The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The complexity of theorem-proving procedures
Cook, S. A. (1971) · Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '71 · doi:10.1145/800157.805047 · Cited by 6,385
Cited by
Intelligent agents: theory and practice
Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888900008122 · Cited by 6,810
The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View
Tuomela, R. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313390.001.0001 · Cited by 840
Reasoning about knowledge and probability
Fagin, R., & Halpern, J. Y. (1994) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/174652.174658 · Cited by 477
Self-citationCooperation, Knowledge, and Time: Alternating-time Temporal Epistemic Logic and its Applications
van der Hoek, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2003) · Studia Logica · doi:10.1023/a:1026185103185 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y.
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-04
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-379
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076073997
- Cited by
- 845
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 34.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90049-4
- The paper
- Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1992). A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90049-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
