Modal Logic

In Isabelle/HOL, we apply the deep-and-shallow embedding methodology of our prior work to monadic second-order logic (MSO). Three embeddings are developed side by side: a deep embedding (an inductive datatype with an explicit satisfaction relation); a maximal-shallow embedding that translates the connectives and quantifiers directly into HOL, carrying the interpretation and both assignments explicitly; and a minimal-shallow embedding -- a locale that fixes those parameters, collapsing the formula type to bool. The enabling new ingredient is a two-sorted substitution apparatus -- capture-avoiding substitution, renaming, and a substitution lemma per namespace -- in which each binder is transparent for the other; faithfulness of all three embeddings is mechanised and largely automated. Our central contribution is a fully mechanised two-sorted downward Loewenheim-Skolem theorem: the minimal embedding recovers deep validity relative to the (countable) assignment ranges, and this range-relative reading is shown to coincide with the general (Henkin-style) reading of MSO, whereas the standard reading validates strictly more formulas, witnessed by comprehension. Both readings are nonetheless recovered from the minimal embedding, differing only in the admitted interpretations: all of them for the general reading, only the elementary substructures of the full model for the standard. We exercise the embeddings on classical MSO landmarks: the Boolean-closure and graph schemata hold under the full second-order domain yet fail in the minimal embedding, making the dichotomy concrete, while reachability and 2-colorability are refuted throughout.

We present a theory of textured appearance of optically rough surfaces based on wave optics, emphasizing the role of texture for passive depth from focus. Our theory shows that even surfaces that traditional computer vision would consider textureless can produce textured appearance, due to subjective speckle from surface microgeometry. We analyze the properties of this second-order texture, and show that we can enhance its contrast under natural ambient lighting by simply using a narrowband spectral filter. Doing so results in dramatic improvements in passive depth reconstruction of seemingly textureless scenes, as we demonstrate through extensive theory, simulations, and real-world experiments.

The emergence of the ISO standard GQL introduces a powerful query language extending first-order logic with controlled recursion, raising the question of its applicability to evaluation of ontology-mediated queries (OMQs). We focus on OMQs consisting of atomic queries over ontologies expressed in Horn-ALCHI, an expressive Description Logic that is not, in general, first-order rewritable. To address this, we introduce DL automata, a novel formalism that captures the semantics of such OMQs via runs over fact sets. We then identify a large class of DL automata that can be rewritten into unions of conjunctive two-way regular path queries (UC2RPQs), a central fragment of GQL. Our class of automata relies on a stratification of their states, ruling out specific forms of cyclic dependencies known to raise the complexity. This yields a broad class of Horn-ALCHI OMQs that are GQL-rewritable.

Description logic programs are a powerful formalism for combining rules with ontologies. The well-supported semantics for description logic programs ensures that no answer sets rely on cyclic dependencies. Most popular semantics for logic programming have this property of well-supportedness. We recognize two limitations of the current well-supported semantics for DL programs: its increased computational complexity for the consistency problem and its lack of a reduct transformation characterization. In this work, we present a new semantics which evaluates ontological atoms more strictly than the current semantics. This keeps the complexity of its consistency problem NP-complete, rather than increasing it to the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Additionally, we identify a syntactic class of description logic programs for which our new semantics is equivalent to the current semantics. We characterize our semantics using a fixpoint operator and a reduct-based transformation. Our new semantics is a strict subset of the current well-supported semantics, so it maintains the prior notion of well-supportedness while inducing its own stricter notion. We prefer our new notion of well-supportedness due to its similarities with logic programming.

While the integration of linear constraints has significantly expanded the reach of Answer Set Programming (ASP), existing hybrid solvers often rely on disparate semantic underpinnings that lack a unified logical foundation. We address this gap by introducing a many-sorted variant of the Bound-founded Logic of Here-and-There (HTb), providing a versatile framework capable of characterizing equilibrium models across a wide spectrum of alternative semantics for extensions of ASP with linear constraints. We apply this framework to the setting of difference constraints, focusing on the semantic characterization of clingo[DL]. Central to our approach is the formalization of foundedness for numeric variables. By investigating how different hybrid systems - such as clingo[DL], clingcon, and flingo - justify constraint atoms, we uncover the semantic roots of their varying behaviors. This investigation results in a single, consistent framework that not only formalizes the foundations of current systems like clingo[DL] but also facilitates the rigorous study of program simplifications and the future integration of diverse semantic principles.

Grounding, the translation of high-level theories into equivalent quantifier-free formulas, is a crucial step in declarative solving, yet it has so far escaped the proof-logging revolution. When this grounding step is not certifying, there is no way of knowing that the obtained solutions actually correspond to the original problem specification, resulting in a trust gap. In this paper, we close the trust gap between the user's high-level specification and the solver's low-level input by introducing a novel certifying grounding framework for first-order logic model expansion (FOX) over finite domains. We present CertiFOX, a framework consisting of: (1) a proof format for grounding derivations, (2) GroundFOX, a certifying grounder operating on theories in Grounding Normal Form (GNF)--a new normal form designed for compact, domain-aware grounding--and (3) CheckFOX, an independent proof checker. Our approach guarantees that the grounder's output is equivalent to the input specification, setting the stage for trustworthy end-to-end certified solving pipelines for declarative languages. Experimental evaluation confirms that CertiFOX is a feasible approach. The GroundFOX grounder is broadly comparable with other grounders, and proof checking with CheckFOX adds overhead within a small constant factor of grounding time.

We present the interactions with an LLM (Large Language Model) aiming at proving that the square root of 2 is not a rational number in an LP (Logic Programming) context. We start from a few basic pure logic programming predicate definitions. We rely on the LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover) system for stating and proving properties about logic programs. As the proof language of LPTP is based on natural deduction, the proofs are human readable. In our case study, we sketch in LPTP the usual proof showing the irrationality of the square root of 2. Then we describe the interactions we had with the LLM. We end up with a complete formal proof, partially generated by an LLM and fully proof-checked by LPTP.

In this work we propose a dynamic turn in paraconsistency. We introduce AMLFI1, the action model extension of the paraconsistent logic LFI1. A special case is PALFI1, a paraconsistent logic of public announcements. It corresponds to another, recently published, paraconsistent public announcement logic: the differences in their axiomatizations are mutually admissible. We also introduce UMLFI1, that extends AMLFI1 with factual change. Soundness and completeness are proven for all logics, and all extend the epistemic paraconsistent logics KLFI1, KB4LFI1 and S5LFI1, known from the literature. With such dynamic epistemic paraconsistent logics we can formalize obtaining and resolving provisional contradictions.

We extend, in Isabelle/HOL, the deep-and-shallow embedding methodology of our prior work from propositional to first-order modal logic (FML) with constant-domain Kripke semantics. Three embeddings of FML into classical higher-order logic (HOL) are provided side by side: a deep embedding, a heavyweight maximal-shallow embedding, and a lightweight minimal-shallow embedding. The minimal-shallow embedding is presented as an Isabelle/HOL locale, parametrised by an accessibility relation, a world-indexed interpretation, a universe of worlds, and a variable assignment; the locale form admits a global faithfulness theorem, stating that quantifying over all minimal-shallow interpretations recovers exactly deep validity. A central technical contribution is a mechanisation, for FML under constant-domain Kripke semantics, of the (countable) downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, which underpins the automation of our faithfulness proof between the deep and minimal-shallow embeddings. Deploying it inside an extension of the minimal-shallow locale resolves the surjectivity problem that arises against an uncountable domain of individuals -- where the locale's variable assignment, having countable domain V = nat, cannot be surjective onto the domain -- and thereby yields faithfulness over the full domain. Since prior work treats only the propositional fragment, we develop here the substitution machinery (free/bound-variable predicates, the fresh-variable function, capture-avoiding substitution, alphabetic renaming, the substitutability predicate, the substitution lemma, and size-based induction principles) needed for the first-order quantifiers.

We advance the hypothesis that human mathematical reasoning, constrained by both the undecidability and the computational intractability of even modest logical fragments, relies fundamentally on pattern matching from domains external to pure deduction. The most prolific reservoir of such patterns is the natural world, whose physical laws and biological systems have undergone billions of years of ``pre-computation'' and already exhibit surprisingly innovative solutions. To ground this claim, we trace the history of the Fourier transform and relevant mathematics, from the vibrating string controversy to the hear equation and subsequent formalisms prevalent in mathematics. At each critical juncture, a physics problem forced the acceptance or creation of a mathematical tool that pure formal reasoning failed to anticipate or, worse, human reasoning had resisted. We further survey the landscape of logical complexity, from NP-hard propositional satisfiability to the non-elementary decision-procedures for monadic second-order theories, to demonstrate that even when a logic is decidable, the resources required for worst-case deduction are astronomically prohibitive. We argue that these barriers make physics-inspired pattern matching not just a historical accident but a cognitive necessity. Finally, we draw the consequence for artificial intelligence: if pure reasoning is constitutively insufficient, then any system aiming at human-level mathematical creativity must embed a vast store of cross-domain patterns rather than rely on deduction alone. This furnishes a principled justification for the enormous scale of contemporary large language models.

We introduce inquisitive action logic, InqAL, a multi-agent modal logic for reasoning about action. While traditional approaches focus on what properties of the outcome an agent can force, InqAL also captures what aspects of the outcome an agent determines through their actions. As we argue, such claims of agentive determination are naturally analyzed as modal claims involving questions. Technically, InqAL is a multi-agent extension of inquisitive neighborhood logic based on concurrent game structures. With respect to statements, it is expressively equivalent to the individual-agent fragment of the socially friendly coalition logic recently proposed by Goranko and Enqvist. We present an axiomatization of InqAL and prove completeness and decidability via the finite model property. Along the way, we establish a representation theorem for actual effectivity functions, associating to an agent the sets of outcomes corresponding to their possible actions; we give exact conditions under which a multi-agent neighborhood frame arises from a concurrent game structure.

Dynamic epistemic logic represents belief change via model transformations induced by epistemic events. Its standard formulation (Baltag, Moss, Solecki, 1998) provides a natural account of belief expansion through the elimination of possibilities, but it cannot model belief contraction about factual propositions. A classic response enriches Kripke models with plausibility orderings, representing contraction as an update that promotes certain possibilities over others. We show that this approach has expressive limitations. In particular, the approach cannot model belief that violates positive introspection and contraction dynamics in response to a hedged public announcement that phi might be false. Motivated by these considerations, we introduce a mechanism for belief contraction defined directly on standard Kripke models, without any constraints on the doxastic accessibility relation. We show that it satisfies some of the standard properties of belief contraction but not others, study the conditions under which contraction may be unsuccessful, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic via reduction axioms. We also define a more general dynamic logic that is an extension of standard DEL and accommodates belief contractions due to events such as private or semi-private announcements, and provide a complete and sound axiomatization of the general logic.

We investigate a new logic that extends Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL), by combining standard epistemic modalities for (individual and distributed) propositional knowledge with operators for (conditional) non-propositional knowledge of a number (in which an agent or a group have knowledge of the value of some variable x, conditional on some additional information). We also generalize these operators, by considering formulas that express the fact that an agent or group can (conditionally) narrow down the possible values of the variable x to at most N possibilities (for some natural number N). In order to name and compare such hypothetical values, we extend the logic further with definite descriptions based on minimization operators, denoting the least of the N possible values of x (according to some fixed order) that are considered possible by the agent or group. On this static base, we consider DEL-style extensions with dynamic modalities for general 'data-exchange events' (covering private and public propositional announcements, but also secret hacking of a private database, or public sharing of one's data via open-source repositories, etc.). In such scenarios, whole 'chunks' of information may be exchanged or modified: once access to a given source is gained, all the 'data' stored at that specific location becomes available. We give complete axiomatizations for the resulting logics, and prove their decidability and co-expressivity.

ODRL policy evaluators produce verdicts, but say nothing about the normative positions a policy brings into existence, the authority structures those positions presuppose, or who holds the power to declare a norm violated. We formulate the Cross-Level Design Principle: any normative language with violable, consequential norms requires both conduct-level positions (Permission, Duty, Right, No right) and competence-level positions (Power, Subjection, Immunity, Disability). Applying this to ODRL, we establish that prohibition is sanctioned (violation possible and consequential), that permission is underspecified across its behaviour parameter (open vs. closed world), and that the formal semantics covers achievement obligations only. We ground ODRL in UFO-L, mapping each activated rule to a simple legal relator and extending coverage from two to eight legal positions; violation-declaration authority, implicit in every existing evaluator, becomes an explicit Power-Subjection pair. All axioms are mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL and across a 39-problem benchmark under Vampire, E, and Z3.

Belief revision is a process in which an agent begins to believe in something she previously did not. I begin the paper by presenting, based on (Gärdenfors, 1998; Hansson, 1999), postulates for belief revision that constitute the basis of the AGM theory. I will then briefly show the semantics of a modal logic introduced in (van Ditmarsch, 2005), which I call $P$'. This logic formalizes static epistemic states and has greater expressive power than AGM in doing so because it captures the quantitative notion of "degrees of conviction". The third step is to introduce revision operators on $P$ and, mostly following (van Ditmarsch, 2005), obtain the Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) I call $P*$'. It models processes of belief revision in several ways. Original results are presented in the following two sections. The first one of these sections revolves around a formalization of AGM postulates within $P*$ by proving some theorems related to the satisfaction of those postulates by revisions defined in $P*$. The last section features an analysis of $P*$'s revisions that go beyond the mere satisfaction of postulates. I compare their formal behavior with respect to some philosophical criteria. At last, I conclude that the functions presented in (van Ditmarsch, 2005) are not good formalizations of the philosophical intuition behind AGM. Instead, it is captured by the function $*^0$ originally defined in this paper (but highly inspired by (van Benthem, 2007)). An implementation of this function is also provided.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in reasoning, particularly in deductive reasoning, which is crucial for high-stakes decision-making. As models improve, evaluation benchmarks should evolve to keep pace. However, existing benchmarks lack fine-grained control over logical complexity and struggle to balance semantic diversity with logical consistency. To address these issues, we propose QMFOL, an automated framework for generating monadic first-order logic reasoning tasks with quantifiable and controllable complexity. It constructs formal logical structures using conjunction and disjunction patterns, enabling precise control over reasoning depth, width, label types, and distractors. These structures are then translated into natural language via LLMs, with logical consistency ensured through round-trip verification using an external prover. Based on our framework, we build QMFOLBench, a benchmark comprising 2880 instances with 960 configurations across diverse logical and semantic dimensions. Evaluations on six large reasoning models (LRMs) and two LLMs show that performance degrades and computational overhead increases with rising logical complexity. Models perform better on True-labeled tasks than on False or Unknown ones, and exhibit sensitivity to semantic variation. Overall, QMFOL offers a scalable and reliable approach for constructing deductive reasoning benchmarks with controllable complexity, enabling more precise evaluation of reasoning capabilities in modern language models.

Bridges between graph neural networks (GNNs) and logical formalisms have been established by fixing architectural choices, such as the types of aggregation, combination, and activation functions. These choices define restricted classes of GNNs for which tight correspondences with logical formalisms can be obtained, by showing that logical formulae can be translated into equivalent GNNs and, conversely, that GNNs can be translated into equivalent formulae. In this paper we take a semantic perspective by establishing the logical expressiveness of classes of GNN classifiers that are preserved under structural properties: embeddings (extensions), injective homomorphisms, and homomorphisms. We show that, for each such property, there exists a fragment of graded modal logic characterising the class of GNNs. In particular, preservation under embeddings, injective homomorphisms, and homomorphisms corresponds to existential graded modal logic, its existential-positive fragment, and existential-positive modal logic, respectively. These results characterise the expressiveness of broad classes of GNNs independently of specific architectural choices, but we also show that each of these classes admits a GNN architecture of the same expressiveness. Technically, our approach uses a new well-quasi-order result for trees of bounded height, yielding finite representations of unravelling-invariant classes.

Proof assistants based on expressive logics suffer limited automation for proof search, raising the cost of formal verification based on proof assistants. We address this problem by introducing the Abduction Prover for Isabelle/HOL. Given a challenging proof goal, the Abduction Prover constructs a proof script for the goal by identifying useful conjectures using abductive reasoning.

Recent work in defeasible reasoning has seen notions of preferential semantics and entailment in the style of Kraus et al. applied to modal logics. However, work in this field has focussed primarily on satisfiability checking, and monotonic notions of entailment, which may be inferentially weak. One particular modal logic where this has been introduced is propositional standpoint logics, where modalities can express the views of different viewpoints. This has resulted in the formalisation of propositional defeasible standpoint logic (PDSL). In this paper, we propose a means of lifting the class of (non-monotonic) rational entailment relations from traditional KLM-style reasoning to a fragment of PDSL. In order to do so, we extend the expressivity of PDSL via situated standpoint conditionals, allowing us to talk about a defeasible conditional holding in the context of a given standpoint. This allows us to re-characterise the syntax of PDSL in terms of situated conditionals, and shows that a large fragment of PDSL is expressible as a set of situated conditionals. We then focus on characterising non-monotonic entailment in this fragment, defining a method to transport any ranking-based entailment relation from the propositional case into the PDSL case. This is first described in the general case and then considered in the specific cases of rational and lexicographic closures, providing a faithful translation of each inference into PDSL. We also show that entailment-checking in this fragment of PDSL can be done largely using algorithms from the propositional case, while preserving complexity bounds.

Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential---yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of \textsf{FOLIO} and a subset of \textsf{MALLS} test instances, finding that approximately 42.5% and 42% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (17.8% and 51%) and incorrect NLI labels in \textsf{FOLIO} (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +11 to +23 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 20% of instances, compared to over 76% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.

This position statement looks back on two decades of work on shallow embeddings of non-classical logics in classical higher-order logic (HOL), a line of research that expanded into a range of logic embeddings in HOL and inspired the LogiKEy logic-pluralistic knowledge representation and reasoning methodology. This paper advances the case for logical pluralism at object-logic level within a unifying meta-logical framework such as LogiKEy, grounding the argument in computational metaphysics. More broadly, it advocates principled support for logical pluralism in modern proof assistants, and cautions against logical imperialism -- the rigid adoption of a single foundational logic for large-scale theory developments -- which impedes the interdisciplinary reuse that LogiKEy is designed to enable.

Translating formal language into natural language is a foundational challenge in NLP, driving various downstream applications in semantic parsing, theorem validation, and question answering. In this study, we introduce First-Order Logic to Natural Sentence (FOL2NS), a neurosymbolic framework designed to generate synthetic FOL formulas and convert them into natural human expressions. It handles deeply nested structures with varying quantifier depths (QD), which are rarely captured by existing corpora. By combining rule-driven modules with fine-tuned language models, FOL2NS enhances the diversity and coverage of the generated samples. In our experiments, we systematically evaluate the framework's capabilities through both character-level analysis and overall performance metrics. Experimental results show that FOL2NS can reliably produce well-formed templates and fluent statements, but it faces challenges in achieving precise semantic representations and natural generation as structural complexity increases.

Future planetary exploration envisions autonomous robotic agents operating under severe communication constraints, without global positioning, and with minimal human intervention. In such environments, agents must not only perceive and act, but also reason over mission objectives, operational constraints, and evolving environmental conditions. While prior work has largely focused on perception and control, the translation of high-level mission knowledge into structured, machine-interpretable representations remains underexplored. We introduce a pilot benchmark for translating natural language (NL) into First-Order Logic (FOL) within the domain of planetary exploration. The dataset is constructed from real mission documentation sourced from NASA's Planetary Data System (PDS), spanning missions from 2003 to 2013. These documents describe mission phases such as launch, boost, coast, cruise, and orbital operations in rich natural language. We manually annotate these documents with corresponding FOL representations that capture temporal structure, agent roles, and operational dependencies. In addition, we provide structured predicate vocabularies and typed constants to enable controlled experimentation with varying levels of prior knowledge. This pilot benchmark provides a foundation for research at the intersection of language understanding and formal reasoning, grounded in real-world, safety-critical mission data. The dataset is provided at: https://github.com/HaydenMM/planetary-logic-benchmark/blob/main/pilot_benchmark.json

Strong equivalence between knowledge bases ensures the possibility of replacing one with the other without affecting reasoning outcomes, in any given context. This makes it a crucial property in nonmonotonic formalisms. In particular, the fields of logic programming and abstract argumentation provide primary examples in which this property has been subject to vast investigations. However, while (classes of) logic programs and abstract argumentation frameworks are known to be semantically equivalent in static settings, this alignment breaks in dynamic contexts due to differing notions of update. As a result, strong equivalence does not always carry over from one formalism to the other. In this paper, we carefully investigate this discrepancy and introduce a new notion of strong equivalence for logic programs. Our approach preserves strong equivalence under translation between certain classes of logic programs and both Dung-style and claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, thus restoring compatibility across these formalisms.

Discrepancies between an agent's actual knowledge and what a person thinks the agent knows can hinder interactions. If an agent could detect such discrepancies, it could provide feedback to account for them and improve current and future interactions. Using the I-POMDP as a framework for a second-order Theory of Mind (ToM-2), this work endows an agent with the ability to model the evolution of a person's erroneous beliefs about an agent and the cognitive biases and heuristics (CBH) from which they arise. In doing so, the agent can detect when CBH might be at play during an interaction and adaptively generate feedback that accounts for them. An in-person user study shows how a ToM-2 learner can account for the effects of a teacher's CBH to significantly improve the informativeness of teacher actions, and subjective results suggest people find the ToM-2 learner's feedback more useful.

Progression, the task of updating a knowledge base to reflect action effects, generally requires second-order logic. Identifying first-order special cases, by restricting either the knowledge base or action effects, has long been a central topic in reasoning about actions. It is known that local-effect, normal, and acyclic actions, three increasingly expressive classes, admit first-order progression. However, a systematic analysis of the size of such progressions, crucial for practical applications, has been missing. In this paper, using the framework of Situation Calculus, we show that under reasonable assumptions, first-order progression for these action classes grows only polynomially. Moreover, we show that when the KB belongs to decidable fragments such as two-variable first-order logic or universal theories with constants, the progression remains within the same fragment, ensuring decidability and practical applicability.

The counting power of Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNN) has been the subject of many recent papers, showing that they can express logic that involves counting up to a threshold or more generally satisfy a linear arithmetic constraint. In this paper, we study the counting capabilities of MPNN beyond linear arithmetic, primarily utilising local and global mean aggregations. In particular, our goal is to tease out conditions required to express extensions of graded modal logic with polynomial counting constraints. We show that global polynomial counting constraints in node-labelled graphs can be checked using mean MPNN under mild assumptions. Checking local constraints is also possible, if we consider formulas with no nested modalities and additionally either (i) permit sum/max aggregations, or (ii) only restrict to regular graphs. We also show how formulas with nested modalities can be captured by mean MPNN over graphs with tree-like structures and similar assumptions.

Weighted first-order model counting (WFOMC) is a central task in lifted probabilistic inference: It asks for the weighted sum of all models of a first-order sentence over a finite domain. A long line of work has identified domain-liftable fragments of first-order logic, that is, syntactic classes for which WFOMC can be solved in time polynomial in the domain size. Among them, the two-variable fragment with counting quantifiers, $\mathbf{C}^2$, is one of the most expressive known liftable fragments. Existing algorithms for $\mathbf{C}^2$, however, establish tractability through multi-stage reductions that eliminate counting quantifiers via cardinality constraints, which introduces substantial practical overhead as the domain size grows. In this paper, we introduce IncrementalWFOMC3, a lifted algorithm for WFOMC on $\mathbf{C}^2$ and its modulo counting extension, $\mathbf{C}^2_{\text{mod}}$. Instead of relying on reduction techniques, IncrementalWFOMC3 operates directly on a Scott normal form that retains counting quantifiers throughout inference. This direct treatment yields two main results. First, we derive a tighter data-complexity bound for WFOMC in $\mathbf{C}^2$, reducing the degree of the polynomial from quadratic to linear in the counting parameters. Second, we prove that $\mathbf{C}^2_{\text{mod}}$ is domain-liftable, extending tractability from $\mathbf{C}^2$ to a richer fragment with native modulo counting support. Finally, our empirical evaluation shows that IncrementalWFOMC3 delivers orders-of-magnitude runtime improvements and better scalability than both existing WFOMC algorithms and state-of-the-art propositional model counters.

SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) expresses constraints on RDF data by means of so-called shapes. Its central service is validation: verifying whether a data graph complies with a SHACL document. But so far, there are no static analysis services to compare documents. In this paper, we study the following problem: decide whether all graphs that validate one SHACL document also validate another. Unlike previous works that have considered the implication of shape expressions only, we consider documents comprising (recursive) shape definitions and targets. We show that implication (a.k.a. containment) is undecidable under the supported and the stable model semantics, even for the fragment that uses the description logic ALCIO for shape expressions. Under the well-founded semantics, in surprising contrast, it is decidable in single exponential time. Our key technical contribution is a translation of SHACL under the well-founded semantics into the full hybrid mu-calculus, revealing a novel link between well-founded models and a fixed point modal logic, and a worst-case optimal automata-based decision procedure.

We study the problem of fitting a description logic (DL) ontology to a given set of positive and negative examples that take the form of an ABox and a Boolean query. While previous work has investigated this problem for the expressive DLs ALC and ALCI, we here focus on the Horn DLs EL and ELI, as well as their extensions with the bottom concept. As the query language, we consider atomic queries (AQs), conjunctive queries (CQs), and unions thereof (UCQs). We provide characterization of the existence of a fitting ontology based on simulations, use them to develop decision procedures, and clarify the exact computational complexity. For AQs, the problem is in PTime for both EL and ELI. For CQs and UCQs, it is $Σ_2^P$-complete for EL and ExpTime-complete for ELI. Adding the bottom concept does not change any of these complexities. Interestingly, moving from ALC and ALCI to EL and ELI introduces additional technical challenges rather than simplifying the matter.

ULLER (Unified Language for LEarning and Reasoning) offers a unified first-order logic (FOL) syntax, enabling its knowledge bases to be used directly across a wide range of neurosymbolic systems. The original specification endows this syntax with three pairwise independent semantics: classical, fuzzy, and probabilistic, each accompanied by dedicated semantic rules. We show that these seemingly disparate semantics are all instances of one categorical framework based on monads, the very construct that models side effects in functional programming. This enables the modular addition of new semantics and systematic translations between them. As example, we outline the addition of generalised quantification in Logic Tensor Networks (LTN) to arbitrary (also infinite) domains by extending the Giry monad to probability spaces. In particular, our approach allows a modular implementation of ULLER in Python and Haskell, of which we have published initial versions on GitHub.

The plan existence problem asks, given a goal in the form of a formula in modal logic, an initial epistemic state (a pointed Kripke model), and a set of epistemic actions, whether there exists a sequence of actions that can be applied to reach the goal. We prove that even in the case where the preconditions of the epistemic actions have modal depth at most 1, and there are no postconditions, the plan existence problem is undecidable. The (un)decidability of this problem was previously unknown.

Defeasible statements are statements that are likely, or probable, or usually true, but may occasionally be false. Plausible reasoning makes conclusions from statements that are either facts or defeasible statements without using numbers. So there are no probabilities or suchlike involved. Seventeen principles of logics that do plausible reasoning are suggested and several important plausible reasoning examples are considered. There are 14 necessary principles and 3 desirable principles, one of which is not formally stated. A first-order logic, called Plausible Logic (PL), is defined that satisfies all but two of the desirable principles and reasons correctly with all the examples. As far as we are aware, this is the only such logic. PL has 8 reasoning algorithms because, from a given plausible reasoning situation, there are different sensible conclusions. This article is a condensation of my book `Plausible Reasoning and Plausible Logic' (PRPL), which is to be submitted. Each section of this article corresponds to a chapter in PRPL, and vice versa. The proofs of all the results are in PRPL, so they are omitted in this article.

Decidability or complexity issues about the consistency problem for description logics with concrete domains have already been analysed with tableaux-based or type elimination methods. Concrete domains in ontologies are essential to consider concrete objects and predefined relations. In this work, we expose an automata-based approach leading to the optimal upper bound EXPTIME, that is designed by enriching the transitions with symbolic constraints. We show that the nonemptiness problem for such automata belongs to EXPTIME if the concrete domains satisfy a few simple properties. Then, we provide a reduction from the consistency problem for ontologies, yielding EXPTIME-membership. Thanks to the expressivity of constraint automata, the results are extended to additional ingredients such as inverse roles, functional role names and constraint assertions, while maintaining EXPTIME-membership, which illustrates the robustness of the approach