Incremental decision procedures for modal logics with nominals and eventualities

This thesis contributes to the study of incremental decision procedures for modal logics with nominals and eventualities. Eventualities are constructs that allow to reason about the reflexive-transitive closure of relations. Eventualities are an essential feature of temporal logics and propositional dynamic logic (PDL). Nominals extend modal logics with the possibility to reason about state equality. Modal logics with nominals are often called hybrid logics. Incremental procedures are procedures that can potentially solve a problem by performing only the reasoning steps needed for the problem in the underlying calculus. We begin by introducing a class of syntactic models called demos and showing how demos can be used for obtaining nonincremental but worst-case optimal decision procedures for extensions of PDL with nominals, converse and difference modalities. We show that in the absence of nominals, such nonincremental procedures can be refined into incremental demo search procedures, obtaining a worst-case optimal decision procedure for modal logic with eventualities. We then develop the first incremental decision procedure for basic hybrid logic with eventualities, which we eventually extend to deal with hybrid PDL. The approach in the thesis suggests a new principled design of modular, incremental decision procedures for expressive modal logics. In particular, it yields the first incremental procedures for modal logics containing both nominals and eventualities.Diese Dissertation untersucht inkrementelle Entscheidungsverfahren für Modallogiken mit Nominalen und Eventualities. Eventualities sind Konstrukte, die erlauben, über den reflexiv-transitiven Abschluss von Relationen zu sprechen. Sie sind ein Schlüsselmerkmal von Temporallogiken und dynamischer Aussagenlogik (PDL). Nominale erweitern Modallogik um die Möglichkeit, über Gleichheit von Zuständen zu sprechen. Modallogik mit Nominalen nennt man Hybridlogik. Inkrementell ist ein Verfahren dann, wenn es ein Problem so lösen kann, dass für die Lösung nur solche Schritte in dem zugrundeliegenden Kalkül gemacht werden, die für das Problem relevant sind. Wir führen zunächst eine Klasse syntaktischer Modelle ein, die wir Demos nennen. Wir nutzen Demos um nichtinkrementelle aber laufzeitoptimale Entscheidungsverfahren für Erweiterungen von PDL zu konstruieren. Wir zeigen, dass im Fall ohne Nominale solche Verfahren durch algorithmische Verfeinerung zu inkrementellen Verfahren ausgebaut werden können. Insbesondere erhalten wir so ein optimales Verfahren für Modallogik mit Eventualities. Anschließend entwickeln wir das erste inkrementelle Verfahren für Hybridlogik mit Eventualities, welches wir schließlich auf hybrides PDL erweitern. Die Dissertation vermittelt einen neuen Ansatz zur Konstruktion modularer, inkrementeller Entscheidungsverfahren für expressive Modallogiken. Insbesondere liefert der Ansatz die ersten inkrementellen Verfahren für Modallogiken mit Nominalen und Eventualities

Completeness of Flat Coalgebraic Fixpoint Logics

Modal fixpoint logics traditionally play a central role in computer science, in particular in artificial intelligence and concurrency. The mu-calculus and its relatives are among the most expressive logics of this type. However, popular fixpoint logics tend to trade expressivity for simplicity and readability, and in fact often live within the single variable fragment of the mu-calculus. The family of such flat fixpoint logics includes, e.g., LTL, CTL, and the logic of common knowledge. Extending this notion to the generic semantic framework of coalgebraic logic enables covering a wide range of logics beyond the standard mu-calculus including, e.g., flat fragments of the graded mu-calculus and the alternating-time mu-calculus (such as alternating-time temporal logic ATL), as well as probabilistic and monotone fixpoint logics. We give a generic proof of completeness of the Kozen-Park axiomatization for such flat coalgebraic fixpoint logics.Comment: Short version appeared in Proc. 21st International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2010, Vol. 6269 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2010, pp. 524-53

Automated Reasoning

This volume, LNAI 13385, constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR 2022, held in Haifa, Israel, in August 2022. The 32 full research papers and 9 short papers presented together with two invited talks were carefully reviewed and selected from 85 submissions. The papers focus on the following topics: Satisfiability, SMT Solving,Arithmetic; Calculi and Orderings; Knowledge Representation and Jutsification; Choices, Invariance, Substitutions and Formalization; Modal Logics; Proofs System and Proofs Search; Evolution, Termination and Decision Prolems. This is an open access book

Automated Deduction – CADE 28

This open access book constitutes the proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE 28, held virtually in July 2021. The 29 full papers and 7 system descriptions presented together with 2 invited papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 76 submissions. CADE is the major forum for the presentation of research in all aspects of automated deduction, including foundations, applications, implementations, and practical experience. The papers are organized in the following topics: Logical foundations; theory and principles; implementation and application; ATP and AI; and system descriptions

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications