Which Semantics for Neighbourhood Semantics?

Areces, C. and Figueira, D.. Which Semantics for Neighbourhood Semantics?. In Proceedigns of IJCAI 09, pp. 671–676, Pasadena, California, USA, 2009.

Download: [pdf] 

Abstract:

In this article we discuss two alternative proposals for neighbourhood semantics (which we call strict and loose neighbourhood semantics, N_= and N_\subseteq respectively) that have been previously introduced in the literature. Our main tools are suitable notions of bisimulation. While an elegant notion of bisimulation exists for N_\subseteq, the required bisimulation for N_= is rather involved. We propose a simple extension of N_= with a universal modality that we call N_=(E), which comes together with a natural notion of bisimulation. We also investigate the complexity of the satisfiability problem for N_\subseteq and N_=(E).

BibTeX: (download)

@INPROCEEDINGS{arec:whic09,
  author = {Areces, C. and Figueira, D.},
  title = {Which Semantics for Neighbourhood Semantics?},
  booktitle = {Proceedigns of IJCAI 09},
  year = {2009},
  pages = {671--676},
  address = {Pasadena, California, USA},
  abstract = {In this article we discuss two alternative proposals for neighbourhood
	semantics (which we call strict and loose neighbourhood semantics,
	N_= and N_\subseteq respectively) that have been previously introduced
	in the literature. Our main tools are suitable notions of bisimulation.
	While an elegant notion of bisimulation exists for N_\subseteq, the
	required bisimulation for N_= is rather involved. We propose a simple
	extension of N_= with a universal modality that we call N_=(E), which
	comes together with a natural notion of bisimulation. We also investigate
	the complexity of the satisfiability problem for N_\subseteq and
	N_=(E).},
}