Yanjing Wang

Yipu Li, Yanjing Wang · pku

Aristotle's discussions on modal syllogistic have often been viewed as error-prone and have garnered significant attention in the literature due to historical and philosophical interests. However, from a contemporary standpoint, they also introduced natural fragments of first-order modal logic, warranting a comprehensive technical analysis. In this paper, drawing inspiration from the natural logic program, we propose and examine several variants of modal syllogistic within the epistemic context, thereby coining the term Epistemic Syllogistic. Specifically, we concentrate on the de re interpretation of epistemic syllogisms containing non-trivial yet natural expressions such as "all things known to be A are also known to be not B." We explore the epistemic apodeictic syllogistic and its extensions, which accommodate more complex terms. Our main contributions include several axiomatizations of these logics, with completeness proofs that may be of independent interest.

Bin Liu, Yanjing Wang

Distributed knowledge is a key concept in the standard epistemic logic of knowledge-that. In this paper, we propose a corresponding notion of distributed knowledge-how and study its logic. Our framework generalizes two existing traditions in the logic of know-how: the individual-based multi-step framework and the coalition-based single-step framework. In particular, we assume a group can accomplish more than what its individuals can jointly do. The distributed knowledge-how is based on the distributed knowledge-that of a group whose multi-step strategies derive from distributed actions that subgroups can collectively perform. As the main result, we obtain a sound and strongly complete proof system for our logic of distributed knowledge-how, which closely resembles the logic of distributed knowledge-that in both the axioms and the proof method of completeness.

Yanjun Li, Yanjing Wang

Various planning-based know-how logics have been studied in the recent literature. In this paper, we use such a logic to do know-how-based planning via model checking. In particular, we can handle the higher-order epistemic planning involving know-how formulas as the goal, e.g., find a plan to make sure p such that the adversary does not know how to make p false in the future. We give a PTIME algorithm for the model checking problem over finite epistemic transition systems and axiomatize the logic under the assumption of perfect recall.

Michael Cohen, Wen Tang, Yanjing Wang

In this paper, we propose a lightweight yet powerful dynamic epistemic logic that captures not only the distinction between de dicto and de re knowledge but also the distinction between de dicto and de re updates. The logic is based on the dynamified version of an epistemic language extended with the assignment operator borrowed from dynamic logic, following the work of Wang and Seligman (Proc. AiML 2018). We obtain complete axiomatizations for the counterparts of public announcement logic and event-model-based DEL based on new reduction axioms taking care of the interactions between dynamics and assignments.

Yanjing Wang, Jeremy Seligman

In standard epistemic logic, agent names are usually assumed to be common knowledge implicitly. This is unreasonable for various applications. Inspired by term modal logic and assignment operators in dynamic logic, we introduce a lightweight modal predicate logic where names can be non-rigid. The language can handle various de dicto and de re distinctions in a natural way. The main technical result is a complete axiomatisation of this logic over S5 models.

Jixin Liu, Yanjing Wang, Yifeng Ding

Weakly Aggregative Modal Logic (WAML) is a collection of disguised polyadic modal logics with n-ary modalities whose arguments are all the same. WAML has some interesting applications on epistemic logic and logic of games, so we study some basic model theoretical aspects of WAML in this paper. Specifically, we give a van Benthem-Rosen characterization theorem of WAML based on an intuitive notion of bisimulation and show that each basic WAML system K_n lacks Craig Interpolation.

Anantha Padmanabha, R. Ramanujam, Yanjing Wang

Quantified modal logic provides a natural logical language for reasoning about modal attitudes even while retaining the richness of quantification for referring to predicates over domains. But then most fragments of the logic are undecidable, over many model classes. Over the years, only a few fragments (such as the monodic) have been shown to be decidable. In this paper, we study fragments that bundle quantifiers and modalities together, inspired by earlier work on epistemic logics of know-how/why/what. As always with quantified modal logics, it makes a significant difference whether the domain stays the same across worlds, or not. In particular, we show that the bundle $\forall \Box$ is undecidable over constant domain interpretations, even with only monadic predicates, whereas $\exists \Box$ bundle is decidable. On the other hand, over increasing domain interpretations, we get decidability with both $\forall \Box$ and $\exists \Box$ bundles with unrestricted predicates. In these cases, we also obtain tableau based procedures that run in \PSPACE. We further show that the $\exists \Box$ bundle cannot distinguish between constant domain and increasing domain interpretations.

Yanjing Wang

Recent years witnessed a growing interest in non-standard epistemic logics of knowing whether, knowing how, knowing what, knowing why and so on. The new epistemic modalities introduced in those logics all share, in their semantics, the general schema of $\exists x \Box φ$, e.g., knowing how to achieve $φ$ roughly means that there exists a way such that you know that it is a way to ensure that $φ$. Moreover, the resulting logics are decidable. Inspired by those particular logics, in this work, we propose a very general and powerful framework based on quantifier-free predicate language extended by a new modality $\Box^x$, which packs exactly $\exists x \Box$ together. We show that the resulting language, though much more expressive, shares many good properties of the basic propositional modal logic over arbitrary models, such as finite-tree-model property and van Benthem-like characterization w.r.t.\ first-order modal logic. We axiomatize the logic over S5 frames with intuitive axioms to capture the interaction between $\Box^x$ and know-that operator in an epistemic setting.

Raul Fervari, Andreas Herzig, Yanjun Li et al.

In this paper, we propose a single-agent logic of goal-directed knowing how extending the standard epistemic logic of knowing that with a new knowing how operator. The semantics of the new operator is based on the idea that knowing how to achieve $φ$ means that there exists a (uniform) strategy such that the agent knows that it can make sure $φ$. We give an intuitive axiomatization of our logic and prove the soundness, completeness, and decidability of the logic. The crucial axioms relating knowing that and knowing how illustrate our understanding of knowing how in this setting. This logic can be used in representing both knowledge-that and knowledge-how.

Chao Xu, Yanjing Wang, Thomas Studer

When we say "I know why he was late", we know not only the fact that he was late, but also an explanation of this fact. We propose a logical framework of "knowing why" inspired by the existing formal studies on why-questions, scientific explanation, and justification logic. We introduce the Ky_i operator into the language of epistemic logic to express "agent i knows why phi" and propose a Kripke-style semantics of such expressions in terms of knowing an explanation of phi. We obtain two sound and complete axiomatizations w.r.t. two different model classes depending on different assumptions about introspection.

Thomas Ågotnes, Hans van Ditmarsch, Yanjing Wang

A true lie is a lie that becomes true when announced. In a logic of announcements, where the announcing agent is not modelled, a true lie is a formula (that is false and) that becomes true when announced. We investigate true lies and other types of interaction between announced formulas, their preconditions and their postconditions, in the setting of Gerbrandy's logic of believed announcements, wherein agents may have or obtain incorrect beliefs. Our results are on the satisfiability and validity of instantiations of these semantically defined categories, on iterated announcements, including arbitrarily often iterated announcements, and on syntactic characterization. We close with results for iterated announcements in the logic of knowledge (instead of belief), and for lying as private announcements (instead of public announcements) to different agents. Detailed examples illustrate our lying concepts.

Quan Yu, Yanjun Li, Yanjing Wang

In this paper, we introduce a lightweight dynamic epistemic logical framework for automated planning under initial uncertainty. We reduce plan verification and conformant planning to model checking problems of our logic. We show that the model checking problem of the iteration-free fragment is PSPACE-complete. By using two non-standard (but equivalent) semantics, we give novel model checking algorithms to the full language and the iteration-free language.

Yanjing Wang

Epistemic logic has become a major field of philosophical logic ever since the groundbreaking work by Hintikka (1962). Despite its various successful applications in theoretical computer science, AI, and game theory, the technical development of the field has been mainly focusing on the propositional part, i.e., the propositional modal logics of "knowing that". However, knowledge is expressed in everyday life by using various other locutions such as "knowing whether", "knowing what", "knowing how" and so on (knowing-wh hereafter). Such knowledge expressions are better captured in quantified epistemic logic, as was already discussed by Hintikka (1962) and his sequel works at length. This paper aims to draw the attention back again to such a fascinating but largely neglected topic. We first survey what Hintikka and others did in the literature of quantified epistemic logic, and then advocate a new quantifier-free approach to study the epistemic logics of knowing-wh, which we believe can balance expressivity and complexity, and capture the essential reasoning patterns about knowing-wh. We survey our recent line of work on the epistemic logics of "knowing whether", "knowing what" and "knowing how" to demonstrate the use of this new approach.

Tao Gu, Yanjing Wang

Recent years witness a growing interest in nonstandard epistemic logics of "knowing whether", "knowing what", "knowing how", and so on. These logics are usually not normal, i.e., the standard axioms and reasoning rules for modal logic may be invalid. In this paper, we show that the conditional "knowing value" logic proposed by Wang and Fan \cite{WF13} can be viewed as a disguised normal modal logic by treating the negation of the Kv operator as a special diamond. Under this perspective, it turns out that the original first-order Kripke semantics can be greatly simplified by introducing a ternary relation $R_i^c$ in standard Kripke models, which associates one world with two $i$-accessible worlds that do not agree on the value of constant $c$. Under intuitive constraints, the modal logic based on such Kripke models is exactly the one studied by Wang and Fan (2013,2014}. Moreover, there is a very natural binary generalization of the "knowing value" diamond, which, surprisingly, does not increase the expressive power of the logic. The resulting logic with the binary diamond has a transparent normal modal system, which sharpens our understanding of the "knowing value" logic and simplifies some previously hard problems.

Kai Li, Yanjing Wang

In the literature of game theory, the information sets of extensive form games have different interpretations, which may lead to confusions and paradoxical cases. We argue that the problem lies in the mix-up of two interpretations of the extensive form game structures: game rules or game runs which do not always coincide. In this paper, we try to separate and connect these two views by proposing a dynamic epistemic framework in which we can compute the runs step by step from the game rules plus the given assumptions of the players. We propose a modal logic to describe players' knowledge and its change during the plays, and provide a complete axiomatization. We also show that, under certain conditions, the mix-up of the rules and the runs is not harmful due to the structural similarity of the two.

Yanjing Wang

In this paper, we propose a single-agent modal logic framework for reasoning about goal-direct "knowing how" based on ideas from linguistics, philosophy, modal logic and automated planning. We first define a modal language to express "I know how to guarantee phi given psi" with a semantics not based on standard epistemic models but labelled transition systems that represent the agent's knowledge of his own abilities. A sound and complete proof system is given to capture the valid reasoning patterns about "knowing how" where the most important axiom suggests its compositional nature.

Jie Fan, Yanjing Wang, Hans van Ditmarsch

Knowing whether a proposition is true means knowing that it is true or knowing that it is false. In this paper, we study logics with a modal operator Kw for knowing whether but without a modal operator K for knowing that. This logic is not a normal modal logic, because we do not have Kw (phi -> psi) -> (Kw phi -> Kw psi). Knowing whether logic cannot define many common frame properties, and its expressive power less than that of basic modal logic over classes of models without reflexivity. These features make axiomatizing knowing whether logics non-trivial. We axiomatize knowing whether logic over various frame classes. We also present an extension of knowing whether logic with public announcement operators and we give corresponding reduction axioms for that. We compare our work in detail to two recent similar proposals.