Dependence logic and its many variants are new logics that aim at establishing a unified logical theory of dependence and independence underlying seemingly unrelated subjects. The area of dependence logic has developed rapidly in the past few years. We will give a short introduction to dependence logic and review some of the recent developments in the area.

In this paper, we introduce a logic based on team semantics, called $\mathbf {FOT} $, whose expressive power is elementary, i.e., coincides with first-order logic both on the level of sentences and (possibly open) formulas, and we also show that a sublogic of $\mathbf {FOT} $, called $\mathbf {FOT}^{\downarrow } $, captures exactly downward closed elementary (or first-order) team properties. We axiomatize completely the logic $\mathbf {FOT} $, and also extend the known partial axiomatization of dependence logic to dependence logic (...) enriched with the logical constants in $\mathbf {FOT}^{\downarrow } $. (shrink)

This paper investigates formal logics for reasoning about determinacy and independence. Propositional Dependence Logic D and Propositional Independence Logic I are recently developed logical systems, based on team semantics, that provide a framework for such reasoning tasks. We introduce two new logics L_D and L_I, based on Kripke semantics, and propose them as alternatives for D and I, respectively. We analyse the relative expressive powers of these four logics and discuss the way these systems relate to natural language. We argue (...) that L_D and L_I naturally resolve a range of interpretational problems that arise in D and I.We also obtain sound and complete axiomatizations for L_D and L_I . (shrink)

We analyse the two definitions of generalized quantifiers for logics of dependence and independence that have been proposed by F. Engström, comparing them with a more general, higher order definition of team quantifier. We show that Engström’s definitions can be identified, by means of appropriate lifts, with special classes of team quantifiers. We point out that the new team quantifiers express a quantitative and a qualitative component, while Engström’s quantifiers only range over the latter. We further argue that Engström’s definitions (...) are just embeddings of the first-order generalized quantifiers into team semantics, and fail to capture an adequate notion of team-theoretical generalized quantifier, save for the special cases in which the quantifiers are applied to flat formulas. We also raise several doubts concerning the meaningfulness of the monotone/nonmonotone distinction in this context. In the appendix we develop some proof theory for Engström’s quantifiers. (shrink)