On the Complexity of Team Logic and Its Two-Variable Fragment

We study the logic FO(~), the extension of first-order logic with team semantics by unrestricted Boolean negation. It was recently shown to be axiomatizable, but otherwise has not yet received much attention in questions of computational complexity. In this paper, we consider its two-variable fragment FO^2(~) and prove that its satisfiability problem is decidable, and in fact complete for the recently introduced non-elementary class TOWER(poly). Moreover, we classify the complexity of model checking of FO(~) with respect to the number of variables and the quantifier rank, and prove a dichotomy between PSPACE- and ATIME-ALT(exp, poly)-complete fragments. For the lower bounds, we propose a translation from modal team logic MTL to FO^2(~) that extends the well-known standard translation from modal logic ML to FO^2. For the upper bounds, we translate FO(~) to fragments of second-order logic with PSPACE-complete and ATIME-ALT(exp, poly)-complete model checking, respectively

On the Complexity of Team Logic and its Two-Variable Fragment

We study the logic FO(~), the extension of first-order logic with team semantics by unrestricted Boolean negation. It was recently shown axiomatizable, but otherwise has not yet received much attention in questions of computational complexity. In this paper, we consider its two-variable fragment FO2(~) and prove that its satisfiability problem is decidable, and in fact complete for the recently introduced non-elementary class TOWER(poly). Moreover, we classify the complexity of model checking of FO(~) with respect to the number of variables and the quantifier rank, and prove a dichotomy between PSPACE- and ATIME-ALT(exp, poly)-completeness. To achieve the lower bounds, we propose a translation from modal team logic MTL to FO2(~) that extends the well-known standard translation from modal logic ML to FO2. For the upper bounds, we translate to a fragment of second-order logic

Set Semantics for Asynchronous TeamLTL: Expressivity and Complexity

We introduce and develop a set-based semantics for asynchronous TeamLTL. We consider two canonical logics in this setting: the extensions of TeamLTL by the Boolean disjunction and by the Boolean negation. We relate the new semantics with the original semantics based on multisets and establish one of the first positive complexity theoretic results in the temporal team semantics setting. In particular we show that both logics enjoy normal forms that can be utilised to obtain results related to expressivity and complexity (decidability) of the new logics

Safe Dependency Atoms and Possibility Operators in Team Semantics

I consider the question of which dependencies are safe for a Team Semantics-based logic FO(D), in the sense that they do not increase its expressive power over sentences when added to it. I show that some dependencies, like totality, non-constancy and non-emptiness, are safe for all logics FO(D), and that other dependencies, like constancy, are not safe for FO(D) for some choices of D despite being strongly first order. I furthermore show that the possibility operator, which holds in a team if and only if its argument holds in some nonempty subteam, can be added to any logic FO(D) without increasing its expressive power over sentences.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2018, arXiv:1809.0241

Set Semantics for Asynchronous TeamLTL: Expressivity and Complexity

We introduce and develop a set-based semantics for asynchronous TeamLTL. We consider two canonical logics in this setting: the extensions of TeamLTL by the Boolean disjunction and by the Boolean negation. We establish fascinating connections between the original semantics based on multisets and the new set-based semantics as well as show one of the first positive complexity theoretic results in the temporal team semantics setting. In particular we show that both logics enjoy normal forms that can be utilised to obtain results related to expressivity and complexity (decidability) of the new logics. We also relate and apply our results to recently defined logics whose asynchronicity is formalized via time evaluation functions

Canonical Models and the Complexity of Modal Team Logic

We study modal team logic MTL, the team-semantical extension of classical modal logic closed under Boolean negation. Its fragments, such as modal dependence, independence, and inclusion logic, are well-understood. However, due to the unrestricted Boolean negation, the satisfiability problem of full MTL has been notoriously resistant to a complexity theoretical classification. In our approach, we adapt the notion of canonical models for team semantics. By construction of such a model, we reduce the satisfiability problem of MTL to simple model checking. Afterwards, we show that this method is optimal in the sense that MTL-formulas can efficiently enforce canonicity. Furthermore, to capture these results in terms of computational complexity, we introduce a non-elementary complexity class, TOWER(poly), and prove that the satisfiability and validity problem of MTL are complete for it. We also show that the fragments of MTL with bounded modal depth are complete for the levels of the elementary hierarchy (with polynomially many alternations)

Team logic : axioms, expressiveness, complexity

Team semantics is an extension of classical logic where statements do not refer to single states of a system, but instead to sets of such states, called teams. This kind of semantics has applications for example in mathematical logic, verification of dynamic systems as well as in database theory. In this thesis, we focus on the propositional, modal and first-order variant of team logic. We study the classical questions of formal logic: Expressiveness (can we formalize sufficiently interesting properties of models?), axiomatizability (can all true statements be deduced in some formal system?) and complexity (can problems such as satisfiability and model checking be solved algorithmically?). Finally, we classify existing team logics and show approaches how team semantics can be defined for arbitrary other logics.Team-Semantik ist eine Erweiterung klassischer Logik, bei der Aussagen nicht über einzelne Zustände eines Systems getroffen werden, sondern über Mengen solcher Zustände, genannt Teams. Diese Art von Semantik besitzt unter anderem Anwendungen in der mathematischen Logik, in der Verifikation dynamischer Systeme sowie in der Datenbanktheorie. In dieser Arbeit liegt der Fokus auf der aussagenlogischen, der modallogischen und der prädikatenlogischen Variante der Team-Logik. Es werden die klassischen Fragestellungen formaler Logik untersucht: Ausdruckskraft (können hinreichend interessante Eigenschaften von Modellen formalisiert werden?), Axiomatisierbarkeit (lassen sich alle wahren Aussagen in einem Kalkül ableiten?) und Komplexität (können Probleme wie Erfüllbarkeit und Modellprüfung algorithmisch gelöst werden?). Schlussendlich werden existierende Team-Logiken klassifiziert und es werden Ansätze aufgezeigt, wie Team-Semantik für beliebige weitere Logiken definiert werden kann

On the complexity of team logic and its two-variable fragment

We study the logic FO(∼), the extension of first-order logic with team semantics by unrestricted Boolean negation. It was recently shown to be axiomatizable, but otherwise has not yet received much attention in questions of computational complexity. In this paper, we consider its two-variable fragment FO2(∼) and prove that its satisfiability problem is decidable, and in fact complete for the recently introduced non-elementary class TOWER(poly). Moreover, we classify the complexity of model checking of FO(∼) with respect to the number of variables and the quantifier rank, and prove a dichotomy between PSPACE- and ATIME-ALT(exp, poly)-complete fragments. For the lower bounds, we propose a translation from modal team logic MTL to FO2(∼) that extends the well-known standard translation from modal logic ML to FO2. For the upper bounds, we translate FO(∼) to fragments of second-order logic with PSPACE-complete and ATIME-ALT(exp, poly)-complete model checking, respectively