Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Complexity Results for Modal Dependence Logic

Abstract

Modal dependence logic was introduced recently by Väänänen. It enhances the basic modal language by an operator = (). For propositional variables p 1, . . . , p n , = (p 1, . . . , p n-1, p n ) intuitively states that the value of p n is determined by those of p 1, . . . , p n-1. Sevenster (J. Logic and Computation, 2009) showed that satisfiability for modal dependence logic is complete for nondeterministic exponential time.

In this paper we consider fragments of modal dependence logic obtained by restricting the set of allowed propositional connectives. We show that satisfiability for poor man’s dependence logic, the language consisting of formulas built from literals and dependence atoms using \({\wedge, \square, \lozenge}\) (i. e., disallowing disjunction), remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we only allow monotone formulas (without negation, but with disjunction), the complexity drops to PSPACE-completeness.

We also extend Väänänen’s language by allowing classical disjunction besides dependence disjunction and show that the satisfiability problem remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we then disallow both negation and dependence disjunction, satisfiability is complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Additionally we consider the restriction of modal dependence logic where the length of each single dependence atom is bounded by a number that is fixed for the whole logic. We show that the satisfiability problem for this bounded arity dependence logic is PSPACE-complete and that the complexity drops to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy if we then disallow disjunction.

In this way we completely classify the computational complexity of the satisfiability problem for all restrictions of propositional and dependence operators considered by Väänänen and Sevenster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Abramsky Samson, Väänänen Jouko: From IF to BI. Synthese 167(2), 207–230 (2009)

  2. 2.

    Bauland, Michael, Elmar Böhler, Nadia Creignou, Steffen Reith, Henning Schnoor, and Heribert Vollmer, The complexity of problems for quantified constraints, Theory of Computing Systems 47:454–490, 2010. 10.1007/s00224-009-9194-6.

  3. 3.

    Cook, Stephen A., The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, in STOC ’71: Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1971, pp. 151–158.

  4. 4.

    Donini, Francesco M., Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, Bernhard Hollunder, Werner Nutt, and Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela, The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages, Artif. Intell. 53(2-3):309–327, 1992.

  5. 5.

    Hemaspaandra, Edith, The complexity of poor man’s logic, Journal of Logic and Computation 11(4):609–622, 2001. Corrected version: [6].

  6. 6.

    Hemaspaandra, Edith, The complexity of poor man’s logic, CoRR, cs.LO/9911014v2, 2005.

  7. 7.

    Hemaspaandra Edith, Schnoor Henning., Schnoor Ilka.: Generalized modal satisfiability. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 76(7), 561–578 (2010)

  8. 8.

    Henkin, L., Some remarks on infinitely long formulas, in Infinitistic Methods, Proceedings Symposium Foundations of Mathematics, Pergamon, Warsaw, 1961, pp. 167–183.

  9. 9.

    Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu, Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon, in J. E. Fenstad, I. T. Frolov, and R. Hilpinen, (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VIII, vol. 126, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 571–589.

  10. 10.

    Ladner, Richard E., The computational complexity of provability in systems of modal propositional logic, Siam Journal on Computing 6(3):467–480, 1977.

  11. 11.

    Lewis Harry: Satisfiability problems for propositional calculi. Mathematical Systems Theory 13, 45–53 (1979)

  12. 12.

    Lohmann, Peter, and Heribert Vollmer, Complexity results for modal dependence logic, in Proceedings 19th Conference on Computer Science Logic, vol. 6247 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 411–425.

  13. 13.

    Meier, Arne, Martin Mundhenk, Michael Thomas, and Heribert Vollmer, The complexity of satisfiability for fragments of CTL and CTL*, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 223:201–213, 2008. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Reachability Problems in Computational Models (RP 2008).

  14. 14.

    Peterson G., Reif J., Azhar S.: Lower bounds for multiplayer noncooperative games of incomplete information. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 41(7-8), 957–992 (2001)

  15. 15.

    Reith, Steffen, and Klaus W. Wagner, The complexity of problems defined by boolean circuits, in Proceedings International Conference Mathematical Foundation of Informatics, (MFI99), World Science Publishing, 2000, pp. 25–28.

  16. 16.

    Sevenster Merlijn.: Model-theoretic and computational properties of modal dependence logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 1157–1173 (2009)

  17. 17.

    Väänänen, Jouko, Dependence logic: A new approach to independence friendly logic, no. 70 in London Mathematical Society student texts, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

  18. 18.

    Väänänen, Jouko, Modal dependence logic, in Krzysztof R. Apt, and Robert van Rooij, (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction, vol. 4 of Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, pp. 237–254.

  19. 19.

    Wrathall Celia: Complete sets and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Theoretical Computer Science 3(1), 23–33 (1977)

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Peter Lohmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lohmann, P., Vollmer, H. Complexity Results for Modal Dependence Logic. Stud Logica 101, 343–366 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-013-9483-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dependence logic
  • Modal logic
  • Satisfiability problem
  • Computational complexity
  • Poor man’s logic