اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAlternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories
115
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
We propose two alternatives to Xus axiomatization of the Chellas STIT. The first one also provides an alternative axiomatization of the deliberative STIT. The second one starts from the idea that the historic necessity operator can be defined as an abbreviation of operators of agency, and can thus be eliminated from the logic of the Chellas STIT. The second axiomatization also allows us to establish that the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a STIT formula without temporal operators is NP-complete in the single-agent case, and is NEXPTIME-complete in the multiagent case, both for the deliberative and the Chellas STIT.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
The formalization of action and obligation using logic languages is a topic of increasing relevance in the field of ethics for AI. Having an expressive syntactic and semantic framework to reason about agents decisions in moral situations allows for u
nequivocal representations of components of behavior that are relevant when assigning blame (or praise) of outcomes to said agents. Two very important components of behavior in this respect are belief and belief-based action. In this work we present a logic of doxastic oughts by extending epistemic deontic stit theory with beliefs. On one hand, the semantics for formulas involving belief operators is based on probability measures. On the other, the semantics for doxastic oughts relies on a notion of optimality, and the underlying choice rule is maximization of expected utility. We introduce an axiom system for the resulting logic, and we address its soundness, completeness, and decidability results. These results are significant in the line of research that intends to use proof systems of epistemic, doxastic, and deontic logics to help in the testing of ethical behavior of AI through theorem-proving and model-checking.
In this paper we briefly summarize the contents of Manzonettos PhD thesis which concerns denotational semantics and equational/order theories of the pure untyped lambda-calculus. The main research achievements include: (i) a general construction of l
ambda-models from reflexive objects in (possibly non-well-pointed) categories; (ii) a Stone-style representation theorem for combinatory algebras; (iii) a proof that no effective lambda-model can have lambda-beta or lambda-beta-eta as its equational theory (this can be seen as a partial answer to an open problem introduced by Honsell-Ronchi Della Rocca in 1984).
This paper introduces a new methodology for the complexity analysis of higher-order functional programs, which is based on three components: a powerful type system for size analysis and a sound type inference procedure for it, a ticking monadic trans
formation and a concrete tool for constraint solving. Noticeably, the presented methodology can be fully automated, and is able to analyse a series of examples which cannot be handled by most competitor methodologies. This is possible due to various key ingredients, and in particular an abstract index language and index polymorphism at higher ranks. A prototype implementation is available.
Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) and SAT solvers are critical components in many formal software tools, primarily due to the fact that they are able to easily solve logical problem instances with millions of variables and clauses. This efficiency
of solvers is in surprising contrast to the traditional complexity theory position that the problems that these solvers address are believed to be hard in the worst case. In an attempt to resolve this apparent discrepancy between theory and practice, theorists have proposed the study of these solvers as proof systems that would enable establishing appropriate lower and upper bounds on their complexity. For example, in recent years it has been shown that (idealized models of) SAT solvers are polynomially equivalent to the general resolution proof system for propositional logic, and SMT solvers that use the CDCL(T) architecture are polynomially equivalent to the Res*(T) proof system. In this paper, we extend this program to the MCSAT approach for SMT solving by showing that the MCSAT architecture is polynomially equivalent to the Res*(T) proof system. Thus, we establish an equivalence between CDCL(T) and MCSAT from a proof-complexity theoretic point of view. This is a first and essential step towards a richer theory that may help (parametrically) characterize the kinds of formulas for which MCSAT-based SMT solvers can perform well.
In 1979 Richard Statman proved, using proof-theory, that the purely implicational fragment of Intuitionistic Logic (M-imply) is PSPACE-complete. He showed a polynomially bounded translation from full Intuitionistic Propositional Logic into its implic
ational fragment. By the PSPACE-completeness of S4, proved by Ladner, and the Goedel translation from S4 into Intuitionistic Logic, the PSPACE- completeness of M-imply is drawn. The sub-formula principle for a deductive system for a logic L states that whenever F1,...,Fk proves A, there is a proof in which each formula occurrence is either a sub-formula of A or of some of Fi. In this work we extend Statman result and show that any propositional (possibly modal) structural logic satisfying a particular formulation of the sub-formula principle is in PSPACE. If the logic includes the minimal purely implicational logic then it is PSPACE-complete. As a consequence, EXPTIME-complete propositional logics, such as PDL and the common-knowledge epistemic logic with at least 2 agents satisfy this particular sub-formula principle, if and only if, PSPACE=EXPTIME. We also show how our technique can be used to prove that any finitely many-valued logic has the set of its tautologies in PSPACE.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
