justification logic is a family of logics of justified beliefs . where epistemic modal logic treats formulas of the form @xmath1 with the intended meaning that an agent knows / believes @xmath2 , in justification logic we consider formulas of the form @xmath3 with the intended meaning that @xmath4 is a justification for @xmath2 - or that the agent has justification @xmath4 for @xmath2 .
the first justification logic was lp , the logic of proofs , and appeared in @xcite by artemov , but it has since developed in a wide system of explicit epistemic logics with notable complexity properties that significantly differ from the corresponding modal logics : while every single - agent justification logic whose complexity has been studied has its derivability problem in @xmath5 ( the second level of the polynomial hierarchy ) , the corresponding modal logics have -complete derivability problems .
furthermore certain significant fragments of these justification logics have an even lower complexity- , or even   in some cases . for an overview of justification logic see @xcite . for an overview of complexity results of ( single - agent ) justification logic , see @xcite .    in epistemic situations we often have multiple agents , so
as it is the case with modal logic , there is a need for a multi - agent justification logic . in @xcite , yavorskaya presents two - agent variations of lp .
these logics feature interactions between the two agents justifications : for @xmath6 , for instance , every justification for agent 1 can be converted to a justification for agent 2 for the same fact and we have the axiom @xmath7 , while @xmath8 comes with the extra axiom @xmath9 , so agent 2 is aware of agent 1 s justifications .    in @xcite
, we extended yavorskaya s logics to two - agent variations of other justification logics , as well as to combinations of two different justification logics .
we then gave tableau procedures to prove that most of these logics were in the second step of the polynomial hierarchy , an expected result which mimics the ones for single - agent justification logics from @xcite .
for some cases , however , we were able to prove -completeness , which was a new phenomenon for justification logic .
in this paper we continue our work from @xcite .
we provide a general family of multi - agent logics .
each member of this family we call @xmath10 , where @xmath11 are parameters of the logic . for @xmath10 we consider @xmath12 agents and the interactions between the agents justifications are described by binary relations on agents , @xmath13 and @xmath14 .
furthermore , not all agents are equally reliable : @xmath15 and @xmath16 are sets of agents , all agents in @xmath15 have consistent beliefs and all agents in @xmath16 have true beliefs .
these concepts are made precise in section [ multidefinitions ] .
it is our goal to provide a flexible system capable of modelling situations of many diverse agents , or diverse types of justifications , allowing for reasonably general interactions among their justifications .    for this family of logics
we provide semantics and a general tableau procedure and then we make observations on the complexity of the derivation problem for its members . in particular , we demonstrate that all logics in this family have their satisfiability problem in - under reasonable assumptions .
this family demonstrates significant variety , as it also includes - and -complete members , while of course some of its members have their satisfiability problem in @xmath17 .
this is a somewhat surprising result , as all single - agent justification logics whose complexity is known have their satisfiability problem in @xmath17 .
this paper is organised as follows . in section [ multidefinitions ] ,
we give the base definitions of the syntax , axioms and semantics for each logic in the family .
then we reintroduce the star calculus , an invaluable tool , and our first complexity results , mirroring the ones for single - agent justification logic ( see @xcite ) .
the version of the star calculus we provide is somewhat different than the usual ones in that it is based on a given frame .
if the frame includes a single world , we get the usual , more familiar version . in section [ tableaux ]
we give general tableau rules for each of our logics .
naturally , the rules are parameterized by the logic s parameters , including the interactions between the agents , so special attention is given in that section to these interactions .
we then go on and further optimize the tableau procedure with respect to the number of world - prefixes it produces ; this results in a @xmath17 upper bound for the satisfiability of a general class of logics .
in this section we present the system we study in this paper , its semantics and the basic tools we will need later on .
most of the proofs for the claims here can be adjusted from the one- or two- agent versions of justification logic .
the reader can see @xcite or @xcite for an overview of single - agent justification logic and @xcite for a two - agent version of this system .      in this paper , if @xmath18 , @xmath19 $ ] will be the set @xmath20 . for every @xmath21
, the justification terms of the language @xmath22 will include all constants @xmath23 and variables @xmath24 and if @xmath25 and @xmath26 are terms , then the following are also terms : @xmath27 , [ t_1\cdot t_2 ] , ! t_1 $ ] .
the set of terms will be referred to as @xmath28 .
we also use a set @xmath29 of propositional variables , or sentence letters .
these will usually be @xmath30
. formulas of the language @xmath22 include all propositional variables and if @xmath31 are formulas , @xmath32 $ ] and @xmath4 is a term , then the following are also formulas of @xmath22 : @xmath33 . the remaining propositional connectives , whenever needed ,
are treated as constructed from @xmath34 and @xmath35 in the usual way .
the operators @xmath36 and @xmath37 are explained by the following axioms .
intuitively , @xmath38 applies a justification for a statement @xmath39 to a justification for @xmath40 and gives a justification for @xmath41 . using @xmath42 we can combine two justifications and have a justification for anything that can be justified by any of the two initial terms - much like the concatenation of two proofs .
finally , @xmath37 is a unary operator called the proof checker . given a justification @xmath4 for @xmath2
, @xmath43 justifies the fact that @xmath4 is a justification for @xmath2 .
let @xmath18 , @xmath44 $ ] and @xmath45^{2}$ ] .
the logic @xmath46 is the logic with modus ponens as a derivation rule and the following axioms :    propositional axioms : : :    finitely many schemes of classical propositional logic ; application : : :    @xmath47   \colon_{i } \ ! }
\psi)$ ] ; concatenation : : :    @xmath48   \colon_{i } \ ! } \phi$ ] ,    @xmath49   \colon_{i } \ ! } \phi$ ] ; @xmath16-factivity : : :    for every @xmath50 ,    @xmath51 ; @xmath15-consistency : : :    for every @xmath52 ,    @xmath53 ; @xmath13-verification : : :    for every @xmath54 ,    @xmath55 ; @xmath14-conversion : : :    for every @xmath56 ,    @xmath57 ,    where in the above , @xmath2 and @xmath58 are formulas in @xmath22 , @xmath59 are terms and @xmath60 $ ] .
@xmath16-factivity and @xmath15-consistency are the usual factivity and consistency axioms for every agent in @xmath16 and @xmath15 respectively .
positive introspection is seen as a special case of @xmath13-verification - in this context , if agent @xmath61 has positive introspection , then @xmath62 .
a constant specification for @xmath63 is any set @xmath64\}.\ ] ] we say that axiom @xmath40 is justified by a constant @xmath65 for agent @xmath61 , when @xmath66 .
a constant specification is : _ axiomatically appropriate with respect to @xmath67 $ ] _ if for every @xmath68 , each axiom is justified by at least one constant , _ schematic _
if every constant justifies only a certain number of schemes from the ones above ( as a result , if @xmath65 justifies @xmath40 for @xmath61 and @xmath41 results from @xmath40 and substitution , then @xmath65 justifies @xmath41 for @xmath61 ) and _ schematically injective _ if it is schematic and every constant justifies at most one scheme .
let @xmath69 be the smallest set such that @xmath70 and for every @xmath71 , it is the case that for every @xmath72 $ ] , @xmath73 .
@xmath74 is @xmath75 , where @xmath76 just outputs all elements of @xmath69 .
@xmath77 is consistent : just map each formula to the propositional formula that is the result of removing all terms from the original one ; then , all axioms are mapped to propositional tautologies and modus ponens preserves this mapping .
we now introduce models for our logic . in the single - agent cases , m - models ( introduced in @xcite ) and f - models ( introduced in @xcite )
are used ( also in @xcite for two - agent logics ) and they are both important in the study of complexity issues . in this paper
we are mostly interested in f - models , which we will usually just call models . these are essentially kripke models with an additional machinery to accommodate justification terms .
let @xmath78 .
then , an f - model @xmath79 for @xmath80 is a quadruple @xmath81 } , ( { { \mathcal{a}}}_i)_{i \in [ n]},{\mathcal{v}})$ ] , where @xmath82 is a set , for every @xmath83 $ ] , @xmath84 is a binary relation on @xmath85 , @xmath86 and for every @xmath83 $ ] , @xmath87 .
@xmath85 is called the _ universe _ of @xmath79 and its elements are the worlds or states of the model .
@xmath88 assigns a subset of @xmath85 to each propositional variable , @xmath89 , and @xmath90 assigns a subset of @xmath85 to each pair of a justification term and a formula .
furthermore , @xmath91}$ ] will often be seen and referred to as @xmath92\times tm \times l_n { \longrightarrow}2^{w}$ ] and @xmath93 is called an admissible evidence function .
additionally , @xmath93 must satisfy the following conditions :    application closure : for any @xmath83 $ ] , formulas @xmath31 , and justification terms @xmath94 , + @xmath95    sum closure : for any @xmath83 $ ] , formula @xmath2 , and justification terms @xmath94 , + @xmath96    @xmath97-closure : for any formula @xmath71 , @xmath98 .
@xmath13-verification closure : if @xmath54 , then @xmath99    @xmath14-conversion closure : if @xmath56 , then @xmath100    @xmath13-distribution : for any formula @xmath2 , justification term @xmath4 , @xmath54 and @xmath101 , if @xmath102 and @xmath103 , then @xmath104 .
the accessibility relations , @xmath105 , must satisfy the following conditions :    * if @xmath106 , then @xmath105 must be reflexive . * if @xmath107 , then @xmath105 must be serial ( @xmath108 ) . * if @xmath109 , then for any @xmath110 , if @xmath111 , we also have @xmath112 .
has positive introspection ( i.e. @xmath113 ) , then @xmath105 is transitive . ] * for any @xmath56 , @xmath114 .
truth in the model is defined in the following way , given a state @xmath115 :    * @xmath116 and if @xmath89 is a propositional variable , then @xmath117 iff @xmath118 . * if @xmath31 are formulas , then @xmath119 if and only if @xmath120 , or @xmath121 . *
if @xmath2 is a formula and @xmath4 a term , then @xmath122
if and only if @xmath103 and @xmath123 for all @xmath124 such that @xmath125 .    a formula @xmath126 is called satisfiable if there are some @xmath127 ; we then say that @xmath79 satisfies @xmath2 in @xmath115 .
if @xmath97 is axiomatically appropriate with respect to @xmath15 , then @xmath77 is sound and complete with respect to its models ; it is also sound and complete with respect to its models that have the _ strong evidence property : _ @xmath122 iff @xmath128 _ _ ; furthermore , if @xmath2 is satisfiable , then it is satisfied by a model @xmath79 of at most @xmath129 states - and in fact , it is satisfied by a model @xmath79 of at most @xmath129 states that has the strong evidence property ( see @xcite for proofs of all the above that can be easily adjusted for this general case ) .
a pair @xmath130})$ ] as above is called a frame for @xmath77 .
we present the @xmath131-calculi for @xmath77 .
the @xmath131-calculi for the single - agent justification logics have proven to be an invaluable tool in the study of the complexity of these logics .
this concept and results were adapted to the two - agent setting in @xcite and here we extend them to the general multi - agent setting .
although the calculi have significant similarities to the ones of the single - agent justification logics , there are differences , notably that each calculus depends upon a frame and operates upon @xmath131-expressions ( defined below ) prefixed by states of the frame .
a @xmath131-calculus was first introduced in @xcite , but its origins can be found in @xcite .    if @xmath4 is a term , @xmath2 is a formula , and @xmath83 $ ] , then @xmath132 is a star - expression ( @xmath131-expression ) . given a frame @xmath133})$ ] and @xmath134 ^ 2 $ ] and constant specification @xmath97 , the @xmath135 calculus on the frame @xmath136 is a calculus on @xmath131-expressions prefixed by worlds from @xmath85 with the axioms and rules that are shown in figure [ fig : starcalc ] . +    [ cols="^,^",options="header " , ]     notice that the calculus rules correspond to the closure conditions of the admissible evidence functions .
in fact and because of this , given a frame @xmath137 and a set @xmath138 of @xmath131-expressions prefixed by states of the frame , the function @xmath93 such that @xmath139 is an admissible evidence function and in fact it is the minimal admissible evidence function such that for every @xmath140 , @xmath141 in the sense that always @xmath142 for any other admissible evidence function @xmath143 such that for every @xmath140 , @xmath144 .
therefore , given a frame @xmath137 and two set @xmath145 of @xmath131-expressions prefixed by states of the frame there is an admissible evidence function @xmath93 on @xmath146 such that for every @xmath147 , @xmath141 and for every @xmath148 , @xmath149 , if and only if there is no @xmath150 such that @xmath151 .
this observation yields the following .
[ prp : proofbystarcalc ] for any holds , but to prove it we need to introduce m - models , but we do not use m - models anywhere else .
thus , the reader can see @xcite , or @xcite for a proof of proposition [ prp : proofbystarcalc ] for all constant specifications . ]
constant specification @xmath97 , frame @xmath146 with universe @xmath85 and @xmath152 , @xmath153 .
[ thm : calccompnew ] let @xmath154 be a schematic constant specification in @xmath155 and @xmath134 ^ 2 $ ] . then , the following problem is in @xmath156 : given a finite frame @xmath157})$ ] and a finite set @xmath138 of @xmath131-expressions prefixed by worlds from @xmath85 , a formula @xmath2 , a term @xmath4 , a @xmath158 and @xmath32 $ ] , is it the case that @xmath159    the proof of this proposition is very similar to the one that can be found in @xcite .
what is different here is the additional assignment of a state set to each node of the derivation tree , which does not change things a lot .    for this proof and
every @xmath160 $ ] , let @xmath161 , s.t .
for every @xmath162 , @xmath163 .
* nondeterministically construct a rooted tree with pairs of the form @xmath164 , where @xmath160 $ ] and @xmath165 is a subterm of @xmath4 , as nodes , such that @xmath166 is the root and the following conditions are met .
node @xmath164 can be the parent of @xmath167 or of both @xmath167 and @xmath168 as long as there is a rule @xmath169 or @xmath170 , respectively , of the @xmath131-calculus and as long as @xmath171 . to keep this structure a tree
, we can ensure at this step that there are no cycles , which would correspond to consecutive applications of @xmath131c@xmath172 and which would be redundant .
* nondeterministically assign to each leaf , @xmath173 , either * * some formula @xmath58 and the closure under @xmath174 of some set @xmath175 , s.t .
for every @xmath176 , @xmath177 or , * * as long as @xmath178 is of the form @xmath179 , where @xmath65 a constant , @xmath180 , then we can also assign some @xmath181 and @xmath182 , where @xmath40 an axiom scheme , s.t . @xmath183 . * if for some node @xmath184
all its children , say @xmath185 have been assigned some scheme or formula @xmath186 and world sets @xmath187 , assign to @xmath188 some scheme or formula @xmath189 , such that @xmath190 can be unified to @xmath191 such that @xmath192 is a rule in the @xmath193-calculus and world set @xmath13 , where @xmath13 is the closure of @xmath194 under @xmath174 .
apply this step until the root of the tree has been assigned some scheme or formula and a @xmath195 subset of @xmath85 .
* unify @xmath2 with the formula assigned to @xmath166 and verify that @xmath196    if some step is impossible , the algorithm rejects .
otherwise , it accepts . using efficient representations of schemes using dags and robinson s unification algorithm
, the algorithm runs in polynomial time .
we can see that as the tree is constructed , if @xmath197 is assigned scheme @xmath189 and set @xmath13 , then the construction effectively describes a valid derivation of any expression of the form @xmath198 , where @xmath199 and @xmath58 an instance of @xmath189 .
therefore , if the algorithm accepts , there exists a valid @xmath200-calculus derivation of @xmath201 . on the other hand
if there is some @xmath200-calculus derivation for @xmath202 from @xmath138 , then the algorithm in the first two steps can essentially describe this derivation by producing the derivation tree and the formulas / schemes by which the derivation starts .
therefore , the algorithm accepts if and only if there is a @xmath200-calculus derivation for @xmath202 from @xmath138 .
see @xcite and @xcite for a more detailed analysis .
the number of nondeterministic choices made by the algorithm in the proof of proposition [ thm : calccompnew ] is bounded by @xmath203 , where @xmath204 .
therefore , if there is some formula @xmath58 such that @xmath205 is a subformula of @xmath58 and for every @xmath206 , @xmath207 is a subformula of @xmath58 , then @xmath208 and therefore we can simulate all nondeterministic choices in time @xmath209 .
thus the algorithm can be turned into a deterministic one running in time @xmath210 .
this observation , the fact that a satisfiable @xmath2 can be satisfied by a model of at most @xmath129 states ( see the previous subsection ) and the previous two propositions give the following results :    let @xmath211 , where @xmath212 is schematic . then ,    1 .   deciding for @xmath205 that @xmath213 is in . 2 .
if @xmath97 is axiomatically appropriate with respect to @xmath15 , then the satisfiability problem for @xmath80 is in .
additionally notice that if the term @xmath4 has no @xmath42 , @xmath97 is schematically injective and @xmath214 , we have essentially eliminated nondeterministic choices from the procedure above .
thus , we conclude ( for the original result , see @xcite ) :    let @xmath211 , where @xmath212 is schematically injective . then , deciding for @xmath205 , where @xmath4 has no ` @xmath42 ' , that @xmath213 is in .
in this section we give a general tableau procedure for every logic which varies according to each logic s parameters .
we can then use the tableau for a particular logic and make observations on its complexity , as we do in the following section .
a version of the tableau which is more efficient for some cases follows after . to develop the tableau procedure we need to examine the relations on the agents more carefully than we have so far . for this section and the following one fix some @xmath215 and we assume @xmath97 is axiomatically appropriate with respect to @xmath15 and schematic .
if @xmath216 are binary relations on the same set , then @xmath217 is the binary relation on the same set , such that @xmath218 if and only if there are @xmath219 in the set , such that @xmath220 .
if @xmath40 is a binary relation , then @xmath221 is the reflexive , transitive closure of @xmath40 ; if @xmath40 is a set ( but not a set of pairs ) , then @xmath221 is the set of strings from @xmath40 .
we also use the following relation on strings : @xmath222 iff there is some string @xmath65 such that @xmath223 . we define the following subsets of and relations on @xmath19 $ ] .
@xmath224 : :    @xmath225 | ( \exists j \in d \cup f ) \
i c^ * j \}$ ]    attempts to capture exactly those agents that require a serial    accessibility relation ; from now and on these agents monopolize our    attention ; @xmath226 : :    @xmath225 | ( \exists j \in f ) \ i c^ * j \}$ ] attempts    to capture exactly those agents that require a reflexive accessibility    relation ; @xmath227 : :    @xmath228 notice that if    @xmath229 , and @xmath230 , then    @xmath231 ; in    @xmath232 is to indicate that @xmath232 is a variation    of @xmath14 influenced by the agents in @xmath16 , not    that it is available with other subscripts ] @xmath233 : :    @xmath234 : if @xmath235 , then    @xmath61 s justifications somehow affect @xmath236 s    justifications ; conversely , @xmath236 s accesibility relations    somehow affect @xmath61 s accessibility relations ; @xmath237 : :    @xmath238 : @xmath239 if    and only if @xmath240 and @xmath241 ; we    can easily see that @xmath242 is an equivalence relation    and that if @xmath243 , then @xmath61 and    @xmath236 have the same accessibility relations ; similarly ,    for the above equivalence relations we can define equivalence classes on @xmath138 , @xmath244 .
@xmath245 is the equivalence class @xmath246 s.t .
we can define relations @xmath248 and @xmath249 on @xmath250 in the following way : @xmath251 iff @xmath252 s.t . @xmath253 and @xmath254 iff @xmath252 s.t . @xmath255 .
also , @xmath256 iff @xmath257 and @xmath258 and similarly for @xmath259 .
then , define @xmath260 iff there are @xmath261 and @xmath262 s.t .
@xmath263 , that is , there are @xmath264 , where @xmath265
. @xmath266 iff @xmath260 and @xmath267 .
let @xmath32 $ ] .
then , @xmath268 and @xmath269 s.t . @xmath270 .
the formulas used in the tableau will have the form @xmath271 , where @xmath272 or is a @xmath131-expression , @xmath273 ( the world prefixes are strings of equivalence classes of agents ) , @xmath274 is ( either the empty string or ) of the form @xmath275 , @xmath276 $ ] , and @xmath277 .
furthermore , @xmath278 will be called a world - prefix or state - prefix , @xmath165 a truth - prefix and world prefixes will be denoted as @xmath279 , instead of @xmath280 , where for all @xmath281 $ ] , @xmath282 .
a tableau branch is a set of formulas of the form @xmath283 , as above .
a branch is complete if it is closed under the tableau rules ( they follow ) .
it is propositionally closed if @xmath284 and @xmath285 are both in the branch .
we say that a tableau branch is constructed by the tableau rules from @xmath2 , if it is a closure of @xmath286 under the rules .    for every @xmath287 , @xmath288 if there are some @xmath289 such that @xmath290 , @xmath291 and @xmath292 .
the tableau rules will include certain classical rules to cover propositional cases of formulas , as well as the ones that follow :    @xmath293{\sigma\ t\ { t   \colon_{i } \!}\psi}{\sigma\ t\ * _ i(t,\psi ) \\\\
\sigma\ t\ \box_i\psi } \ ] ]    if @xmath294 ;    @xmath295{\sigma\ t\ { t   \colon_{i } \!}\psi } {   \sigma.\chi(j)\ f\ \bot } \ ] ]    if @xmath294 , @xmath296 , and @xmath297 ;    @xmath298{\sigma\
t\ { t   \colon_{i } \!}\psi}{\sigma\ t\ * _ i(t,\psi)}\ ] ]    if @xmath299 ;    @xmath300{\sigma\ f\ { t   \colon_{i } \!}\psi}{\sigma\ f\ * _ i(t,\psi)}\ ] ]    @xmath301{\sigma.\chi(j ) \ f \ \bot } { \sigma.\chi(j).\chi(i ) \ f \ \bot}\ ] ]    if @xmath288 ;    @xmath302{\sigma\ t\ \box_{i}\psi}{\sigma.\chi(i)\ t\ \psi}\ ] ]    if @xmath303 has already appeared ;    @xmath304{\sigma\ t\ \box_{i}\psi}{\sigma\ t\ \psi}\ ] ]    if @xmath106 ;    @xmath305{\sigma\ t\ \box_{i}\psi}{\sigma\ t\ \box_{j}\psi}\ ] ]    if @xmath306 ;    @xmath307{\sigma\ t\ \box_{i}\psi}{\sigma\ t\ \box_{j}\box_i\psi}\ ] ]    if @xmath308 .
we do not explicitly mention it anywhere else , but of course , we need a set of rules to cover propositional cases as well . in
particular we can use +    @xmath309    and    @xmath310    the separator @xmath311 indicates a nondeterministic choice between the two options it separates .
if @xmath312 is a tableau branch , then here and wherever else it may appear is the set @xmath313 . ]
@xmath314 let @xmath315}$ ] be such that for every @xmath32 $ ] , @xmath316 then @xmath317})$ ] , where @xmath318}$ ] is the closure of @xmath319}$ ] under the conditions of frames for the accessibility relations , except for seriality .
@xmath318}$ ] is constructed in the following way : for every @xmath32 $ ] , let @xmath320 and for every @xmath321 , @xmath322 and then , @xmath323})$ ] .
finally , let @xmath324 and @xmath325 .
a branch @xmath312 of the tableau is rejecting when it is propositionally closed or there is some @xmath326 such that @xmath327 .
otherwise it is an accepting branch .    by induction on the construction of @xmath328 ,
it is not hard to see that for every @xmath329 , it must be the case that @xmath240 or that @xmath330 and @xmath331 . by induction on the frame construction
we can see that if @xmath332 appears in @xmath312 and @xmath333 , then @xmath334 appears in @xmath312 .
[ prp : tableaucomplete ] if there is a complete accepting tableau branch @xmath335 , then the formula @xmath2 is satisfiable by a model for @xmath336 .
let @xmath337 } , { { \mathcal{a } } } , { \mathcal{v}})$ ] , where @xmath130 } ) = { \mathcal{f}}(b)$ ] , @xmath338 , and @xmath339 .
let @xmath340},({{\mathcal{a}}}_i)_{i\in[n]},{\mathcal{v}})$ ] , where for every @xmath32 $ ] , if @xmath294 , then @xmath341 s.t . @xmath342 and @xmath343 , otherwise .
@xmath344 is an f - model for @xmath336 : @xmath345}$ ] easily satisfy the appropriate conditions , as the extra pairs of the accessibility relations do not affect the @xmath131-calculus derivation , and we can prove the same for @xmath346}$ ] . if @xmath347 and @xmath348 , if @xmath349 , then @xmath350 and thus @xmath351 .
if @xmath352 , then , from rule s , there must be some @xmath353 , so @xmath354 and thus , @xmath355 .
if @xmath356 and @xmath357 , then , trivially , whether @xmath352 or not , @xmath358 .
by induction on @xmath359 , we prove that for every formula @xmath359 and @xmath360 , if @xmath361 , then @xmath362 and if @xmath363 , then @xmath364 .
propositional cases are easy . if @xmath365 and @xmath363 , then @xmath366 , so @xmath367 . on the other hand , if @xmath368 , then @xmath369 and by rule trd , for every @xmath370 such that @xmath240 , there is some @xmath371 .
therefore , for every @xmath372 , it is the case that @xmath373 , so by rule trb , a previous observation about formulas of the form @xmath374 , and the inductive hypothesis , for every @xmath375 , @xmath376 and therefore , @xmath377
.    now we can prove the following proposition .
[ prp : tableaux ] let @xmath126 .
@xmath2 is @xmath77-satisfiable if and only if there is a complete tableau branch @xmath312 that is produced from @xmath378 , such that    * for all @xmath379 , not both @xmath380 and @xmath381 appear in @xmath312 and * for any @xmath382 , @xmath383 .
the `` if '' direction was handled by proposition [ prp : tableaucomplete ]
. we will prove the `` only if '' in the following .
let @xmath79 be an f - model , @xmath384},({{\mathcal{a}}}_i)_{i\in [ n]},{\mathcal{v}})$ ] that has the strong evidence property and a state @xmath385 such that @xmath386 .
furthermore , fix some @xmath387 , such that @xmath388 and the following conditions are met . for any @xmath389
, @xmath390 is some element of @xmath85 s.t .
@xmath391 . let @xmath392 \}$ ] . given a state @xmath115 of the model , and @xmath393 , @xmath394 has the usual , modal interpretation , @xmath394 iff for every @xmath352 ,
@xmath395    we can see in a straightforward way and by induction on the tableau derivation that there is a branch , such that if @xmath396 appears in the branch and @xmath397 , then @xmath398 , if @xmath399 appears in the branch and @xmath397 , then @xmath400 , if @xmath401 appears in the branch , then @xmath402 and if @xmath403 appears in the branch , then @xmath404 .
the proposition follows .      by taking a closer look at the interactions between the agents we can further improve the efficiency of our tableau procedure and we do that in this section .
we use this improvement to prove an upper bound on the complexity of a general class of logics .
we need the following definitions and lemma [ lem : clusters ] , which is a generalization of a result from @xcite and has appeared in simpler forms in @xcite .
first we define an additional equivalence relation : @xmath405 . as an equivalence relation ,
this one too gives equivalence classes on @xmath138 and they are @xmath406 . notice that as @xmath407 , @xmath408 and therefore @xmath250 is a refinement of @xmath409 .
we ll call @xmath410 . furthermore ,
notice that for any @xmath411 , either @xmath412 s.t .
@xmath413 , or @xmath246 .
in the first case , @xmath414 will be called a _ v - class _ of agents and in the second case it will be called a _ c - class _ of agents . for each agent
@xmath32 $ ] , @xmath415 will be the equivalence class @xmath411 s.t . @xmath247 and to help keep the relationship between the sets of equivalence classes in mind , notice that @xmath416 $ ] .
furthermore , we can extend relations @xmath248 and @xmath249 on @xmath189 in the same way they were defined on @xmath250 .
[ lem : clusters ] let @xmath337 } , ( { { \mathcal{a}}}_i)_{i\in [ n ] } , { \mathcal{v}})$ ] be a @xmath77 f - model of at most @xmath129 states , @xmath417 a v - class of agents , and @xmath418 .
then , there are states of @xmath85 , @xmath419 , such that    1 .   for any @xmath420 , @xmath421 .
2 .   for any @xmath422 ,
@xmath423 , if @xmath424 , then @xmath425 .
@xmath419 will be called _ a @xmath426-cluster for @xmath427_.    for this proof we need to define the following .
let @xmath32 $ ] , @xmath428 .
_ an @xmath429-path ending at @xmath61 _ ( and starting at @xmath430 ) from @xmath431 to @xmath432 is a finite sequence @xmath433 , such that for some @xmath434 $ ] , @xmath435 , where for some @xmath436 $ ] @xmath437 and @xmath438 ( and @xmath439 ) , for every @xmath440 $ ] , @xmath441 and if @xmath442 , then @xmath443 , while if @xmath444 , then @xmath445 and @xmath446 , @xmath447 , @xmath448 .
the @xmath429-path _ covers _ a set @xmath449 $ ] if @xmath450 .
for this path and @xmath451 $ ] , @xmath452 is a @xmath453-state .
notice that if there is an @xmath429 path ending at @xmath61 from @xmath431 to @xmath432 and some @xmath454 and @xmath455 such that the path covers @xmath165 and @xmath456 , it must also be the case that @xmath457 .
let @xmath458 { \longrightarrow}p_a$ ] be such that @xmath459 , @xmath460 = p_a$ ] and for every @xmath461 $ ] , either @xmath462 or @xmath463 and there is some @xmath461 $ ] such that @xmath463 .
for any @xmath385 , @xmath464 let @xmath465 be the following : @xmath466 , for all @xmath467 $ ] , @xmath468 will be such that there is an @xmath429 path ending at @xmath469 from @xmath165 to @xmath468 and covering @xmath426 and if @xmath470 , @xmath471 is such that @xmath472 is an @xmath429 path ending at @xmath473 .
let @xmath474 , x\in { \ensuremath{\mathbb{n}}}},(a^x_i)_{i \in [ m ] , x\in { \ensuremath{\mathbb{n}}}}$ ] be defined in the following way . for every
@xmath475 $ ] , @xmath476 and for every @xmath464 , @xmath477 .
finally , for @xmath478 , @xmath474}$ ] is defined in the following way . if there are some @xmath479 , @xmath422 , such that @xmath480 , @xmath481 and not @xmath482 , then for all @xmath420 , @xmath483 .
otherwise , @xmath484 . by induction on @xmath485
, we can see that for every @xmath486 , @xmath420 , if @xmath487 , then @xmath488 . since the model has a finite number of states ,
there is some @xmath464 such that for every @xmath489 , @xmath490 .
therefore , we can pick appropriate @xmath419 among @xmath491 that satisfy conditions 1 , 2 .
we recursively define relation @xmath34 on @xmath492 :    * if @xmath493 then @xmath494 ; * if @xmath348 , then @xmath495 ; * if @xmath496 , then @xmath497 .
@xmath498 is the reflexive , transitive closure of @xmath34 .
@xmath498 tries to capture the closure of the conditions on the accessibility relations of a frame .
this is made explicit by observing that if for some frame @xmath130})$ ] , @xmath499 and @xmath500 , then @xmath501 .
furthermore , if , in addition , @xmath502 , then for every @xmath503 $ ] , @xmath504 . for every agent @xmath294
, we introduce a new agent , @xmath505 and we extend @xmath498 , so that when @xmath415 a v - class , then @xmath506 for every @xmath507 such that @xmath508 . for each @xmath246
, we fix some @xmath509 and @xmath510 . furthermore , if @xmath511 , then @xmath512 @xmath513 . this extended definition of @xmath498 tries to capture the closure of the conditions on the accessibility relations of a frame like the ones that will result from a tableau procedure as defined in the following .
let @xmath411 and @xmath514 be a finite string of elements from @xmath250 .
then , @xmath414 is _ visible _ from @xmath278 if and only if there is some @xmath515 , some @xmath516 and some @xmath517 such that @xmath518 and @xmath519 ; @xmath520 is then called the @xmath414-view from @xmath514 .
notice that there is a similarity between this definition and the statement of lemma [ lem : clusters ] - this will be made explicit later on .
then we adjust the tableau by altering rules trd and s and introduce rule svb :    @xmath295{\sigma\ t\ { t   \colon_{i } \!}\psi } {   \sigma.\chi(j)\ f\ \bot } \ ] ]    if @xmath294 , @xmath296 , @xmath297 , and @xmath521 is not a @xmath13-class visible from @xmath514 ;    @xmath301{\sigma.\chi(j ) \ f \ \bot } { \sigma.\chi(j).\chi(i ) \ f \ \bot}\ ] ]    if @xmath288 and it is not the case that @xmath415 is a @xmath13-class visible from @xmath522 ;    @xmath523{\sigma\ t\ \box_{i}\psi}{\tau.\chi(i)\ t\ \psi}\ ] ]    if @xmath524 a @xmath13-class , visible from @xmath514 , @xmath525 is the @xmath415-view from @xmath514 and @xmath520 has already appeared in the tableau
.    then we have to redefine the frame @xmath328 .
let @xmath315}$ ] be such that for every @xmath32 $ ] , @xmath316 @xmath526 @xmath527 and @xmath317})$ ] , where @xmath318}$ ] is the closure of @xmath319}$ ] as it was defined before .
proposition [ prp : tableaucomplete ] and its proof remain the same . to prove proposition [ prp : tableaux ] for this version of the rules , follow the same proof , but for every @xmath360 and v - class @xmath414 fix some @xmath414-cluster for @xmath115 and if @xmath415 is a @xmath13-class , then for @xmath528 , the fixed @xmath414-cluster for @xmath529 , @xmath530 - and observe that if @xmath415 a @xmath13-class , visible from @xmath514 and @xmath525 is the @xmath415-view from @xmath514 , then in model @xmath79 there is some @xmath432 such that @xmath531 , which by the definition of clusters in turn means that @xmath532 .
the remaining proof is the same .
notice that if for every appearing world - prefix @xmath303 , @xmath61 is always in the same v - class @xmath414 , then all prefixes are of the form @xmath533 , where @xmath534 . in that case
we can simplify the box rules and in particular just ignore rule v and end up with the following result .
[ cor : easycasesinpi2 ] when there is some v - class @xmath414 such that for every @xmath535 there is some @xmath536 such that @xmath537 , then @xmath77-satisfiability is in @xmath17 .
in this section we look into some more specific cases of multi - agent justification logics and demonstrate certain jumps in the complexity of the satisfiability problem for these logics .
we first revisit the two - agent logics from @xcite . like in the previous sections ,
we assume our constant specifications are schematic and axiomatically appropriate ( and in   for upper bounds ) .
our definition here of @xmath77 allows for more two - agent logics than the ones that were studied in @xcite .
it is not hard , though , to extend those results to all two - agent cases of @xmath77 : when there are @xmath538 $ ] , @xmath539 , @xmath540 , @xmath541 , and @xmath542 , then @xmath543-satisfiability is -complete ; otherwise it is in @xmath17 ( see @xcite ) .
we will further examine the following two cases .
@xmath544 are defined in the following way .
@xmath545 ; @xmath546 ; @xmath547 ; @xmath548 , @xmath549 ; @xmath550 ; finally , for @xmath551 $ ] , @xmath552 , where @xmath553 is some axiomatically appropriate and schematic constant specification .    by an adjustment of the reductions in @xcite , as it was done in @xcite , it is not hard to prove that @xmath554 is -hard and @xmath555 is -hard . would correspond to what is defined in @xcite as @xmath556 and @xmath557 to @xmath558 .
then we can pick a justification variable @xmath485 and we can either use the same reductions and substitute @xmath559 by @xmath560 , or we can just translate each diamond - free fragment to the corresponding justification logic in the same way .
it is not hard to see then that the original modal formula behaves exactly the same way as the result of its translation with respect to satisfiability - just consider f - models where always @xmath98 . ]
notice that the way we prove @xmath561-hardness for @xmath562 is different in character from the way we prove the same result for the two - agent logics in @xcite .
for @xmath562 we use the way the tableau prefixes for it branch , while for @xmath563 the prefixes do not branch , but they increase to exponential size . in fact , we can see that @xmath562 is -complete , while @xmath557 is -complete . the respective tableau rules as they turn out for each logic are - notice that neither logic has any @xmath564-maximal v - classes :                    notice that the maximum length of a world prefix is at most @xmath566 , since the depth ( nesting of terms ) of the formulas decrease whenever we move from @xmath514 to @xmath565 . also notice that when we run the @xmath131-calculus , there is no use for rule @xmath131v - dis , so we can simply run the calculus on one world - prefix at the time , without needing the whole frame .
therefore , we can turn the tableau into an alternating polynomial time procedure , which uses a nondeterministic choice when the tableau would make a nondeterministic choice ( when we apply the propositional rules ) and uses a universal choice to choose whether to increase prefix @xmath514 to @xmath567 or to @xmath568 .
this means that @xmath562-satisfiability is -complete .          for the tableau procedure of @xmath557
we have no such bound on the size of the largest world - prefix , so we can not have an alternating polynomial time procedure .
as before , though , the @xmath131-calculus does not use rule @xmath131v - dis , so again we can run the calculus on one world - prefix at the time . furthermore , for every prefix @xmath431 , @xmath569 is polynomially bounded ( observe that we do not need more than two boxes in front of any formula ) , so in turn we have an alternating polynomial space procedure .
therefore , @xmath557-satisfiability is -complete .
antonis achilleos .
a complexity question in justification logic . in _ proceedings of the 18th international conference on logic , language ,
information and computation _
, wollic11 , pages 819 , berlin , heidelberg , 2011 .
springer - verlag .
roman kuznets . on the complexity of explicit modal logics . in peter clote and helmut schwichtenberg , editors ,
_ csl _ , volume 1862 of _ lecture notes in computer science _ ,
pages 371383 .
springer , 2000 .
errata concerning the explicit counterparts of  @xmath570 and  @xmath571 are published as  @xcite .
roman kuznets .
complexity through tableaux in justification logic . in _
plenary talks , tutorials , special sessions , contributed talks of logic colloquium ( lc 2008 ) , bern , switzerland _ , pages 3839 , 2008
.    roman kuznets .
self - referentiality of justified knowledge .
in edward  a. hirsch , alexander  a. razborov , alexei  l. semenov , and anatol slissenko , editors , _ csr _ , volume 5010 of _ lecture notes in computer science _ , pages 228239 .
springer , 2008 .
alexey mkrtychev .
models for the logic of proofs . in sergei adian and anil nerode , editors , _ logical foundations of computer science , 4th international symposium , lfcs97 , yaroslavl , russia , july 612 , 1997 , proceedings _ ,
volume 1234 of _ lecture notes in computer science _ , pages 266275 .
springer , 1997 .