Bundled products are often offered as good deals to customers. When we bundle quantifiers and modalities together (as in $\exists x \Box$, $\Diamond \forall x$ etc.) in first-order modal logic (FOML), we get new logical operators whose combinations produce interesting fragments of FOML without any restriction on the arity of predicates, the number of variables, or the modal scope. It is well-known that finding decidable fragments of FOML is hard, so we may ask: do bundled fragments that exploit the distinct expressivity of FOML constitute good deals in balancing the expressivity and complexity? There are a few positive earlier results on some particular fragments. In this paper, we try to fully map the terrain of bundled fragments of FOML in (un)decidability, and in the cases without a definite answer yet, we show that they lack the finite model property. Moreover, whether the logics are interpreted over constant domains (across states/worlds) or increasing domains presents another layer of complexity. We also present the \textit{loosely bundled fragment}, which generalizes the bundles and yet retain decidability (over increasing domain models).

Quantified modal logic is notorious for being undecidable, with very few known decidable fragments such as the monodic ones. For instance, even the two-variable fragment over unary predicates is undecidable. In this paper, we study a particular fragment, namely the bundled fragment, where a first-order quantifier is always followed by a modality when occurring in the formula, inspired by the proposal of [Yanjing Wang, 2017] in the context of non-standard epistemic logics of know-what, know-how, know-why, and so on. As always with quantified modal logics, it makes a significant difference whether the domain stays the same across possible worlds. In particular, we show that the predicate logic with the bundle "forall Box" alone is undecidable over constant domain interpretations, even with only monadic predicates, whereas having the "exists Box" bundle instead gives us a decidable logic. On the other hand, over increasing domain interpretations, we get decidability with both "forall Box" and "exists Box" bundles with unrestricted predicates, where we obtain tableau based procedures that run in PSPACE. We further show that the "exists Box" bundle cannot distinguish between constant domain and variable domain interpretations.

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 phi means that there exists a (uniform) strategy such that the agent knows that it can make sure phi. We give an intuitive axiomatisation 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 and reasoning about knowledge-how.

In this article, we introduce a lightweight dynamic epistemic logical framework for automated planning under initial uncertainty. We generalize the standard conformant planning problem in AI (over transition systems) in two crucial aspects: first, the planning goal can be any formula expressed in an epistemic propositional dynamic logic (EPDL); second, procedural constraints of the desired plan specified by regular expressions can be imposed. We then reduce the problem of generalized conformant planning to the model checking problem of our logic. Although our conformant planning problem is much more general than the standard one with Boolean goals and no procedural constraints, the complexity is still PSPACE-complete which is equally hard as standard conformant planning over explicit transition systems.

When agents know a protocol, this leads them to have expectations about future observations. Agents can update their knowledge by matching their actual observations with the expected ones. They eliminate states where they do not match. In this paper, we study how agents perceive protocols that are not commonly known, and propose a logic to reason about knowledge in such scenarios.

Epistemic protocols are communication protocols aiming at transfer of knowledge in a controlled way. Typically, the preconditions or goals for protocol actions depend on the knowledge of agents, often in nested form. Informal epistemic protocol descriptions for muddy children, coordinated attack, dining cryptographers, Russian cards, secret key exchange are well known. The contribution of this paper is a formal study of a natural requirement on epistemic protocols, that the contents of the protocol can be assumed to be common knowledge. By formalizing this requirement we can prove that there can be no unbiased deterministic protocol for the Russian cards problem. For purposes of our formal analysis we introduce an epistemic protocol language, and we show that its model checking problem is decidable.

We present a thorough study of Propositional Dynamic Logic over a variation of labeled transition systems, called accelerated labelled transition systems, which are transition systems labeled with regular expressions over action labels. We study the model checking and satisfiability decision problems. Through a notion of regular expression rewriting, we reduce these two problems to the corresponding ones of PDL in the traditional semantics (w.r.t. LTS). As for the complexity, both of problems are proved to be Expspace-complete. Moreover, the program complexity of model checking problem turns out to be Nlogspace-complete. Furthermore, we provide an axiomatization for PDL which involves Kleene Algebra as an Oracle. The soundness and completeness are shown.