First-Order Modal Logic: Frame Definability and Lindstr\"om Theorems

Massoud Pourmahdian; Reihane Zoghifard

RECORD

First-Order Modal Logic: Frame Definability and Lindstr\"om Theorems

Logic · Submitted 31 Jan 2016

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim This paper involves generalizing the Goldblatt-Thomason and the Lindstr\"om characterization theorems to first-order modal logic.

how it is stated · asserted 0.90 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 1,603 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.18 · states limitation 0.05 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.40 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

This paper involves generalizing the Goldblatt-Thomason and the Lindstr\"om characterization theorems to first-order modal logic.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	This paper involves generalizing the Goldblatt-Thomason and the Lindstr\"om characterization theorems to first-order modal logic.	contribution 1.00	0.70	0.29	asserted 0.90

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper

Original abstract

This paper involves generalizing the Goldblatt-Thomason and the Lindstr\"om characterization theorems to first-order modal logic.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 4 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 2 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

Inspired by [ref] , we can generalize the concept of m-saturation for propositional modal logic (cf. [ref] ) as follows: A model $$ is said to be $$-saturated, if for any $w∈W^$, and any finite sequence $a⃗∈D^*_$, the following two conditions are satisfied: $∃$-type If for each finite subset $Δ$ of a set $Γ(y⃗x)$ where $|y⃗|=|a⃗|$, $, w⋀ Δ[a⃗]$,[Here we require $y⃗$ are assigned $a⃗$ correspondingly.

A New Modal Framework for Epistemic Logic · Expressivity · 0.90

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

As for the semantics, to be general enough, following [ref] we use the first-order Kripke model with an increasing domain, and flesh out the intuitive idea of mention-some discussed in the introduction.

A New Modal Framework for Epistemic Logic · Syntax and Semantics · 0.86

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.