We show that the terminological logic ALC comprising Boolean operations on concepts and value restrictions is a notational variant of the propositional modal logic K (m) . To demonstrate the utility of the correspondence, we give two of its immediate by-products. Namely, we axiomatize ALC and give a simple proof that subsumption in ALC is PSPACE-complete, replacing the original six-page one. Furthermore, we consider an extension of ALC additionally containing both the identity role and the composition, union, transitive-reflexive closure, range restriction, and inverse of roles. It turns out that this language, called T SL, is a notational variant of the propositional dynamic logic converse- PDL. Using this correspondence, we prove that it suffices to consider finite T SL-models, show that T SL-subsumption is decidable, and obtain an axiomatization of T SL. By discovering that features correspond to deterministic programs in dynamic logic, we show that adding them to T SL preserves...

A basic feature of Terminological Knowledge Representation Systems is to represent knowledge by means of taxonomies, here called terminologies, and to provide a specialized reasoning engine to do inferences on these structures. The taxonomy is built through a representation language called a concept language (or description logic), which is given a well-defined set-theoretic semantics. The efficiency of reasoning has often been advocated as a primary motivation for the use of such systems. The main contributions of the paper are: (1) a complexity analysis of concept satisfiability and subsumption for a wide class of concept languages; (2) the algorithms for these inferences that comply with the worst-case complexity of the reasoning task they perform. This is an extended and revised version of a paper presented at the 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, 1991. 1 Introduction Among computer systems based on Artificial Intelligence ...

We present a modal logic for reasoning about what groups of agents can bring about by collective action. Given a set of states, we introduce game frames which associate with every state a strategic game among the agents. Game frames are essentially extensive games of perfect information with simultaneous actions, where every action profile is associated with a new state, the outcome of the game. A coalition of players is effective for a set of states # in a game if the coalition can guarantee the outcome of the game to lie in # . We propose a modal logic (Coalition Logic) to formalize reasoning about effectivity in game frames, where #### expresses that coalition # is effective for #. An axiomatization is presented and completeness proved. Coalition Logic provides a unifying game-theoretic view of modal logic: Since nondeterministic processes and extensive games without parallel moves emerge as particular instances of game frames, normal and non-normal modal logics correspond to 1- and 2-player versions of Coalition Logic. The satisfiability problem for Coalition Logic is shown to be PSPACE-complete.

Guarded fragments of first-order logic were recently introduced by Andr'eka, van Benthem and N'emeti; they consist of relational first-order formulae whose quantifiers are appropriately relativized by atoms. These fragments are interesting because they extend in a natural way many propositional modal logics, because they have useful model-theoretic properties and especially because they are decidable classes that avoid the usual syntactic restrictions (on the arity of relation symbols, the quantifier pattern or the number of variables) of almost all other known decidable fragments of first-order logic. Here, we investigate the computational complexity of these fragments. We prove that the satisfiability problems for the guarded fragment (GF) and the loosely guarded fragment (LGF) of first-order logic are complete for deterministic double exponential time. For the subfragments that have only a bounded number of variables or only relation symbols of bounded arity, satisfiability is EXPTI...

Several new logics for belief and knowledge are introduced and studied, all of which have the property that agents are not logically omniscient. In particular, in these logics, the set of beliefs of an agent does not necessarily contain all valid formulas. Thus, these logics are more suitable than traditional logics for modelling beliefs of humans (or machines) with limited reasoning capabilities. Our first logic is essentially an extension of Levesque's logic of implicit and explicit belief, where we extend to allow multiple agents and higher-level belief (i.e., beliefs about beliefs). Our second logic deals explicitly with "awareness," where, roughly speaking, it is necessary to be aware of a concept before one can have beliefs about it. Our third logic gives a model of "local reasoning," where an agent is viewed as a "society of minds," each with its own cluster of beliefs, which may contradict each other.

Hybrid languages are expansions of propositional modal languages which can refer to (or even quantify over) worlds. The use of strong hybrid languages dates back to at least [Pri67], but recent work (for example [BS98, BT98a, BT99]) has focussed on a more constrained system called H(#; @). We show in detail that H(#; @) is modally natural. We begin by studying its expressivity, and provide model theoretic characterizations (via a restricted notion of Ehrenfeucht-Frasse game, and an enriched notion of bisimulation) and a syntactic characterization (in terms of bounded formulas). The key result to emerge is that H(#; @) corresponds to the fragment of rst-order logic which is invariant for generated submodels. We then show that H(#; @) enjoys (strong) interpolation, provide counterexamples for its nite variable fragments, and show that weak interpolation holds for the sublanguage H(@). Finally, we provide complexity results for H(@) and other fragments and variants, and sh...

Abstract. Hybrid languages are extended modal languages which can refer to (or even quantify over) states. Such languages are better behaved proof theoretically than ordinary modal languages for they internalize the apparatus of labeled deduction. Moreover, they arise naturally in a variety of applications, including description logic and temporal reasoning. Thus it would be useful to have a map of their complexity-theoretic properties, and this paper provides one. Our work falls into two parts. We first examine the basic hybrid language and its multi-modal and tense logical cousins. We show that the basic hybrid language (and indeed, multi-modal hybrid languages) are no more complex than ordinary uni-modal logic: all have pspace-complete K-satisfiability problems. We then show that adding even one nominal to tense logic raises complexity from pspace to exptime. In the second part we turn to stronger hybrid languages in which it is possible to bind nominals. We prove a general expressivity result showing that even the weak form of binding offered by the ↓ operator easily leads to undecidability.

Problems in logic are well-known to be hard to solve in the worst case. Two different strategies for dealing with this aspect are known from the literature: language restriction and theory approximation. In this paper we are concerned with the second strategy. Our main goal is to define a semantically well-founded logic for approximate reasoning, which is justifiable from the intuitive point of view, and to provide fast algorithms for dealing with it even when using expressive languages. We also want our logic to be useful to perform approximate reasoning in different contexts. We define a method for the approximation of decision reasoning problems based on multivalued logics. Our work expands and generalizes in several directions ideas presented by other researchers. The major features of our technique are: 1) approximate answers give semantically clear information about the problem at hand; 2) approximate answers are easier to compute than answers to the original problem; 3) approxim...

This paper shows how to internalize the Kripke satisfaction denition using the basic hybrid language, and explores the proof theoretic consequences of doing so. As we shall see, the basic hybrid language enables us to transfer classic Gabbay-style labelled deduction methods from the metalanguage to the object language, and to handle labelling discipline logically. This internalized approach to labelled deduction links neatly with the Gabbay-style rules now widely used in modal Hilbert-systems, enables completeness results for a wide range of rst-order denable frame classes to be obtained automatically, and extends to many richer languages. The paper discusses related work by Jerry Seligman and Miroslava Tzakova and concludes with some reections on the status of labelling in modal logic. 1 Introduction Modern modal logic revolves around the Kripke satisfaction relation: M;w ': This says that the model M satises (or forces, or supports) the modal formula ' at the state w in M....

Abstract not found