Complexity Results for Modal Dependence Logic

  • Peter Lohmann
  • Heribert Vollmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6247)

Abstract

Modal dependence logic was introduced very recently by Väänänen. It enhances the basic modal language by an operator dep. For propositional variables p1,...,pn, dep(p1,...,pn − 1)pn intuitively states that the value of pn only depends on those of p1,...,pn − 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 satisfibility for poor man’s dependence logic, the language consisting of formulas built from literals and dependence atoms using ∧, □, \(\Diamond\) (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, satistiability is complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy.

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

Keywords

dependence logic satisfiability problem computational complexity poor man’s logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., Väänänen, J.: From IF to BI. Synthese 167(2), 207–230 (2009)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauland, M., Böhler, E., Creignou, N., Reith, S., Schnoor, H., Vollmer, H.: The complexity of problems for quantified constraints. Theory of Computing Systems (to appear), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00224-009-9194-6
  3. 3.
    Bauland, M., Hemaspaandra, E., Schnoor, H., Schnoor, I.: Generalized modal satisfiability. In: Durand, B., Thomas, W. (eds.) STACS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3884, pp. 500–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), revised version: [7]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Hollunder, B., Nutt, W., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A.: The complexity of existential quantification in concept languages. Artif. Intell. 53(2-3), 309–327 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hemaspaandra, E.: The complexity of poor man’s logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 11(4), 609–622 (2001); corrected version: [6]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hemaspaandra, E.: The complexity of poor man’s logic. CoRR cs.LO/9911014v2 (2005), http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/9911014v2
  7. 7.
    Hemaspaandra, E., Schnoor, H., Schnoor, I.: Generalized modal satisability. CoRR abs/0804.2729 (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2729
  8. 8.
    Henkin, L.: Some remarks on infinitely long formulas. In: Proceedings Symposium Foundations of Mathematics, Infinitistic Methods, pp. 167–183. Pergamon, Warsaw (1961)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hintikka, J., Sandu, G.: Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon. In: Fenstad, J.E., Frolov, I.T., Hilpinen, R. (eds.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 8, pp. 571–589. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ladner, R.E.: The computational complexity of provability in systems of modal propositional logic. SIAM Journal on Computing 6(3), 467–480 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, H.: Satisfiability problems for propositional calculi. Mathematical Systems Theory 13, 45–53 (1979)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meier, A., Mundhenk, M., Thomas, M., Vollmer, H.: The complexity of satisfiability for fragments of CTL and CTL ⋆ . Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 223, pp. 201–213 (2008), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B75H1-4V74F2X-H/2/c7a568c03e20ed2064b112167445414d; Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Reachability Problems in Computational Models (RP 2008)
  13. 13.
    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), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TYJ-43P387P-19/2/cd72ba7ccb5f3c2a2b65eb3c45aa2ca7
  14. 14.
    Reith, S., Wagner, K.W.: The complexity of problems defined by boolean circuits. In: Proceedings International Conference Mathematical Foundation of Informatics (MFI 1999), pp. 25–28. World Science Publishing (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sevenster, M.: Model-theoretic and computational properties of modal dependence logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 1157–1173 (2009), http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/exn102v1 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Väänänen, J.: Dependence logic: A new approach to independence friendly logic. London Mathematical Society student texts, vol. 70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Väänänen, J.: Modal dependence logic. In: Apt, K.R., van Rooij, R. (eds.) New Perspectives on Games and Interaction, Texts in Logic and Games, vol. 4, pp. 237–254. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Lohmann
    • 1
  • Heribert Vollmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Theoretische InformatikLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations