14 Hybrid logics

The complexity of modern software systems entails the need for reconfiguration mechanisms gov- erning the dynamic evolution of their execution configurations in response to both external stimulus or internal performance measures. Formally, such systems may be represented by transition systems whose nodes correspond to the different configurations they may assume. Therefore, each node is en- dowed with, for example, an algebra, or a first-order structure, to precisely characterise the semantics of the services provided in the corresponding configuration. Hybrid logics, which add to the modal description of transition structures the ability to refer to specific states, offer a generic framework to approach the specification and design of this sort of systems. Therefore, the quest for suitable notions of equivalence and refinement between models of hybrid logic specifications becomes fundamental to any design discipline adopting this perspective. This paper contributes to this effort from a distinctive point of view: instead of focussing on a specific hybrid logic, the paper introduces notions of bisimilarity and refinement for hybridised logics, i.e. standard specification logics (e.g. propositional, equational, fuzzy, etc) to which modal and hybrid features were added in a systematic way.

Hybrid logics are an extension of modal logics where it is possible to refer to a specific state, thus allowing the description of what happens at specific states, equalities and transitions between them. This makes hybrid logics very desirable to work with relational structures.

Non-dual modal operators as a basis for 4-valued accessibility relations in Hybrid logic

Inspired by an interesting quotation from the literature, we propose four modalities, called ‘sane belief’, ‘insane belief’, ‘reliable belief’ and ‘unreliable belief’, and introduce logics with each operator as the modal primitive. We show that the four modalities constitute a square of opposition, which indicates some interesting relationships among them. We compare the relative expressivity of these logics and other related logics, including a logic of false beliefs from the literature. The four main logics are all less expressive than the standard modal logic over various model classes, and the logics of sane and insane beliefs are, respectively, equally expressive as the logics of unreliable and reliable beliefs on any class of models. The logics of reliable and unreliable beliefs are then combined into a bimodal logic, which turns out to be equally expressive as the standard modal logic. Despite this, we cannot obtain a complete axiomatization of the minimal bimodal logic, by simply translating the axioms and rules of the minimal modal logic $\textbf{K}$ into the bimodal language. We then introduce a schematic modality which unifies reliable and unreliable beliefs and axiomatize it over the class of all frames and also the class of serial frames. This line of research is finally extended to unify sane and insane beliefs and some axiomatizations are given.

We introduce new proof systems for propositional logic, simple deduction Frege systems, general deduction Frege systems, and nested deduction Frege systems, which augment Frege systems with variants of the deduction rule. We give upper bounds on the lengths of proofs in Frege proof systems compared to lengths in these new systems. As applications we give near-linear simulations of the propositional Gentzen sequent calculus and the natural deduction calculus by Frege proofs. The length of a proof is the number of lines (or formulas) in the proof.A general deduction Frege proof system provides at most quadratic speedup over Frege proof systems. A nested deduction Frege proof system provides at most a nearly linear speedup over Frege system where by “nearly linear” is meant the ratio of proof lengths is O(α(n)) where α is the inverse Ackermann function. A nested deduction Frege system can linearly simulate the propositional sequent calculus, the tree-like general deduction Frege calculus, and the natural deduction calculus. Hence a Frege proof system can simulate all those proof systems with proof lengths bounded by O(n . α(n)). Also we show that a Frege proof of n lines can be transformed into a tree-like Frege proof of O(n log n) lines and of height O(log n). As a corollary of this fact we can prove that natural deduction and sequent calculus tree-like systems simulate Frege systems with proof lengths bounded by O(n log n).

We show that every extension of the basic hybrid logic with modal Sahlqvist axioms is complete. As a corollary of our approach, we also obtain the Beth property for a large class of hybrid logics. Finally, we show that the new completeness result cannot be combined with the existing general completeness result for pure axioms.

Hybrid logic is usually viewed as a variant of modal logic in which it is possible to refer to worlds. But when one moves beyond propositional hybrid logic to first or higher-order hybrid logic, it becomes useful to view it as a systematic modal language of rigidification. The key point is this: @ can be used to rigidify not merely formulas, but other types of symbol as well. This idea was first explored in first-order hybrid logic (without function symbols) where @ was used to rigidify the first-order constants. It has since been used in hybrid type-theory: here one only has function symbols, but they are of every finite type, and @ can rigidify any of them. This paper fills the remaining gap: it introduces a first-order hybrid language which handles function symbols, and allows predicate symbols to be rigidified. The basic idea is straightforward, but there is a slight complication: transferring information about rigidity between the level of terms and formulas. We develop a syntax to deal with this, provide an axiomatization, and prove a strong completeness result for a varying domain (actualist) semantics.

There has been a significant interest in modal logics with intersection, prominent examples including epistemic and doxastic logics with distributed knowledge, propositional dynamic logic with intersection, and description logics with concept intersection. Completeness proofs for such logics tend to be complicated, in particular on model classes such as S5 used, e.g., in standard epistemic logic, mainly due to the undefinability of intersection of modalities in standard modal logic. A standard proof method for the S5 case uses an “unraveling-folding” technique to achieve a treelike model to deal with the problem of undefinability. This method, however, is not easily adapted to other logics, due to its reliance on S5 in a number of steps. In this paper we demonstrate a simpler and more general proof technique by building a treelike canonical model directly, which avoids the complications in the processes of unraveling and folding. We illustrate the technique by showing completeness of the normal modal logics K, D, T, B, S4 and S5 extended with intersection modalities. Furthermore, these treelike canonical models are compatible with Fischer-Ladner-style closures, and we combine the methods to show the completeness of the mentioned logics further extended with transitive closure of union modalities known from PDL or epistemic logic. Some of these completeness results are new.

Reasoning about preferences is a fundamental component of rationality, and therefore central in AI and computational social choice. Most logic-based frameworks for representing and reasoning about preferences assume that preferences are arbitrarily given, typically as a ranking of a set of alternatives or using utilities, with little concern about how preferences are formed or where they come from. Recent work in rational choice theory, however, has devoted attention to giving more internal structure to the notion of rationality, focusing more on the faculties of individual agents, such as their mood, mindset, and motivating reasons. In this paper we develop a modal logic for reasoning about preferences that depend on a set of motivationally salient properties, based on recent work on reasons behind preferences by Dietrich and List. The main result is that we show how the problem of reasoning in this logic can be translated to reasoning in a standard modal logic (KT with universal modality), and consequently that reasoning systems and algorithms developed for modal logic (with universal modality) can be employed for reasoning about reason-based preferences.

In “Must ...stay ...strong!” (von Fintel and Gillies in Nat Lang Semant 18:351–383, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2), we set out to slay a dragon, or rather what we called The Mantra: that epistemic must has a modal force weaker than expected from standard modal logic, that it doesn’t entail its prejacent, and that the best explanation for the evidential feel of must is a pragmatic explanation. We argued that all three sub-mantras are wrong and offered an explanation according to which must is strong, entailing, and the felt indirectness is the product of an evidential presupposition carried by epistemic modals. Mantras being what they are, it is no surprise that each of the sub-mantras have been given new defenses. Here we offer them new problems and update our picture, concluding that must is (still) strong.

A key issue in the philosophy of biology is evolutionary contingency, the degree to which evolutionary outcomes could have been different. Contingency is typically contrasted with evolutionary convergence, where different evolutionary pathways result in the same or similar outcomes. Convergences are given as evidence against the hypothesis that evolutionary outcomes are highly contingent. But the best available treatments of contingency do not, when read closely, produce the desired contrast with convergence. Rather, they produce a picture in which any degree of contingency is compatible with any degree of convergence. This is because convergence is the repeated production of a given outcome from different starting points, and contingency has been defined without reference to the size of the space of possible outcomes. In small spaces of possibilities, the production of repeated outcomes is almost assured. This paper presents a definition of contingency which includes this modal dimension in a way that does not reduce it to the binary notion of contingency found in standard modal logic. The result is a conception of contingency which properly contrasts with convergence, given some domain of possibilities and a measure defined over it. We should therefore not ask whether evolution is contingent or convergent simpliciter, but rather about the degree to which it is contingent or convergent in various domains, as measured in various ways.

In this paper I give conditions under which a matrix characterisation of validity is correct for first order logics where quantifications are restricted by statements from a theory. Unfortunately the usual definition of path closure in a matrix is unsuitable and a less pleasant definition must be used. I derive the matrix theorem from syntactic analysis of a suitable tableau system, but by choosing a tableau system for restricted quantification I generalise Wallen's earlier work on modal logics. The tableau system is only correct if a new condition I call “alphabetical monotonicity” holds. I sketch how the result can be applied to a wide range of logics such as first order variants of many standard modal logics, including non-serial modal logics.

An interpolation theorem holds for many standard modal logics, but first order S5 is a prominent example of a logic for which it fails. In this paper it is shown that a first order S5 interpolation theorem can be proved provided the logic is extended to contain propositional quantifiers. A proper statement of the result involves some subtleties, but this is the essence of it.

Quantified modal inferences interest logicians, linguists, and computer scientists, but no previous psychological study of them appears to be in the literature. Here is an example of one: All those artists are businessmen. Paulo is possibly one of the artists. What follows? People tend to conclude: Paulo is possibly a businessman (Experiment 1). It seems plausible, and it follows from an intuitive mental model in which Paulo is one of a set of artists who are businessmen. Further deliberation can yield a model of an alternative possibility in which Paulo is not one of the artists, which confirms that the conclusion is only a possibility. The snag is that standard modal logics, which deal with possibilities, cannot yield a particular conclusion to any premises: Infinitely many follow validly (from any premises) but they do not include the present conclusion. Yet, further experiments corroborated a new mental model theory's predictions for various inferences (Experiment 2), for the occurrence of factual conclusions drawn from premises about possibilities (Experiment 3) and for inferences from premises of modal syllogisms (Experiment 4). The theory is therefore plausible, but we explore the feasibility of a cognitive theory based on modifications to modal logic.

In standard modal logic, □ ≡ ∼◊ ∼ and ◊ ≡ ∼□∼. I will, first, examine why in tense-logic, Arthur Prior thinks that ∼ ◊ ∼ is weaker than □ and ∼ □ ∼ is weaker than ◊. I will, then, examine whether there are similar motivations in modal logic to take ∼ ◊ ∼ to be weaker than □ and ∼ □ ∼ to be weaker than ◊. The upshot will be that, just as certain metaphysical views within the philosophy of time (e.g., Presentism) motivate one to deny the standard tense equivalences, certain metaphysical views within the metaphysics of modality (e.g., Contingentism, nonmodalism) motivate one to deny the standard modal equivalences.