pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.09098 · v1 · pith:5SHYEEYFnew · submitted 2019-07-22 · 💻 cs.LO

Uncertainty About Evidence

Adam Bjorndahl (Carnegie Mellon University) , Ayb\"uke \"Ozg\"un (ILLC , University of Amsterdam & Arch\'e , University of St. Andrews) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LO
keywords epistemic logicevidence entailmentuncertainty about evidencebi-modal logicknowledgeaxiomatizationtopological semantics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Uncertainty about evidence interpretation creates a gap between actual entailment and what an agent knows is entailed.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops models in which a piece of evidence corresponds to a set of possible worlds that can differ depending on which world is actual. This setup lets agents be uncertain about how to interpret their own evidence and produces a distinction between what the evidence actually entails and what the agent knows the evidence entails. The authors supply a sound and complete axiomatization of the resulting bi-modal logic and examine extensions that add belief and knowability operators. A reader would care because the framework directly addresses epistemic situations in which agents doubt the meaning of the information they possess.

Core claim

The paper establishes a sound and complete axiomatization of the bi-modal logic of knowledge and evidence entailment in structures that generalize topological spaces by allowing the interpretation of evidence to be uncertain. These models represent evidential states where the set of worlds a piece of evidence corresponds to depends on the world, leading to a natural separation between actual entailment by evidence and what the agent knows is entailed by it.

What carries the argument

World-dependent evidence sets that vary across possible worlds, allowing uncertainty about evidence interpretation and separating actual entailment from known entailment.

If this is right

  • The core bi-modal logic of knowledge and evidence entailment admits a sound and complete axiomatization.
  • Adding a belief modality permits study of its interaction with evidence interpretation and entailment.
  • A knowability modality can be interpreted via a generalized interior operator.
  • The models support natural extensions of the basic system while preserving the distinction between entailment and known entailment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same structures could be used to track how agents revise their uncertainty about evidence when new information arrives.
  • Multi-agent versions might capture cases where different agents assign different interpretations to the same evidence.
  • The framework offers a route to formalizing interpretive disagreement in scientific or legal settings.

Load-bearing premise

Models in which the set of worlds corresponding to a piece of evidence varies from one world to another correctly represent uncertainty about how evidence should be interpreted.

What would settle it

An intuitive epistemic scenario involving uncertainty about evidence that cannot be represented by varying evidence sets, or a valid inference about knowledge and evidence that the axiomatization fails to capture.

read the original abstract

We develop a logical framework for reasoning about knowledge and evidence in which the agent may be uncertain about how to interpret their evidence. Rather than representing an evidential state as a fixed subset of the state space, our models allow the set of possible worlds that a piece of evidence corresponds to to vary from one possible world to another, and therefore itself be the subject of uncertainty. Such structures can be viewed as (epistemically motivated) generalizations of topological spaces. In this context, there arises a natural distinction between what is actually entailed by the evidence and what the agent knows is entailed by the evidence -- with the latter, in general, being much weaker. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the corresponding bi-modal logic of knowledge and evidence entailment, and investigate some natural extensions of this core system, including the addition of a belief modality and its interaction with evidence interpretation and entailment, and the addition of a "knowability" modality interpreted via a (generalized) interior operator.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops a bi-modal logic for knowledge and evidence entailment in which agents may be uncertain about evidence interpretation. Evidence is represented via world-dependent sets of possible worlds (generalizing topological spaces), yielding a distinction between actual evidence entailment and known entailment. The central claim is a sound and complete axiomatization of this logic, together with extensions adding a belief modality and a knowability modality interpreted via a generalized interior operator.

Significance. If the soundness and completeness results hold, the framework would supply a new semantic treatment of uncertainty about evidence within modal logic, with the actual-vs-known entailment distinction offering a natural way to capture epistemic limitations on evidence use. The generalization of topological semantics and the proposed extensions could support further work on epistemic logic and related applications.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of a sound and complete axiomatization for the core bi-modal system is asserted without any accompanying model definitions, semantic clauses for the modalities, or proof steps, rendering the central result unverifiable from the manuscript text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and address the major comment below. The full manuscript contains the requested technical details in the body of the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of a sound and complete axiomatization for the core bi-modal system is asserted without any accompanying model definitions, semantic clauses for the modalities, or proof steps, rendering the central result unverifiable from the manuscript text.

    Authors: Abstracts are concise overviews by standard convention and do not embed full technical apparatus. The manuscript defines the models (world-dependent evidence sets generalizing topological spaces) in Section 2, provides the semantic clauses for the knowledge and evidence-entailment modalities in Section 3, and gives the soundness and completeness proof for the bi-modal axiomatization (including the actual-vs-known entailment distinction) in Section 4. The central result is therefore verifiable from the complete manuscript text. We see no need to alter the abstract. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the axiomatization

full rationale

The paper develops a bi-modal logic framework by generalizing topological spaces to world-dependent evidence sets, distinguishing actual evidence entailment from known entailment, and then states a sound and complete axiomatization for the resulting logic. This construction relies on standard modal logic ingredients plus the new variable-evidence relation; no equations, definitions, or self-citations reduce the claimed axiomatization to a fit, renaming, or self-referential premise by construction. The central result is a standard soundness/completeness proof over the defined model class and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central modeling choice is the variable evidence interpretation; all other components are standard modal logic.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Models are epistemically motivated generalizations of topological spaces in which evidence sets vary across worlds.
    Invoked to justify the new model class (abstract).
invented entities (1)
  • World-dependent evidence sets no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent uncertainty about evidence interpretation
    Core new structure that enables the distinction between actual and known entailment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1141 out tokens · 25767 ms · 2026-05-24T18:10:36.040300+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alchourr´ on, Peter G¨ ardenfors & David Makins on (1985): On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions

    Carlos E. Alchourr´ on, Peter G¨ ardenfors & David Makins on (1985): On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions . Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), pp. 510–530, doi:10.2307/2274239. 80 Uncertainty About Evidence

    work page doi:10.2307/2274239 1985

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on Logic, Language, Inform ation and Computation (WoLLIC 2016), pp

    Alexandru Baltag, Nick Bezhanishvili, A yb¨ uke¨Ozg¨ un & Sonja Smets (2016):Justified Belief and the T opol- ogy of Evidence . In: Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on Logic, Language, Inform ation and Computation (WoLLIC 2016), pp. 83–103, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52921-8 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52921-8 2016

  3. [3]

    In Alexandre Madeira & M´ ario Benevides, editors: Dynamic Logic

    Alexandru Baltag, Nina Gierasimczuk, A yb¨ uke ¨Ozg¨ un, Ana Lucia V argas-Sandoval & Sonja Smets (2018): A Dynamic Logic for Learning Theory . In Alexandre Madeira & M´ ario Benevides, editors: Dynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications , Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 35–54, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73579-5 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73579-5 2018

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects o f Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2011), ACM, pp

    Alexandru Baltag, Nina Gierasimczuk & Sonja Smets (2011 ): Belief Revision as a Truth-Tracking Process . In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects o f Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2011), ACM, pp. 187–190, doi:10.1145/2000378.2000400

    work page doi:10.1145/2000378.2000400 2011

  5. [5]

    Alexandru Baltag, Nina Gierasimczuk & Sonja Smets (2015 ): On the Solvability of Inductive Problems: A Study in Epistemic T opology. In R. Ramanujam, editor: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2015) , pp. 81–98, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.215.7

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.215.7 2015

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th LORI , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp

    Alexandru Baltag, A yb¨ uke ¨Ozg¨ un & Ana Lucia V argas-Sandoval (2017): T opo-Logic as a Dynamic- Epistemic Logic . In: Proceedings of the 6th LORI , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 330–346, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8 23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8 2017

  7. [7]

    In: Advances in Modal Logic 9 , King’s College Press, pp

    Johan van Benthem, David Fern´ andez-Duque & Eric Pacuit (2012): Evidence logic: A new look at neigh- borhood structures . In: Advances in Modal Logic 9 , King’s College Press, pp. 97–118. Available at http://www.aiml.net/volumes/volume9/Benthem-Fernand ez-Duque-Pacuit.pdf

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 165(1), pp

    Johan van Benthem, David Fern´ andez-Duque & Eric Pacuit (2014): Evidence and plausibility in neighbor- hood structures. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 165(1), pp. 106–133, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2013.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apal.2013.07.007 2014

  9. [9]

    Studia Logica 99(1), pp

    Johan van Benthem & Eric Pacuit (2011): Dynamic Logics of Evidence-Based Beliefs . Studia Logica 99(1), pp. 61–92, doi:10.1007/s11225-011-9347-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11225-011-9347-x 2011

  10. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 25th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation ( WoLLIC 2018) , pp

    Adam Bjorndahl (2018): The Epistemology of Nondeterminism . In: Proceedings of the 25th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation ( WoLLIC 2018) , pp. 145–162, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57669-4 8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57669-4 2018

  11. [11]

    In Hans van Dit- marsch & Gabriel Sandu, editors: Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game-Theoretical Semantics, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp

    Adam Bjorndahl (2018): T opological Subset Space Models for Public Announcements . In Hans van Dit- marsch & Gabriel Sandu, editors: Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game-Theoretical Semantics, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 165–186, doi:10.1007 /978-3-319-62864-6 6

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Adam Bjorndahl & A yb¨ uke ¨Ozg¨ un (2017):Logic and T opology for Knowledge, Knowability, and Belief - Extended Abstract. In: Proceedings of 16th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2017), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 251, Open Publishing Association, pp. 88–101, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.251.7

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.251.7 2017

  13. [13]

    Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Scie 53, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, doi:10.1017/C BO9781107050884

    Patrick Blackburn, Maarten de Rijke & Yde V enema (2001) : Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Scie 53, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, doi:10.1017/C BO9781107050884

    work page doi:10.1017/c 2001

  14. [14]

    Moss & Rohit Parikh (1996 ): T opological reasoning and the logic of knowl- edge

    Andrew Dabrowski, Lawrence S. Moss & Rohit Parikh (1996 ): T opological reasoning and the logic of knowl- edge. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 78(1), pp. 73–110, doi:10.1016/0168-0072(95)00016-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-0072(95)00016-x 1996

  15. [15]

    Davey & Hilary A

    Brian A. Davey & Hilary A. Priestley (1990): Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511809088

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809088 1990

  16. [16]

    Forthcoming in Synthese

    Hans van Ditmarsch, Sophia Knight & A yb¨ uke¨Ozg¨ un (2017):Announcement as effort on topological spaces, doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1592-8. Forthcoming in Synthese

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1592-8 2017

  17. [17]

    V an Ditmarsch (2005): Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision

    Hans P . V an Ditmarsch (2005): Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision . Synthese 147(2), pp. 229–275, doi:10.1007/s11229-005-1349-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-005-1349-7 2005

  18. [18]

    Halpern, Y oram Moses & Moshe Y

    Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y . Halpern, Y oram Moses & Moshe Y . V ardi (1995): Reasoning About Knowledge . MIT Press, doi:10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001 1995

  19. [19]

    Journal of Logic and Computation 2(1), pp

    V alentin Goranko & Solomon Passy (1992): Using the Universal Modality: Gains and Questions . Journal of Logic and Computation 2(1), pp. 5–30, doi:10.1093/logcom/2.1.5. A. Bjorndahl & A. ¨Ozg¨ un 81

    work page doi:10.1093/logcom/2.1.5 1992

  20. [20]

    Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2), pp

    Adam Grove (1988): Two modellings for theory change . Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2), pp. 157–170, doi:10.1007/BF00247909

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00247909 1988

  21. [21]

    Halpern (2003): Reasoning About Uncertainty

    Joseph Y . Halpern (2003): Reasoning About Uncertainty . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, doi:10.7551/mitpress/10951.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/10951.001.0001 2003

  22. [22]

    In Anil Nerode & Mikhail Taitslin, editors: Logical Foundations of Computer Science — Tver ’92 , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp

    Wiebe van der Hoek & John-Jules Meyer (1992): Graded modalities in epistemic logic . In Anil Nerode & Mikhail Taitslin, editors: Logical Foundations of Computer Science — Tver ’92 , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 503–514, doi:10.1007/BFb0023902

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0023902 1992

  23. [23]

    Kelly (1996): The Logic of Reliable Inquiry

    Kevin T. Kelly (1996): The Logic of Reliable Inquiry . Oxford University Press

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    Moss & Rohit Parikh (1992): T opological Reasoning and The Logic of Knowledge

    Lawrence S. Moss & Rohit Parikh (1992): T opological Reasoning and The Logic of Knowledge. In: Proceed- ings of the 4th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Compute r Science (TARK 1992) , Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 95–105. Available at http://dblp.org/rec/html/conf/tark/MossP92

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    A yb¨ uke ¨Ozg¨ un (2017): Evidence in Epistemic Logic: A T opological Perspec- tive. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam & Universit´ e de Lor raine. Available at https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2017-07.text.pdf

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Moss & Chris Steinsvold (2007 ): T opology and Epistemic Logic

    Rohit Parikh, Lawrence S. Moss & Chris Steinsvold (2007 ): T opology and Epistemic Logic. In: Handbook of Spatial Logics , Springer V erlag, pp. 299–341, doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5587-4 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5587-4 2007

  27. [27]

    Philosophical Studies 128(1), pp

    Robert Stalnaker (2006): On Logics of Knowledge and Belief . Philosophical Studies 128(1), pp. 169–199, doi:10.1007/s11098-005-4062-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11098-005-4062-y 2006

  28. [28]

    W´ ang & Thomas ˚Agotnes (2013): Subset Space Public Announcement Logic

    Y` ı N. W´ ang & Thomas ˚Agotnes (2013): Subset Space Public Announcement Logic . In: Proceed- ings of the 5th Indian Conference on Logic and Its Applicatio ns (ICLA 2013) , Springer, pp. 245–257, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36039-8 22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36039-8 2013

  29. [29]

    Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/019925656X.001.0001

    Timothy Williamson (2000): Knowledge and its Limits . Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/019925656X.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/019925656x.001.0001 2000