Regular Representations of Uniform TC 0

We consider first-order logic with monoidal quantifiers over words. We show that all languages with a neutral letter, definable using the addition predicate are also definable with the order predicate as the only numerical predicate. Let S be a subset of monoids. Let L be the logic closed under quantification over the monoids in S. Then we prove that L[<;,+] and L[<;] define the same neutral letter languages. Our result can be interpreted as the Crane Beach conjecture to hold for the logic L[<;,+]. As a consequence we get the result of Roy and Straubing that FO+MOD[<;,+] collapses to FO+MOD[<;]. For cyclic groups, we answer an open question of Roy and Straubing, proving that MOD[<;,+] collapses to MOD[<;]. Our result also shows that multiplication as a numerical predicate is necessary for Barrington's theorem to hold and also to simulate majority quantifiers. All these results can be viewed as separation results for highly uniform circuit classes. For example we separate FO[<;,+]-uniform CC0 from FO[<;,+]-uniform ACC0.

We provide a canonical construction of conformal covers for finite hypergraphs and present two immediate applications to the finite model theory of relational structures. In the setting of relational structures, conformal covers serve to construct guarded bisimilar companion structures that avoid all incidental Gaifman cliques—thus serving as a partial analogue in finite model theory for the usually infinite guarded unravellings. In hypergraph theoretic terms, we show that every finite hypergraph admits a bisimilar cover by a finite conformal hypergraph. In terms of relational structures, we show that every finite relational structure admits a guarded bisimilar cover by a finite structure whose Gaifman cliques are guarded. One of our applications answers an open question about a clique constrained strengthening of the extension property for partial automorphisms (EPPA) of Hrushovski, Herwig and Lascar. A second application provides an alternative proof of the finite model property (FMP) for the clique guarded fragment of first-order logic CGF, by reducing (finite) satisfiability in CGF to (finite) satisfiability in the guarded fragment, GF.

The Beth definability property, a well-known property from classical logic, is investigated in the context of description logics: if a general L-TBox implicitly defines an L-concept in terms of a given signature, where L is a description logic, then does there always exist over this signature an explicit definition in L for the concept? This property has been studied before and used to optimize reasoning in description logics. In this paper a complete classification of Beth definability is provided for extensions of the basic description logic ALC with transitive roles, inverse roles, role hierarchies, and/or functionality restrictions, both on arbitrary and on finite structures. Moreover, we present a tableau-based algorithm which computes explicit definitions of at most double exponential size. This algorithm is optimal because it is also shown that the smallest explicit definition of an implicitly defined concept may be double exponentially long in the size of the input TBox. Finally, if explicit definitions are allowed to be expressed in first-order logic, then we show how to compute them in single exponential time.

A successor-invariant first-order formula is a formula that has access to an\nauxiliary successor relation on a structure's universe, but the model relation\nis independent of the particular interpretation of this relation. It is well\nknown that successor-invariant formulas are more expressive on finite\nstructures than plain first-order formulas without a successor relation. This\nnaturally raises the question whether this increase in expressive power comes\nat an extra cost to solve the model-checking problem, that is, the problem to\ndecide whether a given structure together with some (and hence every) successor\nrelation is a model of a given formula. It was shown earlier that adding\nsuccessor-invariance to first-order logic essentially comes at no extra cost\nfor the model-checking problem on classes of finite structures whose underlying\nGaifman graph is planar [Engelmann et al., 2012], excludes a fixed minor\n[Eickmeyer et al., 2013] or a fixed topological minor [Eickmeyer and\nKawarabayashi, 2016; Kreutzer et al., 2016]. In this work we show that the\nmodel-checking problem for successor-invariant formulas is fixed-parameter\ntractable on any class of finite structures whose underlying Gaifman graphs\nform a class of bounded expansion. Our result generalises all earlier results\nand comes close to the best tractability results on nowhere dense classes of\ngraphs currently known for plain first-order logic.\n

A successor-invariant first-order formula is a formula that has access to an auxiliary successor relation on a structure's universe, but the model relation is independent of the particular interpretation of this relation. It is well known that successor-invariant formulas are more expressive on finite structures than plain first-order formulas without a successor relation. This naturally raises the question whether this increase in expressive power comes at an extra cost to solve the model-checking problem, that is, the problem to decide whether a given structure together with some (and hence every) successor relation is a model of a given formula. It was shown earlier that adding successor-invariance to first-order logic essentially comes at no extra cost for the model-checking problem on classes of finite structures whose underlying Gaifman graph is planar [1], excludes a fixed minor [2] or a fixed topological minor [3], [4]. In this work we show that the model-checking problem for successor-invariant formulas is fixed-parameter tractable on any class of finite structures whose underlying Gaifman graphs form a class of bounded expansion. Our result generalises all earlier results and comes close to the best tractability results on nowhere dense classes of graphs currently known for plain first-order logic.

We prove some results about the limitations of the expressive power of quantifiers on finite structures. We define the concept of a bounded quantifier and prove that every relativizing quantifier which is bounded is already first-order definable (Theorem 3.8). We weaken the concept of congruence closed (see [6]) to weakly congruence closed by restricting to congruence relations where all classes have the same size. Adapting the concept of a thin quantifier (Caicedo [1]) to the framework of finite structures, we define the concept of a meager quantifier. We show that no proper extension of first-order logic by means of meager quantifiers is weakly congruence closed (Theorem 4.9). We prove the failure of the full congruence closure property for logics which extend first-order logic by means of meager quantifiers, arbitrary monadic quantifiers, and the Hartig quantifier (Theorem 6.1).

Model checking-deciding if a logical sentence holds on a structure-is a basic computational task that is well-known to be intractable in general. For first-order logic on finite structures, it is PSPACE-complete, and the natural evaluation algorithm exhibits exponential dependence on the formula. We study model checking on the quantified conjunctive fragment of first-order logic, namely, prenex sentences having a purely conjunctive quantifier-free part. Following a number of works, we associate a graph to the quantifier-free part; each sentence then induces a prefixed graph, a quantifier prefix paired with a graph on its variables. We give a comprehensive classification of the sets of prefixed graphs on which model checking is tractable, based on a novel generalization of treewidth, that generalizes and places into a unified framework a number of existing results.

A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how ‘words’ and their internal structure – the traditional domain of morphology – relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this ‘specialness’ calls for an architecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax).1 While the ‘words’ derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and morphology according to Lexicalist approaches of this type. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of ‘words’ to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that ‘words’ are assembled by rules of the syntax. Thus the ‘word’ is not a privileged derivational object as far as the architecture of the grammar is concerned, since all complex objects, whether words and phrases, are treated as the output of the same generative system (the syntax). According to this view, which we assume here, the theory of the syntax/morphology interface might better be said to be a theory of (1) the primitive elements of the syntactic derivation (the traditional question of the morpheme); (2) the principles governing the assembly of these primitives into complex objects (the question of what structures the syntax and perhaps PF rules can derive); and (3) the manner in which phonological forms relate to the primitives and to the complex objects constructed from the primitives. Such an approach allows for a transparent (or direct) interface between syntax and morphology, because it hypothesizes that the same generative system derives all complex objects.2 In the default case, then, the principles that govern the composition of ‘words’ are the same as those that govern the composition of larger syntactic objects.

Computational Complexity Questions, such as trying to prove that the NP-complete problem three colorability of graphs (3COLOR) cannot be checked in polynomial time, seemed deceptively simple when I first encountered them as a grad student in the 1970's. So many years later, we still don't even know whether 3COLOR is in the uniform circuit class ACC 0 6 , or equivalently, whether it is expressible in first-order logic with sum mod 6 quantifiers and numeric relations +, *.

The circuit complexity classes AC0, ACC, and CC (also called pure-ACC) can be characterized as the classes of languages definable in certain extensions of first-order logic. All of the known and conjectured inclusions among these classes have been shown to be equivalent to a single conjecture concerning the form of the formulas required to define the regular languages they contain. (The conjecture states, roughly, that when a formula defines a regular language, predicates representing numerical relations on the positions in a string can be replaced by predicates computed by finite state automata.) Here this conjecture is established in a special case: It is shown that the conjecture holds for the subclasses of AC0, ACC, and CC defined by restricting all the numerical predicates occurring in the logical formulas to be either unary relations, or the order relation <.

Coalition logic (CL) enables us to model the strategic abilities and specify what a group of agents can achieve whatever the other agents do. However, some rational mental attitudes of the agents are beyond the scope of CL such as the prestigious beliefs, desires and intentions (BDI) which is an interesting and useful epistemic notion and has spawned substantial amount of studies in multi-agent systems. In this paper, we introduce a first-order coalition BDI (FCBDI) logic for multi-agent systems, which provides a semantic glue that allows the formal embedding and interaction of BDI, coalition and temporal operators in a first-order language. We further introduce a semantic model based on the interpreted system model and present an axiomatic system that is proved sound and complete with respect to the semantics. Finally, it is shown that the computational complexity of its model checking in finite structures is PSPACE-complete.

We prove that the Beth definability theorem fails for a comprehensive class of first-order logics with cardinality quantifiers. In particular, we give a counterexample to Beth’s theorem forL(Q), which is finitary first-order logic (with identity) augmented with the quantifier “there exists uncountably many”.

The intimate connection between first-order logic on automatic structures and MSO on (ω, < ) can be used to define generalized-automatic structures, which we introduced in section 1.5 as the ones that are MSO-to-FO interpretable in a tree. It is therefore a natural extension of the previous work to ask whether counting quantifiers preserve regularity on such generalized-automatic structures.

In this article we investigate the family of independence-friendly (IF) logics in the equality-free setting, concentrating on questions related to expressive power. Various natural equality-free fragments of logics in this family translate into existential second-order logic with prenex quantification of function symbols only and with the first-order parts of formulae equality-free. We study this fragment of existential second-order logic. Our principal technical result is that over finite models with a vocabulary consisting of unary relation symbols only, this fragment of second-order logic is weaker in expressive power than first-order logic (with equality). Results about the fragment could turn out useful for example in the study of independence-friendly modal logics. In addition to proving results of a technical nature, we address issues related to a perspective from which IF logic is regarded as a specification framework for games, and also discuss the general significance of understanding fragments of second-order logic in investigations related to non-classical logics.

There exist valuable methods for theorem proving in non classical logics based on translation from these logics into first-order classical logic (abbreviated henceforth FOL). The key notion in these approaches istranslation from aSource Logic (henceforth abbreviated SL) to aTarget Logic (henceforth abbreviated TL). These methods are concerned with the problem offinding a proof in TL by translating a formula in SL, but they do not address the very important problem ofpresenting proofs in SL via a backward translation. We propose a framework for presenting proofs in SL based on a partial backward translation of proofs obtained in a familiar TL: Order-Sorted Predicate Logic. The proposed backward translation transfers some formulasF TL belonging to the proof in TL into formulasF SL , such that the formulasF SL either (a) belong to a corresponding deduction in SL (in the best case) or, (b) are semantically related in some precise way, to formulas in the corresponding deduction in SL (in the worst case). The formulasF TL andF SL can obviously be considered aslemmas of their respective proofs. Therefore the transfer of lemmas of TL gives at least a skeleton of the corresponding proof in SL. Since the formulas of a proof “keep trace” of the strategy used to obtain the proof, clearly the framework can also help in solving another fundamental and difficult problem:the transfer of strategies from classical to non classical logics. We show how to apply the proposed framework, at least to S5, S4(p), K, T, K4. Two conjectures are stated and we propose sufficient (and in general satisfactory) conditions in order to obtain formulas in the proof in SL. Two particular cases of the conjectures are proved to be theorems. Three examples are treated in full detail. The main lines of future research are given.