A Road-Map on Complexity for Hybrid Logics
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.
KeywordsComputational Complexity Modal and Temporal Logic Description Logic Labeled Deduction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [AdR99]C. Areces and M. de Rijke. Accounting for assertional information. Manuscript, 1999.Google Scholar
- [Ben83a]J. van Benthem. The logic of time. Reidel, 1983.Google Scholar
- [Ben83b]J. van Benthem. Modal Logic and Classical Logic. Bibliopolis, Naples, 1983.Google Scholar
- [BGG97]E. Börger, E. Grädel, and Y. Gurevich. The Classical Decision Problem. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
- [Bla98]P. Blackburn. Internalizing labeled deduction. Technical Report CLAUS-Report 102, Computerlinguistik, Universität des Saarlandes, 1998. http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/cl/claus.
- [BS98]P. Blackburn and J. Seligman. What are hybrid languages? In M. Kracht, M. de Rijke, H. Wansing, and M. Zakharyaschev, editors, Advances in Modal Logic, volume 1, pages 41–62. CSLI Publications, Stanford University, 1998.Google Scholar
- [Gab96]D. Gabbay. Labeled deductive systems. Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- [Grä97]E. Grädel. On the restraining power of guards. To appear in J. of Symbolic Logic, 1997.Google Scholar
- [PT85] S.Passy and T. Tinchev. Quantifiers in combinatory PDL: completeness, definability, incompleteness. In Fundamentals of computation theory (Cottbus, 1985), pages 512–519. Springer, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
- [Sch91]K. Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics. In Proc. of the 12th IJCAI, pages 466–471, 1991.Google Scholar
- [Sch94]A. Schaerf. Query Answering in Concept-Based Knowledge Representation Systems: Algorithms, Complexity, and Semantic Issues. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Univ. di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1994.Google Scholar
- [Sel97]J. Seligman. The logic of correct description. In M. de Rijke, editor, Advances in Intensional Logic, pages 107–135. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
- [Spa93a]E. Spaan. Complexity of modal logics. PhD thesis, ILLC. University of Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
- [Spa93b]E. Spaan. The complexity of propositional tense logics. In Diamonds and defaults (Amsterdam, 19901991), pages 287–307. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
- [Tza98]M. Tzakova. Tableaux calculi for hybrid logics. Manuscript, 1998.Google Scholar