual recursion we define mappings $T_1': \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) \to \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$ and 
	%$ from edge-conditioned event models for $\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$ to standard event models for $\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$ and a mapping
	$T_2':\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM} \to \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}$. The mapping $T_2'$ is given by:
	\[
		\begin{array}{ll} 
		 T_2'(p) = p, \text{ for } p \in P % \in At(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) 
		 &
		 T_2'(\neg \varphi) = \neg T_2' (\varphi) \\
		 T_2'(\varphi \land \psi) = T_2'(\varphi) \land T_2'(\psi) &
		 T_2'(B_a \varphi) = B_a T_2'(\varphi) \\
		 T_2'([(\mathcal{E},e)]\varphi) = [(T_1'(\mathcal{E}),e) ] T_2'(\varphi) 
		\end{array}
	   \]
	%	as $T_2$ of the definition of the transformation of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models, except we replace $T_i$ by $T_i'$ everywhere. 
    The mapping $T_1'$ is defined by 
	$T_1'(E,Q,pre) = (E',Q',pre')$ where:
	%	Let $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ be an edge-conditioned event model. For $e\in E$, let $\Phi(e)$ be the set of source and target conditions at $e$, i.e.  $\Phi(e)=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\varphi')\in Q_a\}\cup \{\varphi'\in\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}\colon (f{:}\varphi,e{:}\varphi')\in Q_a\}$. Set $\Phi'(e)=\Phi(e)\cup \{\neg\varphi\colon \varphi\in \Phi(e)\}$ and call $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ the set of maximally consistent subsets of $\Phi'(e)$, i.e. 
	%	$\mathsf{mc}(e)$ is such that for all $\Gamma\in \mathsf{mc}(e)$,  $\Gamma \not\vdash\bot$ and for all $\Gamma'\subseteq \Phi'(e)$ with $\Gamma\subset \Gamma'$, $\Gamma'\vdash \bot$.	
%	\begingroup 
%	\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
%	\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
	\[
	\begin{array}{l}
		E'= \{(e,\Gamma)\colon e\in E, \Gamma\in \mathsf{mc}(e)\}, \\
		Q'_a  =  \{((e,\Gamma),(e',\Gamma'))\in E'\times E' \colon (e{:}\varphi, e'{:}\varphi')\in Q_a, \\
		\qquad \quad \varphi\in \Gamma, \varphi'\in \Gamma'\}, \\
		pre'(e,\Gamma) = T_2'(pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma).
	\end{array}
	\]
%	\endgroup

    Let $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre) \in \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ 
	%	over an atom set $At$ 
	and $T'_1(\mathcal{C})=(E',Q',pre')$. Note that $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) = P$.
	We need to show that for any Kripke model $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ with atom set $P$, 
	%We then show that
	 $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C}=(W',R',V')$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}\otimes{T'_1(\mathcal{C})}=(W'',R'',V'')$. This is by induction on the level of $\mathcal{C}$ in the hieararchy of languages, with the base case being $cond(\mathcal{C}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^0$.
	 % Note that $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) = P$.
	 %We now turn to the proof of the base case. 
	
	
	
	
	


The proof of the base case proceeds similarly to the proof of Theorem 4.7 in Kooi and Rennes~[\citeyear{kooi2011arrow}]. First we prove the following claim. 


\medskip \noindent
\emph{Claim 1} For every $(w,e)\in W'$, there is a unique $\Gamma_{(w,e)}\in \mathsf{mc}(e)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. 


\medskip \noindent 
\emph{Proof of Claim 1}. 
Consider an arbitrary $(w,e)\in W'$ and let $\langle \varphi_i \rangle^n_{i=0}$ be an enumeration of all formulas in $\Phi(e)$. For all $i\in \mathbb{N}$ with $i \le n$, define the formula $\psi^{(w,e)}_i$ by 

$\psi^{(w,e)}_i=\begin{cases}\varphi_i \quad\quad\hspace{4pt}\text{ if } (\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi_i \\
	\neg\varphi_i\quad\quad\text{if } (\mathcal{M},w)\not\vDash \varphi_i.
\end{cases}$

Define $\Gamma_{(w,e)}=\{\psi_i^{(w,e)}\colon i\in \mathbb{N}, i\le n\}$. It follows by construction that $\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ is a maximally consistent set of source and target conditions of $e$, i.e. $\Gamma_{(w,e)}\in\mathsf{mc}(e)$. Moreover, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ by construction. Now consider some $\Gamma\in\mathsf{mc}(e)$ such that $\Gamma\not=\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. Then it follows by maximal consistency of $\Gamma$ that there is a $j\in \mathbb{N}$ with $j\le n$ such that either $\varphi_j\in \Gamma$ and $\neg\varphi_j\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$, or  $\neg\varphi_j\in \Gamma$ and $\varphi_j\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$, but in each case it holds that $(\mathcal{M},w)\not\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma$. Hence, for any $(w,e)\in W'$, $\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ is the unique set in $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ that satisfies $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. This concludes the proof of the claim. 

\medskip
To show isomorphism, we need to show that there exists a bijection between $W'$ and $W''$ that satisfies properties 1 and 2 of Definition~\ref{def:isomorphism} above. Let $f:W'\rightarrow W''$ be defined by $f(w,e)=(w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))$, i.e.\ where $\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ is the unique set in $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. To show that $f$ is an isomorphism, we first need to show that $f$ is a bijection, namely that it is injective and surjective.

Injectivity: We want to show that if $(w,e)\not=(w',e')$ then $f(w,e)\not=f(w',e')$. We prove the contrapositive. So suppose $f(w,e)=f(w',e')$. Then we get that $(w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))= f(w,e) = f(w',e') = (w',(e',\Gamma_{(w',e')}))$, immediately implying $w = w'$ and $e = e'$.
%By definition of $f$, this implies that either $w\not=w'$ or $(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})\not=(e',\Gamma_{(w',e')})$. If $w\not=w'$, then clearly $f((w,e))\not=f((w',e'))$. If $w=w'$, then $(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})\not=(e',\Gamma_{(w',e')})$ implies that either $e\not=e'$ or $\Gamma_{(w,e)}\not=\Gamma_{(w',e')}$. If $e\not=e'$, then clearly $f((w,e))\not=f((w',e'))$. If $\Gamma_{(w,e)}\not=\Gamma_{(w',e')}$, then by the uniqueness of $\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $\Gamma_{(w',e')}$, it follows that $(\mathcal{M},w)\not\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma_{(w',e')}$, and so $f((w,e))\not=f((w',e'))$. Hence, $f$ is injective.
%Suppose $(w,e)\not=(w',e')$. Then either $w \neq w'$ or $e \neq e'$ (or both). 
%the definition of $f$ immediately implies that $f((w,e)) \neq f((w',e'))$, since then they will differ in the first element of the pair.    
%Then, by definition of product update, either the two worlds differ by the first element of the pair or by the second element of the pair. If they differ by the first element, then clearly $f((w,e))=(w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})\not=(v,(e,\Gamma_{(v,e)})=f((v,e))$. 
%If $e \neq e'$  
%If they differ by the second element, then it is also clear that $f((w,e))=(w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))\not=(w,(e',\Gamma_{(w,e')}))=f((w,e'))$. So injectivity holds.\noteG{is this enough of an argument? It seems kinda obvious that if the states are different the transformation will lead to different states. Am I missing something? I feel it is so immediate that we shouldn’t even have an argument.}
Surjectivity: We want to show that for all $(w,(e,\Gamma))\in W''$ there is a $(w,e)\in W'$ such that $f(w,e)=(w,(e,\Gamma))$. 
%, i.e.\ where $\Gamma$ is the unique set in $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma$. 
Let $(w,(e,\Gamma))\in W''$. 
%Since $f((w,e)) = (w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))$, it suffices to show that  $\Gamma=\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. 
Then $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre'(e,\Gamma)$ by definition of product update, and hence $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash T_2' (pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma)$ by definition of $T_1'(\mathcal{C})$. Since $cond(\mathcal{C}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^0$, $pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma$ is a static formula, and we then have $T_2'(pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma)=pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma$. Hence, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)\wedge \bigwedge\Gamma$. As $e\in E$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash pre(e)$, then $(w,e)\in W'$. It follows that $f(w,e) = (w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))$, so now we only need to prove that $\Gamma=\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. That follows immediately from Claim 1, since $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma$.
%To reach the desired conclusion we only need to check whether $\Gamma$ is the unique set in $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma$. But we already know that this is the case, by Claim 1 which shows that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge\Gamma$ implies that $\Gamma=\Gamma_{(w,e)}$. Hence, for an arbitrary $(w,(e,\Gamma))\in W''$, we found a $(w,e)\in W'$ such that $f((w,e))=(w,(e,\Gamma))$, i.e. surjectivity holds too.

Now we know that $f$ is a bijection. Left is to prove that $f$ satisfies properties 1 and 2 of Definition~\ref{def:isomorphism} above.
%To show that it is an isomorphism, we need to check that the two properties of isomorphism hold. 
%\tobo{Tobo is here!!}
For the first property, consider an arbitrary $(w,e)\in W'$ and  $p\in P$. Then $p\in V'(w,e)$ iff (by definition of edge-conditioned product update) $p\in V(w)$ iff (by definition of standard product update) $p\in V''(w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}))$. Hence, $p\in V'(w,e)$ iff  $p\in V''(f(w,e))$. 

For the second property, we want to show that $((w,e),(v,g))\in R'_a$ iff $(f(w,e),f(v,g))\in R''_a$, for all $(w,e),(v,g)\in W'$ and $a\in Ag$. So let $((w,e),(v,g))\in R'_a$ for arbitrary $(w,e),(v,g)\in W'$ and $a\in Ag$. By definition of edge-conditioned product update, $(w,v)\in R_a$ and there exists $\varphi,\psi$ such that $(e{:}\varphi, g{:}\psi)\in Q_a$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi$. By definition of $T_1'$, since $(e{:}\varphi, g{:}\psi)\in Q_a$, then $((e,\Gamma),(g,\Gamma'))\in Q'_a$, for all events $(e,\Gamma),(g,\Gamma') \in E'$ that are such that $\varphi\in\Gamma$ and $\psi\in\Gamma'$. As $\varphi$ is a source condition of $e$ and $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \varphi$, we get  
$\varphi\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$. Similarly, as 
$\psi$ is a target condition of $g$ and $(\mathcal{M},v) \vDash \psi$, we get %$\varphi\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and 
$\psi\in\Gamma_{(v,g)}$. Hence  $((e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}),(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)}))\in Q'_a$. 
By definition of standard product update and by $(w,v)\in R_a$, this implies that $((w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})),(v,(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})))\in R''_a$, i.e.\ 
%which is the required. Hence, $((w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})),(v,(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})))\in R''_a$, i.e.
 $(f(w,e),f(v,g))\in R''_a$, as required. 

%
%We want to show that among those events in $E'$ there are $(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}),(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})$ (i.e. we want to show that $(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}),(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})$ are such that $\varphi\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $\psi\in\Gamma_{(v,g)}$), as this implies that $((e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}),(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)}))\in Q'_a$ which means, by definition of product update and by $(w,v)\in R_a$, that $((w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})),(v,(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})))\in R''_a$, which is the required. By results in a previous paragraph, we know there exist $\Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $\Gamma_{(v,g)}$ that are the unique sets in $\mathsf{mc}(e)$ and $\mathsf{mc}(g)$, respectively, such that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \Gamma_{(v,g)}$. Since $\varphi\in\Phi(e)$, $\psi\in\Phi(g)$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ , $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi$, then we must have that $\varphi\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $\psi\in \Gamma_{(v,g)}$, as we wanted. Hence, $((w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})),(v,(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})))\in R''_a$, i.e. $(f((w,e)),f((v,g)))\in R''_a$.

For the other direction, let $(f(w,e),f(v,g))\in R''_a$, i.e. $((w,(e,\Gamma_{(w,e)})),(v,(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)})))\in R''_a$. By definition of product update, $(w,v)\in R_a$ and $((e,\Gamma_{(w,e)}),(g,\Gamma_{(v,g)}))\in Q'_a$. By definition of $T_1'$, $(e{:}\varphi, g{:}\psi)\in Q_a$ with $\varphi\in \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and $\psi\in \Gamma_{(v,g)}$. By Claim 1, $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \bigwedge \Gamma_{(w,e)}$ and$(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \bigwedge \Gamma_{(v,g)}$, and so we know that $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ and $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi$. Since $(w,v)\in R_a$ and since there are $\varphi$ and $\psi$ such that $(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ and  $(\mathcal{M},v)\vDash \psi$, then by definition of product update for edge-conditioned event models, $((w,e),(v,g))\in R'_a$, as required.

Now we have covered the base case. The induction step follows the same strategy as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}. We consider $\mathcal{C}$ of level $i+1$, and the induction hypothesis is then: For all Kripke models $\mathcal{M}$ and all edge-conditioned event models $\mathcal{C}$ of level $i$, $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{C}$ and 
$\mathcal{M}\otimes T'_1(\mathcal{C})$ are isomorphic ($\ddagger$). 

\medskip
\noindent \emph{Claim 2} For all $w \in W$ and $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}_\emph{ECM}^{i+1}$, $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \gamma$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2'(\gamma)$. 

\medskip
\noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 2}. 
Note that: 1) ($\ddagger$) is the same condition as ($\dagger$) in the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, except we have replaced $T_1$ by $T_1'$ and $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{C}$; 2) $T_2'$ is the same translation as $T_2$, except we have replaced $T_i$ by $T_i'$ and $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{C}$. In other words, the proof of Claim 1 in Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY} immediately translates into this setting, when replacing $T_i$ by $T_i'$, $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{C}$, and $(\dagger)$ by ($\ddagger$). This concludes the proof of the claim. 

Now note that the only time in the proof of the base case that we used the base case assumption $cond(\mathcal{C}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^0$ was to conclude from $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2'(pre(e) \land \bigwedge \Gamma)$ to 
$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e) \land \bigwedge \Gamma$. Since $\mathcal{C}$ in the induction step has level $i+1$, then $cond(\mathcal{C}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^{i+1}$. This implies $pre(e) \in \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^{i+1}$ as well as $\Gamma \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^{i+1}$. Hence also $pre(e) \land \bigwedge \Gamma \in \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}^{i+1}$, and Claim 2 then gives us that we can conclude from $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash T_2'(pre(e) \land \bigwedge \Gamma)$ to 
$(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash pre(e) \land \bigwedge \Gamma$. In other words, the same proof as for the base case goes through with this extra line of argumentation.  
\end{proof}




%
%	\begin{theorem}[Linear growth] For any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, $T(\mathcal{E})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{E}|)$.
%\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}}](\emph{For any $\mathcal{E} \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$, $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{E}|)$.}%
	%\emph{For any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$, $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{E}|)$.}
	) Let $\mathcal{E}=(E,Q,pre) \in \sem(\mathcal{L}_\text{DEL})$  and $T_1(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre')$. %Let $n = |\mathcal{E}|$. We then need to show that $|T_1(\mathcal{E})|$ is in $O(n)$. 
	The proof is by induction on the level of $\mathcal{E}$ in the language hierarchy. To make the induction step go through, we prove a slightly stronger claim. Define 
	%$|Q_a| = \Sigma_{a\in Ag} |Q_a|$,
	$size(Q_a') = \Sigma_{a\in Ag}( |Q_a'| + \Sigma_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a'} (|\varphi| + |\psi|))$. % $size(pre) = \Sigma_{e \in E} |pre(e)|$.
	% and $size(pre') = \Sigma_{e\in E} |pre'(e)|$. 
	Note that then $|\mathcal{E}| = |E| + \Sigma_{a \in Ag} |Q_a| + \Sigma_{e\in E} |pre(e)|$ and $|T_1(\mathcal{E})| = |E| + \Sigma_{a \in Ag} size(Q_a') + \Sigma_{e\in E} |pre'(e)|$, using the definitions of sizes in Section~\ref{section:sizes}. We are now going to prove that $size(Q_a') \leq 3|Q_a|$ and $|pre'(e)| \leq 3|pre(e)|$ for all $a \in Ag$ and $e \in E$, which then implies $|T_1(\mathcal{E})| \leq 3|\mathcal{E}|$, and hence $|T_1(\mathcal{E})| \in O(|\mathcal{E}|)$.
	
	
%instead prove the stronger claim that $|T_1(\mathcal{E})| \leq 3|\mathcal{E}|$. 
	
	We first consider the base case $cond(\mathcal{E}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^0$. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, 
 we can then conclude $pre' = pre$, and hence $|pre'(e)| = |pre(e)|$ for all $e \in E$.	
	%By Proposition \zref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, it follows that $\mathcal{E}$  and $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ are update equivalent. 
	Furthermore, by definition of $T_1$, 
	%of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models, 
	$(e,f)\in Q_a$ iff $(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\in Q'_a$. This implies $|Q_a| = |Q'_a|$ for all $a \in Ag$.
 %   As $\mathcal{E}$ and $|T_1(\mathcal{E})|$ thus have identical sets of events and preconditions, and identical cardinalities of the accessibility relations, we get $|T_1(\mathcal{E})| - | \mathcal{E} | = \Sigma_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} (|\varphi| + |\psi|)$, using the size definitions in Section~\ref{section:sizes}. 
%      It hence suffices to prove that $\Sigma_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} (|\varphi| + |\psi|) \leq 2|\mathcal{E}|$.
%	To find out whether $|T_1(\mathcal{E})|$ is in $O(n)$, we then only need to consider the size of $Q'$, as $E$ and $pre$ are the same as in $\mathcal{E}$. Let $a\in Ag$ and $|Q_a|=n$. Our goal is then to show that $|Q'_a|+\sum_{(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a}(|\varphi|+|\psi|)$ is in $O(n)$, because if this is the case, then the size of $T_1(\mathcal{E})$ is in $O(|\mathcal{E}|)$, cf.\ the size definitions in Section~\ref{section:sizes}. 
	%By definition of $T_1$, 
	%of standard event models into edge-conditioned event models, 
	%$(e,f)\in Q_a$ iff $(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\in Q'_a$. %This means that $Q_a$  and $Q'_a$ have the same cardinality, namely $n$. It also implies that
	Since all elements of $Q_a'$ are of the form $(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)$, all source conditions $\varphi$ and all target conditions $\psi$ of $Q_a'$ satisfy $\varphi = \psi = \top$, and hence $|\varphi| = |\psi| =1$. Thus 
	 $size(Q_a') = |Q_a'| + \Sigma_{(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a'}(|\varphi|+|\psi|) = |Q_a| + 2|Q_a| \leq  3|Q_a|$, as required. 
	%To this $n$, we need to add the lengths of source and target conditions in each quadruple of $Q_a'$. As these conditions are both equal to $\top$, with $|\top|=1$, then for each of the $n$ elements of $Q_a'$ we add $1+1$, i.e.\ the total length of conditioned edges is $2n$. To this, we need to add the cardinality of $|Q'_a|$, namely $n$. Hence, the total size of $|Q'_a|+\sum_{(e{:}\varphi,f{:}\psi)\in Q_a}(|\varphi|+|\psi|)$ is $3n$, which is in $O(n)$, as required.	
    This concludes the base case. 

	For the induction step, suppose $cond(\mathcal{E}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, and assume the result holds when $cond(\mathcal{E}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i}$. We have $T_1(\mathcal{E})=(E,Q',pre')$. As $E$ and $Q'$ are as in the base case, it suffices to prove that 
	$ |pre'(e)| \leq 3 |pre(e)|$ for all $e \in E$.
   Let $e \in E$ be given. 
	% then $\Sigma_{e \in E} |pre'(e)| = O(n)$. 
  %   We prove this by showing that for any event $e \in E$, $|pre'(e)| \in O(|pre(e)|)$
	 Since $cond(\mathcal{E}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, we have $pre(e) \in \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$. 
	 By definition of $T_1$, $pre'(e) = T_2(pre(e))$. 
	 So we need to prove that $|T_2(pre(e))| \leq 3|pre(e)|$. We will prove the following more general claim.

	 \medskip
	 \noindent
	 \emph{Claim 1}. For any $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, $|T_2(\gamma)| \leq 3|\gamma|$.

	 \medskip
	 \noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 1}. The proof is by induction on the structure of $\gamma$. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop: equivalence SEM into EDGY}, all cases except $\gamma = [(\mathcal{E'},e')] \varphi$ are trivial. So suppose that  $\gamma = [(\mathcal{E'},e')] \varphi$. Since $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, we have $cond(\mathcal{E'}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i}$. By the induction hypothesis of our overall proof, we then get that $|T_1(\mathcal{E}')| \leq 3|\mathcal{E'}|$. We can now conclude that $|T_2(\gamma)| = |T_2([(\mathcal{E'},e')] \varphi)| = |[T_1(\mathcal{E'}),e']T_2(\varphi)| = |
	 [T_1(\mathcal{E'}),e']| + |T_2(\varphi)| \leq  
	 3|
	 [\mathcal{E'},e']| + 3|\varphi| = 3|[\mathcal{E'},e']\varphi| = 3|\gamma|$, where the inequality uses both the induction hypothesis of this claim as well as that $|T_1(\mathcal{E}')| \leq 3|\mathcal{E'}|$. This completes the proof of the claim.
	 
    From the claim we immediately get $|T_2(pre(e))| \leq 3|pre(e)|$, since $pre(e) \in \mathcal{L}_\text{DEL}^{i+1}$, and we are hence done.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:exponential-succinctness}}]  (\emph{Exponential succinctness of edge-conditioned event models}.)
	%For simplicitly, we here consider the event model $\mathcal{H}(p)$ without its designated event, so it has the form 
	Let 
	$\mathcal{H}(p)  = ((E,Q,id_E),p)$ be the edge-conditioned event model for propositional attention representing the revelation of $p$, over some set of agents $Ag$.  
	 The set of events is $E= \{p, \top\}$, so the event model only has a constant number of events, independent of the size of $Ag$. Consulting Definition~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention}, we see that each agent $a \in Ag$ has one edge per choice of sets $T,S$ with $T \subseteq S \subseteq \{ p \}$, i.e., for $(T,S) = (\{p\},\{p\})$, $(T,S) = (\emptyset,\{p\})$, and $(T,S) = (\emptyset,\emptyset)$. The corresponding edges in $Q_a$ are $(p{:}A_a p, p{:} A_a p)$, $(p{:} \neg A_a p ,\top{:} \top)$ and $(\top{:} \top, \top{:} \top)$. This amounts to, for each agent $a \in Ag$, a loop at each of the events $p$ and $\top$ as well as an edge from $p$ to $\top$. The full model is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure:H(p)} of this document, using the same conventions as Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-right} (note that, as expected, the event model of Fig.~\ref{figure:H(p)} is a submodel of the event model of Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-right}: the submodel consisting of the events and edges not mentioning $q$). 
	\begin{figure}     
	\begin{center}
	\begin{tikzpicture}
					\tikzset{scale=1, 
						world/.style={}, 
						actual/.style={}
					}
					%% True state:
					\node [actual,fill=white] (!) at (0,0) {$\s \underline{p}$};
					\path (!) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=70,out=110] (!) node [above, xshift=0pt, yshift=15pt] {$\s i:(A_i p, A_i p)$};
					
				
					\node [world] (T) at (0,-1.5) {$\s \top$};
										
					\path (T) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=-110,out=-70] node [below,xshift=0pt] {$\s i:(\top, \top)$} (T);
					
					\path (!) edge[-latex,bend right=0] node[fill=white,above,yshift=-7pt,align=left,xshift=0pt]{$\s i:(\neg A_i p, \top)$}
					(T);
			
			\end{tikzpicture}
	\end{center}
   \caption{The event model $\mathcal{H}(p)$.} \label{figure:H(p)}
\end{figure} 
%	Inspecting Figure~\zref{fig2:comparison-right} of the main paper, one can see that it will be  
%	two loops and one edge from $p$ to $\top$).
%	The definition also gives that the source and target conditions at the event $p$ are $\top$ and all $A_a p$ and $\neg A_a p$ where $a \in Ag$. At the $\top$ event, the only edge condition is $\top$.
Each edge has constant size, also counting the source and target conditions, and as there are 3 such edges per agent, the total size of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is $O(|Ag|)$. To make the argument a bit more formally precise, we can compute the size of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ using the relevant formula from Section~\ref{section:sizes}. First, since $|E| = 2$ (there are two events) and $|Q_a| = 3$ (each agent has 3 edges) and $|p| = |T| = 1$ (the event preconditions have length 1), we get:    
\[
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.1em}
\begin{array}{rl} 
|\mathcal{H}(p)| &= | E| + \!\!  \displaystyle\sum_{a \in Ag} \bigl(|Q_a|\ + \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\displaystyle\sum_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} \!\!\!\!(|\varphi| + |\psi|) \bigr) + \displaystyle\sum_{e \in E} |pre(e)| \\
&= 2 + \displaystyle\sum_{a \in Ag} \bigl(3   + \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\displaystyle\sum_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} \!\!\!\!(|\varphi| + |\psi|) \bigr) + 2 
\end{array}
\]
As all edge conditions have length $\leq 4$ (the longest is $\neg A_a p$), we further get:
\[
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.1em}
\begin{array}{rl} 
|\mathcal{H}(p)| &= 4 + \displaystyle\sum_{a \in Ag} \bigl(3   + \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\displaystyle\sum_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} \!\!\!\!(|\varphi| + |\psi|) \bigr)  \\
&\leq 4 + \displaystyle\sum_{a \in Ag} (3 +2 \cdot 4) =  4 + 11 |Ag| \in O(|Ag|).
\end{array}
\]
%and the total size of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is thus $O(|Ag|)$. 
This proves 1. 
	%The event model $T'_1(\mathcal{H}(p))$ includes one event per pair $(p,\Gamma)$ where $\Gamma \in \textsf{mc}(p)$ (Def.~\zref{def: transformation edgys to SEMs}). Since the source and target conditions at $p$ of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ include all the $A_a p$, $a \in Ag$, we must have that for any subset $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, $\{ A_a p \mid a \in Ag' \} \subseteq \Phi(p)$ (see Def.~\zref{def: transformation edgys to SEMs}). Since $\{ A_a p \mid a \in Ag' \}$ is a consistent set of formulas, $\textsf{mc}(p)$ must have size $\Omega(2^n)$, and hence $T'_1(\mathcal{H}(p))$ contains $\Omega(2^n)$ events, proving 2. 

   	To prove 2, suppose $\mathcal{E}' = ((E',Q',pre'),E_d)$ is any pointed or multi-pointed standard event model update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$. We need to prove that $\mathcal{E}'$ has at least $2^{|Ag|}$ events. To do this, we will create $2^{|Ag|}$ distinct pointed Kripke models and show that $\mathcal{E}'$ must include a distinct event for each of these Kripke models. We will create one such Kripke model for each subset $Ag' \subseteq Ag$. To keep the notation simple, we for now fix an arbitrary subset $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, so that we do not need to index everything by $Ag'$ in the following. We then define the relevant pointed Kripke model $(\mathcal{M},w_1) = ((W,R,V),w_1)$ by letting $W = \{w_1,w_2\}$, $R_a = \{(w_1,w_2) \},$ for all $a \in Ag$, and $V(w_1) = \{p\} \cup \{ A_a p: a \in Ag' \}$, $V(w_2) = \emptyset$.
	We let $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{H}(p) = ((W',R',V'),(w_1,p))$ (as $p \in V(w_1)$ and $pre(p) = p$, $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w_1)$, and $(w_1,p)$ becomes the actual world of the updated model). 
%	consider for all $Ag' \subseteq Ag$ a Kripke model $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} = (W,R,V)$ with $W = \{w,v\}$, $R_a = W \times W$ for all $a \in Ag$, and $V(w) = \{p\} \cup \{ A_a p: a \in Ag' \}$, $V(v) = \emptyset$. 
    %with a single world $w$ satisfying $V(w) = \{p \} \cup \{ A_a p: a \in Ag'\}$ and a loop edge $(w,w)$ for all $a \in Ag$ (i.e. $R_a = \{(w,w) \}$ for all $a \in Ag$). 
    In the following, we call a world $w$ of a Kripke model a \emph{$\neg p$-world} if $p$ is false in $w$. 
	For a pointed or multi-pointed event model $\mathcal{E}$, we allow ourselves to also use $\mathcal{E}$ to denote the event model without the actual event(s). It will always be clear from the context whether $\mathcal{E}$ refers to the event model without or without the actual event(s) specified.  
	
	%it satisfies $\varphi$.
	% = \emptyset$. Similarly, we call an event $e$ of an event model a \emph{empty} if $\vDash pre(e)$. 
	
%	Consider the world $(w,p)$ of the updated model $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$. 
 
   \medskip
   \noindent \emph{Claim 1}. 
   In $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$, the world $(w_1,p)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. 
 
   \medskip
   \noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 1}.
   % First note that as $p \in V(w)$ and $pre(p) = p$, then indeed the event $(w,p)$ exists in $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$ (it is the designated world of the product update).  
   We first prove the left-to-right direction. So suppose $((w_1,p),(v,e)) \in R'_a$ and  $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p), (v,e) \vDash \neg p$ for some agent $a \in Ag$ and some world $(v,e) \in W'$. We need to show that $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. Since $(v,e)$ satisfies $\neg p$, we must have $e = \top$, as the only other event of $\mathcal{H}(p)$ has precondition $p$ (see Figure~\ref{figure:H(p)}). Thus $((w_1,p),(v,\top)) \in R'_a$.  
   From this, the definition of edge-conditioned product update (Def.~\ref{def:edge-conditioned-product-update}) gives us that there exists $\varphi,\psi$ such that $(p{:}\varphi,\top{:}\psi) \in Q_a$ and $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \models \varphi$ (recalling that $Q_a$ is the accessibility relation for $a$ of $\mathcal{H}(p)$). From the definition of $Q_a$ above, we can conclude that $\varphi = \neg A_a p$ and $\psi = \top$. Thus we get $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \models \neg A_a p$. Since $V(w_1) = \{p\} \cup \{ A_a p: a \in Ag' \}$, we must then have $a \not\in Ag'$. This proves the left-to-right direction. For the right-to-left direction, suppose $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. Then $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \models \neg A_a p$. We now have $(w_1,w_2) \in R_a$, $(p{:}\neg A_a p, \top{:}\top) \in Q_a$, $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \models \neg A_a p$ and $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models \top$, which by the definition of edge-conditioned product update implies $((w_1,p),(w_2,\top)) \in R_a'$. As $V(w_2) = \emptyset$, $w_2$ is a $\neg p$-world, and then so is $(w_2,\top)$. 
   %the world $v$ satisfies $\neg p$, and then also $(v,\top)$ satisfies $\neg p$. 
   Thus $(w_1,p)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world, as required. This completes the right-to-left direction and hence the full proof of the claim.    
   
 


   \smallskip
	%loop exactly for the agents in $Ag'$, according to Def.~\zref{def:edge-conditioned-prop-attention} and the definition of edge-conditioned product update, Def.~\zref{def:edge-conditioned-product-update} (both of the main paper). 
	%Now note that if $\mathcal{E}$ is a standard event model and $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} \otimes \mathcal{E}$ has a world $(w,e)$ with a loop exactly for the agents in $Ag'$, then the event $e$ itself must have a loop exactly for the agents in $Ag'$ (this follows from the definition of product update for standard event models, Def.~\zref{def: product update no post} in the main paper).
	%Now suppose $\mathcal{E} = ((E',Q',pre'),E_d)$ is any pointed or multi-pointed standard event model update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$, and 
    Since $\mathcal{E}'$ is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$ and $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w_1)$, also $\mathcal{E}'$ must be applicable in $(\mathcal{M},w_1)$ (see Def.~\ref{def:update equivalence}). Thus $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{E}' = ((W'',R'',V''),(w_1,e_d))$ for some $e_d \in E_d$. 
	%We need to prove that $\mathcal{E}$ must have at least $2^n$ events. 
	By Def.~\ref{def:update equivalence}, we further get that  
	%for all $Ag' \subseteq Ag$,  
	$(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$ is bisimilar to $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{E}'$, and hence there exists a bisimulation relation $Z \subseteq W' \times W''$ satisfying the conditions of Def.~\ref{def: bisimulation}.
	 % Let $Z$ denote a bisimulation relation from $(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$ to 
%	$(\mathcal{M},w_1) \otimes \mathcal{E}'$. 
By Def.~\ref{def: bisimulation}, $((w_1,p),(w_1,e_d)) \in Z$
	% for some $e_d \in E_d$ 
	(the actual worlds of the respective models are related by $Z$).   
		
	   \medskip
   \noindent \emph{Claim 2}. 
    The world $(w_1,p)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $(w_1,e_d)$ has. 

	   \medskip
	      \noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 2}.
	We first prove the left-to-right direction. So suppose $((w_1,p),(w',e')) \in R_a'$ with $(w',e')$ satisfying $\neg p$. From [Forth] of the definition of bisimulation (Def.~\ref{def: bisimulation}), there exists $(w'',e'')$ such that $((w_1,e_d),(w'',e'')) \in R_a''$ and $((w',e'),(w'',e'')) \in Z$. From [Atom] applied to $((w',e'),(w'',e'')) \in Z$, we then get that also $(w'',e'')$ satisfies $\neg p$. This completes the proof of the left-to-right direction. The other direction is symmetric, using [Back] instead of [Forth]. This completes the proof of the claim.            

	\medskip 
%    Suppose $((w,e_d),(w'',e'')) \in R_a''$ and $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p), (w'',e'') \vDash \neg p$ for some $(w'',e'')\in W''$. By definition of $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'}$, we can conclude $w'' = v$. By definition of standard product update, we can also conclude $(e_{Ag'},e'') \in Q_a'$.  
	%	Since $(w,v) \in R_a$ for all $a \in Ag$, by definition of standard product update, we can also conclude   
	\noindent \emph{Claim 3}. The world $(w_1,e_d)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $e_d$ has an $a$-edge to an event $f$ with $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$.

	\medskip
	\noindent \emph{Proof of Claim 3}. Left-to-right: Suppose $(w_1,e_d)$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world $(w',e')$. Then by definition of the standard product update, there is an $a$-edge from $w_1$ to $w'$ and an $a$-edge from $e_d$ to $e'$, and $(\mathcal{M},w') \models pre(e')$. Since $(w',e')$ is a $\neg p$-world, we must have $w' = w_2$. Letting $f = e'$, we thus have an $a$-edge from $e_d$ to $f$ with $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$. This proves the left-to-right direction. For right-to-left, suppose $e_d$ has an $a$-edge to an event $f$ with $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$. Note that by definition of $\mathcal{M}$, there is also an $a$-edge from $w_1$ to $w_2$. By definition of standard product update, we then get that $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{E}'$ has an $a$-edge from $(w_1,e_d)$ to $(w_2,f)$, and as $w_2$ and hence $(w_2,f)$ are $\neg p$-worlds, we are done. This completes the proof of the claim.  
	
	
  \medskip
     Putting Claims 1, 2 and 3 together, we now have that $e_d$ has an $a$-edge to an event $f$ with $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$ iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. Until now we kept the subset $Ag'$ fixed for simplicity, but we will now start to vary it. As the chosen $e_d$ might depend on the choice of $Ag'$, we will now refer to it as $e_d^{Ag'}$. What we have then proved is that for any subset $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, the event $e_d^{Ag'}$ has an $a$-edge to an
	 event $f$ with $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$ iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. 	 
	 This shows that for any distinct subsets $Ag', Ag'' \subseteq Ag$, the events $e_d^{Ag'}$ and $e_d^{Ag''}$ must be distinct events of $\mathcal{E}'$, since they have distinct sets of outgoing edges (here it is important to note that $w_2$ satisfies no atoms and has no outgoing edges, so whether $(\mathcal{M},w_2) \models pre(f)$ holds or not is completely independent of the choice of $Ag'$). Thus there must be at least as many events in $\mathcal{E}'$ as there are distinct subsets of $Ag$, i.e., at least $2^{|Ag|}$ events. This proves 2. 
	 %To make the depency on $Ag'$ explicit, we now refer to the model $\mathcal{M}$ above as $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'}$. By update equivalence, $\mathcal{E}'$ is applicable in each $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'}$, meaning that for each $Ag' \subseteq Ag$ there is a unique $e_d^{Ag'} \in E_d$ such that $(\mathcal{M}_{Ag'},w_1) \models pre(e_d^{Ag'})$. The event $e_d^{Ag'}$ is the event that we referred to simply as $e_d$ above (the event in the designated world of the updated model). Now, from what we concluded above, $(w_1,e_d^{Ag'})$ has an $a$-edge to a $\neg p$-world iff $a \in Ag \setminus Ag'$. This implies that if $Ag', Ag'' \subseteq Ag$ are distinct subsets, then $e_d^{Ag'}$ and $e_d^{Ag''}$ must be distinct events of $\mathcal{E}'$, since $(w_1,e_d^{Ag'})$ and $(w_1,e_d^{Ag''})$ have $a$-edges to $\neg p$-worlds for distinct sets of agents (noting that $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'}$ has $a$-edges to $\neg p$-worlds for all $a \in Ag$, so independent of the choice of $Ag'$...). Thus there must be at least as many events in $\mathcal{E}'$ as there are distinct subsets of $Ag$, i.e., at least $2^{|Ag|}$ events. This proves 2.  
% Note that the choice of $e_d \in E_d$ above might depend on the choice of $Ag'$, so given any $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, we let $e_d(Ag') \in E_d$ be the event having its precondition satisfied in $(\mathcal{M},w_1)$  (by applicability there is a unique such event). 
%	, then $\mathcal{E}$ must contain an event $e$ that has a loop exactly for the agents in $Ag'$. If $\mathcal{E}$ is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$, then $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} \otimes \mathcal{E}$ is bisimilar to $\mathcal{M}_{Ag'} \otimes \mathcal{H}(p)$ for all $Ag' \subseteq Ag$, and $\mathcal{E}$ must hence for all $Ag' \subseteq Ag$ contain an event with a loop for exactly the agents in $Ag'$.  
%	This proves that $\mathcal{E}$ must have at least $2^n$ events, and we are done. 
	% This proves 3.  
\end{proof}
Note that the proof above even proves that the number of \emph{actual} events of any standard event model $\mathcal{E}$ that is update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$ is exponential in the number of agents. However, this is also exactly what we see in the specific standard event model $\mathcal{F}(p)$ that is known to be update equivalent to $\mathcal{H}(p)$, see Fig.~\ref{fig2:comparison-left}.

	\begin{figure*}
	\begin{center}
		\begin{tikzpicture}[auto]\tikzset{ 
				deepsquare/.style ={rectangle,draw=black, inner sep=2.5pt, very thin, dashed, minimum height=3pt, minimum width=1pt, text centered}, 
				world/.style={}, 
				actual/.style={},
				cloudy/.style={cloud, cloud puffs=15, cloud ignores aspect, inner sep=0.5pt, draw}
			}
			
			%% True state:
			\node [actual] (!) {$\underline{\s \substack{p, q \\A_a p, \neg A_aq, \\ A_b p, A_bq \\ B_b \{B_a p, \neg B_a p\},\\B_b\{B_a q, \neg B_a q\}}}$};
			\path (!) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=4,in=100,out=80] node [above] {$\s b$} (!);
			
			%%TOP 
			%FIRST
			\node [world, right=of !, xshift=10pt, yshift=10pt] (1) {$\s p,q?$};
			%%% Square first 
			\node [deepsquare, fit={(1)}](square1) {};
			% Deepsquare Loop
			\path (square1) edge [-latex, loop, looseness=4.6,in=110,out=70] (square1) node [right, xshift=2pt, yshift=15pt] {$\s a,b$};
			%BEtween actual and square
			\path (!) edge [-latex] (square1) node [above, xshift=45pt, yshift=4pt] {$\s a$};
			
			%SECOND
			\node [world, right=of 1, xshift=-5pt] (2) {$\s p,q$};
			% Loop
			\path (2) edge [-latex, looseness=6,in=110,out=60] (2) node [right, xshift=5pt, yshift=12pt] {$\s a,b$};
			
			
			%THIRD
			\node [world, right=of 2, xshift=-5pt] (3) {$\s p?,q$};
			%%% Square third
			\node [deepsquare, fit={(3)}](square3) {};
			% Deepsquare Loop
			\path (square3) edge [-latex, looseness=4.6,in=110,out=70] (square3) node [right, yshift=15pt, xshift=2pt] {$\s a,b$};
			
			%FOURTH
			\node [world, right=of 3, xshift=-5pt] (4) {$\s p?,q?$};
			%%% Square third
			\node [deepsquare, fit={(4)}](square4) {};
			% Deepsquare Loop
			\path (square4) edge [-latex, looseness=4.6,in=110,out=70] (square4) node [right, yshift=15pt, xshift=2pt] {$\s a,b$};
			
			%% Square Top
			%Anchor
			\node[left=of 1, xshift=29pt] (anchor1) {};
			\node[above=of 1, yshift=-20pt] (anchor2) {};
			\node[below=of 1, yshift=31pt] (anchor3) {};
			\node[right=of 4, xshift=-29pt] (anchor4) {};
			\node [deepsquare,fit={(anchor1)(anchor2)(anchor3)(anchor4)(1)(2)(3)(4)}](squareb) {};
			%Deepsquare name
			\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareb.north) [yshift=-0pt]{$\s A_{Ag} p, A_{Ag}q$};
			
			
			%% BOTTOM  WORLDS
			%% First
			\node [world, below=of 1, yshift=10pt] (1b) {$\s A_ap,\neg A_aq$};
			%BEtween bottom and top
			\path (1b.north) edge [-latex] (square1.south) node [right, yshift=5pt] {$\s a$};
			
			%%Second
			\node [world, below=of 2, right=of 1b, xshift=-26.5pt] (2b) {$\s A_ap,A_aq$};
			%BEtween bottom and top
			\path (2b.north) edge [-latex] (2.south) node [right, yshift=5pt] {$\s a$};
			
			%%Third
			\node [world, below=of 3, right=of 2b, xshift=-26.5pt] (3b) {$\s \neg A_ap,A_aq$};
			%BEtween bottom and top
			\path (3b.north) edge [-latex] (square3.south) node [right, yshift=5pt] {$\s a$};			
			
			%%Fourth
			\node [world, below=of 3, right=of 3b, xshift=-28pt] (4b) {$\s \neg A_ap,\neg A_aq$};
			%BEtween bottom and top
			\path (4b.north) edge [-latex] (square4.south) node [right, yshift=5pt] {$\s a$};			
			
			%% Square bottom
			\node [deepsquare,fit={(1b)(2b)(3b)(4b)}](squareb) {};
			%Deepsquare name
			\node[fill=white] (square name 1) at (squareb.south) [yshift=-0pt]{$\s p, q, A_b p, A_b q, B_b \{B_a p, \neg B_a p,B_a q, \neg B_a q\}$};
			% Deepsquare Loop
			\path (squareb) edge [-latex, looseness=5,in=182,out=177] (squareb) node [left, xshift=-102pt, yshift=0pt] {$\s b$};
			
			%BETWEEN DESIGNATED AND BOTTOM BOX
			\path (!) edge [-latex] (squareb.north west) node [above, xshift=45pt, yshift=-10pt] {$\s b$};
			
		\end{tikzpicture}
	\end{center}
	
	\caption{The attention model $(\mathcal{M}',w')$ for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{GA}}$. We use the same conventions as in the figures in the main text.
	}\label{figure: first general attention}
\end{figure*} 

\section{Comparisons of edge-conditioned event models with generalized arrow updates}



%The next definition provides the transformation of edge-conditioned event models into generalized arrow updates. This transformation can also be obtained by first transforming an edge-conditioned event model into a standard event model provided in the main paper, and by then transforming this standard event model into a generalized arrow update via the transformation provided in \cite[Thm. 3.8]{kooi2011generalized}. Despite this being a viable route, we still provide the direct transformation, as this is more informative as to what is the exact relation between the two model classes. 
%
%\begin{definition}[Transformation $S$ of edge-conditioned event models into generalized arrow updates] 
%	The \emph{transformation} $S$ of an edge-conditioned event model $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ into a generalized arrow update is given by $S(\mathcal{C})=(O,\mathsf{a})$ where $O=E$ and   
%	%	Let $\mathcal{C}=(E,Q,pre)$ be an edge-conditioned event model. We define the transformation $S$ of $\mathcal{C}$ into a generalized arrow update $S(\mathcal{C})=(O,\mathsf{a})$ by
%	%	$O=E$;
%	for each $a \in Ag$,
%	$\mathsf{a}_a(e)=\{(pre(e)\wedge\varphi,f,pre(f)\wedge\varphi')\colon (e{:}\varphi,f{:}\varphi')\in Q_a\}$.
%	% for all $a\in Ag$.
%	\tobo{Missing preconditions in transformation.}
%\end{definition}

%The next definition provides the transformation of a generalized arrow update into an edge-conditioned event model, and the next theorem shows the equivalence of a model and its transformation. 

We now compare generalized arrow updates to edge-conditioned event models, following the same pattern as in the comparison of standard event models to edge-conditioned event models. The constructions below follow the same structure and ideas as above, so we will be more brief. % in the proofs.  

\begin{definition}[Transformation of generalized arrow updates into edge-conditioned event models]
	By mutual recursion we define mappings $T''_1: \gau(\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}) \to \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ and
	$T''_2: \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU} \to \mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}$. %and a mapping $T_2$. % from standard event models to edge-conditioned event models: 
	Define $T''_1$ by $T''_1(O,\mathsf{a}) = (E,Q,pre)$ where:
%	\begingroup
%	\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt}
%   \setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}	
	\[
	  \begin{array}{l} 
      E = O \\
      Q_a =\{(o{:}T_2''(\varphi),o'{:}T''_2(\varphi'))\colon (\varphi,o',\varphi’)\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)\},  a \in Ag \\
	  	  pre(o) = \top, \text{ for all } o \in E 
	  \end{array}
	\]
%	\endgroup
%	for each $a \in Ag$,  
%	$Q'_a=\{(e{:}\top,f{:}\top)\colon (e,f)\in Q_a\}$, and for each $e \in E$, $pre'(e) = T_2(pre(e))$. 
Define $T''_2$ by:
%	\begingroup
%	\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt}
%   \setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}	
	\[ 
	  \begin{array}{l} 
	   T''_2(p) = p, \text{ for }  p \in P \\[0.1em]
	   T''_2(\neg \varphi) = \neg T''_2 (\varphi) \\[0.1em]
	   T''_2(\varphi \land \psi) = T''_2(\varphi) \land T_2(\psi) \\[0.1em]
	   T''_2(B_a \varphi) = B_a T''_2(\varphi) \\[0.1em] 
	   T''_2([(\mathcal{U},o)]\varphi) = [(T''_1(\mathcal{U}),o) ] T''_2(\varphi) 
	  \end{array}
	 \]
%	 \endgroup
	 %	The \emph{transformation} $S$ of a generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$ into an edge-conditioned event model 
	%is given by  
	%$S(\mathcal{U})=(E,Q,pre)$ where:
	%	Let $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$ be a generalized arrow update. The transformation $S'$ of $\mathcal{U}$ into an edge-conditioned event model $S'(\mathcal{U})=(E,Q,pre)$ is defined by
	%(1) $E=O$; (2) for each $a \in Ag$,
	%$Q_a=\{(o{:}\varphi,o'{:}\varphi')\colon (\varphi,o',\varphi’)\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)\}$; (3) for all $o \in E$,
	%$pre(o)=\top$. % for all $o\in E$.
\end{definition}
%To prove update equivalence between an edge-conditioned event model and a generalized arrow update, we first need to define a notion of update equivalence between the two model classes.
%\begin{definition}[Update equivalence~\cite{kooi2011generalized,eijck2012action}] 
%	Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a Kripke model, and let	$\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{E}'$ be such that each of them is either an edge-conditioned event model or a generalized arrow update.  
%	We say that $\mathcal{E}$ is \emph{update equivalent to} $\mathcal{E}'$ if 	$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}'$ are bisimilar.
	%	, notationally $\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}\leftrightarroweq\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathcal{E}'$.
%\end{definition}
In Def.~\ref{def:update equivalence}, update equivalence is defined where $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$ can either be standard or edge-conditioned event models. That definition trivially extends to allow the dynamic models to be generalized arrow updates.
\begin{theorem}
	%For any generalized arrow update 
	$\mathcal{U} \in \gau(\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU})$
	%, $\mathcal{U}$ 
	is update equivalent to $T_1''(\mathcal{U})$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Let $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a}) \in  \gau(\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU})$. Let $T_1''(\mathcal{U})=(E,Q,pre) \in \ecem(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM})$ be its transformation into an edge-conditioned event model. Note that $At(\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}) = At(\mathcal{L}_\text{ECM}) = P$.
	 %We want to show that there exists an isomorphism between $\mathcal{U}$ and $T_1''(\mathcal{U})$.  
	Let $\mathcal{M}=(W,R,V)$ be a Kripke model with atom set $P$.
	%, let $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$ be a generalized arrow update, and let $S(\mathcal{U})=(E,Q,pre)$ be its transformation into an edge-conditioned event model. 
	We want to show that there exists an isomorphism between $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{U}=(W',R',V')$ and $\mathcal{M}\otimes T_1''(\mathcal{U})=(W'',R'',V'')$. As always, we do induction on the level of $\mathcal{U}$ in the language hierarchy. 
	
	For the base case, we assume $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^0$.
	First notice that $W'= W''$ by the following identities: $W'=W\times O=W\times E=W''$, where the last identity holds because $pre(o)=\top$ for all $o\in E$, by definition of transformation $T_1''$.
	To see that there is an isomorphism, let $f: W'\rightarrow W''$ be defined by $f(w,o)=(w,o)$. We now want to show that properties 1 and 2 of Definition~\ref{def:isomorphism} above hold.  
	%the two properties of isomorphisms hold.
	 Clearly, it holds that for all $(w,o)\in W'$ and $p\in P$, $p\in V'(w,o)$ iff $p\in V''(f(w,o))$. For the second property, let 
	$((w,o),(w',o'))\in R'_a$. We want to show that $((w,o),(w,o'))\in R_a''$. By definition of product update with generalized arrow updates, if 
	$((w,o),(w',o'))\in R'_a$ then $(\varphi , o', \varphi')\in \mathsf{a}_a(o), (\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi,$ and $(\mathcal{M},w')\vDash \varphi'$. By definition of transformation $T_1''$, $(\varphi , o', \varphi')\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$ implies that $(o{:}T_2''(\varphi),o'{:}T_2''(\varphi'))\in Q_a$. Since $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^0$, $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ are static formulas and hence $T_2''(\varphi)=\varphi$ and $T_2''(\varphi')=\varphi'$. This means that $(o{:}\varphi,o'{:}\varphi')\in Q_a$, and hence $((w,o),(w',o'))\in R_a''$, since $(\mathcal{M},w) \vDash \phi$ and $(\mathcal{M},w') \vDash \phi'$. This proves that $((w,o),(w',o'))\in R'_a$ imples $((w,o),(w,o'))\in R_a''$. For the other direction, assume $((w,o),(w,o'))\in R_a''$. Then the exists $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ such that $(o{:}\varphi,o'{:}\varphi')\in Q_a$ and $(\mathcal{M},w)\vDash \varphi$ and $(\mathcal{M},w')\vDash \varphi'$. By definition of $T_2''$, we can then conclude that the exists $\psi$ and $\psi'$ such that $\varphi=T_2''(\psi)$, $\varphi'=T_2''(\psi')$ and $(\psi,o',\psi') \in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$. Since $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^0$, we get $\varphi=T_2''(\psi) = \psi$ and $\varphi'=T_2''(\psi') = \psi'$. This means that $(\phi,o',\phi') \in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$. Since we now have $(\mathcal{M},w) \models \varphi$, $(\mathcal{M},w') \models \varphi'$ and $(\phi,o',\phi') \in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$, the definition of product update for generalized arrow updates give us that $((w,o),(w',o'))\in R'_a$. This completes the base case.
 	
    For the induction step, as before we have to deal with the case where $T_2''(\varphi) \neq \varphi$ for the relevant conditions, and appeal to the induction hypothesis. So let $\mathcal{U}$ be given with $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^{i+1}$ and assume that the result holds when $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^{i}$. As in the earlier proofs, the induction hypothesis gives us that the following claim holds.
	
	
	\medskip\noindent
	\emph{Claim 1}. For all $\gamma \in \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^{i+1}$, $(\mathcal{M},w) \models \gamma$ iff $(\mathcal{M},w) \models T_2(\gamma)$. 
	
	\medskip
	The only non-trivial case in the proof of this claim is when $\gamma = [(\mathcal{U}',o')] \varphi$, and that case is handled by the induction hypothesis, since then $cond(\mathcal{U}') \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^{i}$. 
	
	Given Claim 1, we can now repeat the proof of the base case for the induction step, since we only apply $T_2''$ to formulas $\gamma$ in $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^{i+1}$, and for these we can always replace $T_2''(\gamma)$ with $\gamma$, since they are true in the same worlds. 
	This completes the proof.
	
	
	
	


	
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[Linear growth] 
	For any $\mathcal{U} \in \gau(\mathcal{L}_\text{GAU})$, $T''_1(\mathcal{U})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{U}|)$.
%	For any generalized arrow update $\mathcal{U}$, $S(\mathcal{U})$ has size $O(|\mathcal{U}|)$.
	\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  The proof is very similar to the proof of 
  Theorem~\ref{thm:linear-growth-SEM} above, so we only sketch the argument. Let $\mathcal{U}=(O,\mathsf{a})$ and $T_1''(\mathcal{U}) = \mathcal{C} = (E,Q,pre)$. 
  
  We need to inspect how much larger the translated model $\mathcal{C}$ can become. %As in the proof of Theorem~\zref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}, the first elements of $\mathcal{U}$ and $T_1(\mathcal{U})$ are of the same size (since $E=O$ in the definition of the translation). %Recall the definition of $size(Q_a)$ in the proof of Theorem~\zref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}. We define a similation notion of size of $\mathsf{a}_a$ by $size(\mathsf{a}_a) = \Sigma_{o \in O} |\mathsf{a}_a(o)|$. In the proof of Theorem~\zref{thm:linear-growth-SEM}, we concluded that $|\mathcal{C}| = |E| + \Sigma_{a \in Ag} size(Q_a) + \Sigma_{e\in E} |pre(e)|$.
  Note that we have, from the size definition in Section~\ref{section:sizes}: 
  $$|\mathcal{C}| = | E| +   \sum_{a \in Ag} \bigl(|Q_a|\ + \!\!\!\!\sum_{(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} (|\varphi| + |\psi|) \bigr) + \sum_{e \in E} |pre(e)|$$	
	$$|\mathcal{U}| = | O| +   \sum_{a \in Ag, o \in O} |\mathsf{a}_a(o)|\ +\!\!\sum_{a \in Ag, o\in O,(\varphi, o,\psi)\in \mathsf{a}_a(o)} \!\!(|\varphi| + |\psi|)$$
 By definition of the translation $T_1''$, we have $E=O$ and hence $|E| = |O|$. We also have that $Q_a$ contains exactly one edge per choice of $(\varphi,o',\varphi') \in \mathsf{a}_a(o)$, and hence $|Q_a| = \Sigma_{o \in O} |\mathsf{a}_a(o)|$. In the base case of our induction proof (the case $cond(\mathcal{U}) \subseteq \mathcal{L}_\text{GAU}^0$), we have that $T_2''(\gamma) = \gamma$ for all the source and target conditions, and hence also $\Sigma_{a \in Ag,(e:\varphi, f:\psi)\in Q_a} (|\varphi| + |\psi|) = \Sigma_{a \in Ag, o \in O, (\varphi, o,\psi) \in \mathsf{a}_a(o)} (|\varphi| + |\psi|)$. Thus, the two models only differ in size by the addition of $\Sigma_{e\in E} |pre(e)|$ to the size of $\mathcal{C}$. Since $pre(e) = \top$ for all $e \in E$, we have $|pre(e)| = 1$ for all $e \in E$. Hence in the translation, we only add $|E| = |O|$ to the size of the input $\mathcal{U} = (O,\mathsf{a})$, and hence $|T_1''(\mathcal{U})| \leq  2|\mathcal{U}|$. 
 
 
 For the induction step, we no longer have $T_2''(\gamma) = \gamma$ for the relevant conditions, but as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:linear-growth-SEM} above, we can appeal to the induction hypothesis. The relevant source and target conditions only contain dynamic modalities $[(\mathcal{U'},o')]\varphi$ for which the induction hypothesis holds. The induction hypothesis gives that for such dynamic modalities that occur as subformulas in source and target conditions, we have $|T_1''(\mathcal{U}')| \leq 2 |\mathcal{U}'|$. This means that the size of the source and target conditions in the translation at most doubles in size, and we get the required result.   
\end{proof}

%\bibliographystyle{named}
%	\bibliography{litt_std.bib}
	
%\end{document}


\begin{thebibliography}{}

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baltag and
  Smets}{2008}]{baltag2008qualitative}
Alexandru Baltag and Sonja Smets.
\newblock A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision.
\newblock In Giacomo Bonanno, Wiebe van~der Hoek, and Michael Wooldridge,
  editors, {\em Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT7)},
  volume~3 of {\em Texts in Logic and Games}, pages 13--60. Amsterdam
  University Press, 2008.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baltag \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{1998}]{baltag1998logic}
Alexandru Baltag, Lawrence~S. Moss, and Slawomir Solecki.
\newblock The logic of public announcements and common knowledge and private
  suspicions.
\newblock In Itzhak Gilboa, editor, {\em Proceedings of the 7th Conference on
  Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge ({TARK}-98)}, pages 43--56.
  Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Belardinelli and
  Bolander}{2023}]{belardinelli2023attention}
Gaia Belardinelli and Thomas Bolander.
\newblock {Attention! Dynamic Epistemic Logic Models of (In)Attentive Agents}.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on
  Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems}, AAMAS '23, page 391–399,
  Richland, SC, 2023. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and
  Multiagent Systems.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Belardinelli}{2023}]{belardinelli2024phdthesis}
Gaia Belardinelli.
\newblock {\em {Epistemic Logic Models of Awareness, Attention, and Implicit
  Reasoning}}.
\newblock PhD thesis, K{\o}benhavns Universitet, 2023.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blackburn \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2001}]{blac.ea:moda}
P.~Blackburn, M.~de~Rijke, and Y.~Venema.
\newblock {\em Modal Logic}, volume~53 of {\em Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical
  Computer Science}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolander and
  Lequen}{2023}]{bolander2023parameterized}
Thomas Bolander and Arnaud Lequen.
\newblock Parameterized complexity of dynamic belief updates: A complete map.
\newblock {\em Journal of Logic and Computation}, 33(6):1270--1300, 2023.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolander \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2016}]{bolander2015announcements}
Thomas Bolander, Hans van Ditmarsch, Andreas Herzig, Emiliano Lorini, Pere
  Pardo, and Fran{\c{c}}ois Schwarzentruber.
\newblock {Announcements to Attentive Agents}.
\newblock {\em Journal of Logic, Language and Information}, 25:1--35, 2016.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolander \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2020}]{bolander2020del}
Thomas Bolander, Tristan Charrier, Sophie Pinchinat, and Francois
  Schwarzentruber.
\newblock {DEL}-based epistemic planning: Decidability and complexity.
\newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 287:1--34, 2020.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolander \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2021}]{bolander2021del}
Thomas Bolander, Lasse Dissing, and Nicolai Herrmann.
\newblock Del-based epistemic planning for human-robot collaboration: Theory
  and implementation.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on
  Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2021)}, 2021.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolander}{2018}]{bolander2018seeing}
Thomas Bolander.
\newblock Seeing is believing: Formalising false-belief tasks in dynamic
  epistemic logic.
\newblock In {\em Outstanding Contributions to Logic}, number~12, pages
  207--236. Springer, 2018.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Boyd \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2011}]{boyd2011cultural}
Robert Boyd, Peter~J Richerson, and Joseph Henrich.
\newblock The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human
  adaptation.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  108(supplement\_2):10918--10925, 2011.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fagin and Halpern}{1988}]{fagin1988belief}
R.~Fagin and J.~Halpern.
\newblock Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning.
\newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 34:39--76, 1988.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fagin \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{1995}]{fagin1995reasoning}
Ronald Fagin, Joseph~Y. Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe~Y. Vardi.
\newblock {\em Reasoning About Knowledge}.
\newblock MIT Press, 1995.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fritz and Lederman}{2015}]{fritz2016standard}
Peter Fritz and Harvey Lederman.
\newblock {Standard State Space Models of Unawareness (Extended Abstract)}.
\newblock {\em Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science},
  215:141–158, 2015.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Johnson}{2024}]{johnson2024varieties}
Gabbrielle~M Johnson.
\newblock Varieties of bias.
\newblock {\em Philosophy Compass}, 19(7):e13011, 2024.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kooi and Renne}{2011a}]{kooi2011arrow}
Barteld Kooi and Bryan Renne.
\newblock Arrow update logic.
\newblock {\em The Review of Symbolic Logic}, 4(4):536--559, 2011.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kooi and Renne}{2011b}]{kooi2011generalized}
Barteld Kooi and Bryan Renne.
\newblock Generalized arrow update logic.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of
  Rationality and Knowledge}, pages 205--211. ACM, 2011.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Li}{2023}]{li2023phdthesis}
Lei Li.
\newblock {\em Games, Boards and Play: A Logical Perspective}.
\newblock PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2023.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Munton}{2023}]{munton2023prejudice}
Jessie Munton.
\newblock Prejudice as the misattribution of salience.
\newblock {\em Analytic Philosophy}, 64(1):1--19, 2023.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rendell \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2010}]{rendell2010copy}
Luke Rendell, Robert Boyd, Daniel Cownden, Marquist Enquist, Kimmo Eriksson,
  Marc~W Feldman, Laurel Fogarty, Stefano Ghirlanda, Timothy Lillicrap, and
  Kevin~N Laland.
\newblock {Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies
  tournament}.
\newblock {\em Science}, 328(5975):208--213, 2010.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Simons and Chabris}{1999}]{simons1999gorillas}
Daniel~J. Simons and Christopher~F. Chabris.
\newblock Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic
  events.
\newblock {\em Perception: Visual perception}, 28(9):1059--1074, 1999.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith and Archer}{2020}]{smith2020epistemic}
Leonie Smith and Alfred Archer.
\newblock Epistemic injustice and the attention economy.
\newblock {\em Ethical Theory and Moral Practice}, 23(5):777--795, 2020.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Ditmarsch and
  Kooi}{2008}]{ditmarsch2008semantic}
Hans van Ditmarsch and Barteld Kooi.
\newblock Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change.
\newblock In Giacomo Bonanno, Wiebe van~der Hoek, and Michael Wooldridge,
  editors, {\em Logic and the Foundation of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 7)},
  Texts in Logic and Games 3, pages 87--117. Amsterdam University Press, 2008.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Ditmarsch \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2007}]{ditmarsch2007dynamic}
Hans van Ditmarsch, Wiebe van~der Hoek, and Barteld Kooi.
\newblock {\em Dynamic Epistemic Logic}.
\newblock Springer Publishing Company, 2007.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van
  Ditmarsch}}{2023}]{ditmarsch2023announced}
Hans {van Ditmarsch}.
\newblock To be announced.
\newblock {\em Information and Computation}, 292:105026, 2023.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Eijck \bgroup \em et al.\egroup
  }{2012}]{eijck2012action}
Jan van Eijck, Ji~Ruan, and Tomasz Sadzik.
\newblock Action emulation.
\newblock {\em Synthese}, 185:131--151, 2012.

\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Watzl}{2017}]{watzl2017structuring}
Sebastian Watzl.
\newblock {\em Structuring mind: The nature of attention and how it shapes
  consciousness}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, 2017.

\end{thebibliography}