pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31892 · v1 · pith:4WVK7BS2new · submitted 2026-06-30 · 💻 cs.LO · cs.AI

Better Understanding, Understanding Better

Yu Wei (Department of Philosophy , East China Normal University) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 02:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LO cs.AI
keywords epistemic logicunderstandingcomparative modalitiesgraded explanationsjustification termssoundnesscompletenessdecidability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new epistemic logic models degrees of understanding and direct comparisons between agents.

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

The paper develops a formal system to capture the idea that understanding exceeds knowledge and occurs in degrees that can be compared across agents. It adds level-indexed understanding modalities and a comparative connective to multi-agent epistemic logic. The semantics enrich standard models with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra, allowing representation of minimal through ideal understanding. Soundness and strong completeness are proved for both finitary and infinitary versions, with decidability established for each fixed finite-level fragment.

Core claim

The paper presents a comparative epistemic logic of understanding that incorporates level-indexed understanding modalities along with a comparative connective for expressing that one agent understands why a proposition better than another. Multi-agent epistemic models are semantically enriched with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra. This setup distinguishes minimal, ordinary, more demanding, and ideal understanding while allowing direct comparisons between agents regarding the same proposition. Separate finitary bounded-level and infinitary full-language systems are defined, with proofs of soundness and strong completeness, plus decidability f

What carries the argument

level-indexed understanding modalities together with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra

If this is right

  • The logic distinguishes minimal, ordinary, more demanding, and ideal understanding of the same proposition.
  • Direct comparisons between agents' understanding of a given formula can be expressed and reasoned about.
  • Both the finitary bounded-level calculus and the infinitary companion system are sound and strongly complete.
  • Each fixed finite-level fragment is decidable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework supplies a tool for formalizing debates in epistemology and philosophy of science about explanatory depth.
  • Decidable fragments could support computational checks of understanding comparisons in multi-agent settings.
  • Extensions might incorporate dynamic updates to explanation structures when new information arrives.

Load-bearing premise

The added graded explanation structures and term algebra correctly capture the philosophical idea that understanding comes in comparable degrees.

What would settle it

A concrete scenario of two agents understanding the same proposition where intuitive degree comparison cannot be matched by any assignment of graded explanations in the enriched models.

read the original abstract

"Any fool can know; the point is to understand." A well-known remark often attributed to Einstein captures a widely shared intuition: understanding is more than merely knowing. Yet epistemic logic has paid relatively little attention to understanding, despite its central role in contemporary epistemology, philosophy of science, and recent debates about AI. A recurring theme in the philosophical literature is that, unlike knowledge, understanding comes in degrees: one may understand something more or less well, and one's understanding may be better than another's. We introduce a comparative epistemic logic of understanding with level-indexed understanding modalities and a comparative connective for saying that one agent understands why a proposition better than another agent does. Semantically, we enrich multi-agent epistemic models with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra. This yields a unified framework for representing minimal, ordinary, more demanding, and ideal understanding, together with comparisons between agents with respect to the same formula at issue. We distinguish a finitary bounded-level calculus from an infinitary full-language companion system. We establish soundness and strong completeness, and show that each fixed finite-level fragment is decidable.

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 introduces a comparative epistemic logic of understanding with level-indexed understanding modalities and a comparative connective for one agent understanding why a proposition better than another. It enriches multi-agent epistemic models with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification-style term algebra to represent minimal, ordinary, more demanding, and ideal understanding along with cross-agent comparisons. The authors distinguish a finitary bounded-level calculus from an infinitary full-language system and claim to establish soundness and strong completeness for both, plus decidability for each fixed finite-level fragment.

Significance. If the claimed meta-theoretic results hold, the framework would supply a formal apparatus for degrees and comparisons of understanding within epistemic logic, extending standard multi-agent epistemic models in a way that directly engages philosophical literature on understanding versus knowledge. The combination of graded explanation structures with term algebras offers a unified treatment of varying strengths of understanding and could support applications in formal epistemology or AI explanation systems.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript asserts soundness, strong completeness, and decidability results for the finitary bounded-level system and the infinitary companion, yet supplies no model definitions, axiom systems, proof sketches, or derivations anywhere in the provided text, rendering it impossible to assess whether the semantic enrichment with graded explanation structures and the term algebra actually supports these claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for highlighting this critical gap in the submitted version. We address the comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript asserts soundness, strong completeness, and decidability results for the finitary bounded-level system and the infinitary companion, yet supplies no model definitions, axiom systems, proof sketches, or derivations anywhere in the provided text, rendering it impossible to assess whether the semantic enrichment with graded explanation structures and the term algebra actually supports these claims.

    Authors: The referee is correct: the version under review contains only the abstract, which asserts the meta-theoretic results without providing any model definitions, axiom systems, or proof material. This omission prevents any assessment of whether the proposed graded explanation structures and term algebra support soundness, strong completeness, or decidability. In the revised manuscript we will add: (i) the full semantic definitions of the multi-agent models enriched with agent-indexed graded explanation structures and the justification-style term algebra; (ii) the complete axiom systems for both the finitary bounded-level calculus and the infinitary companion; (iii) at least outline proofs of soundness and strong completeness for both systems together with the decidability argument for each fixed finite-level fragment. These additions will make the technical claims fully evaluable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper defines a new comparative epistemic logic with level-indexed modalities and a 'better than' connective, introduces agent-indexed graded explanation structures and a justification term algebra as the semantics, and then proves soundness, strong completeness, and decidability for the finitary and infinitary systems. These meta-results are standard consequences of the definitions and do not reduce any claimed prediction or theorem to a fitted input, self-citation chain, or renaming of prior results. The semantic enrichment is explicitly presented as a modeling choice to capture degrees of understanding, not as a derived claim. No load-bearing step relies on self-citation or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central contribution rests on standard background results from epistemic logic plus newly introduced semantic structures whose adequacy is assumed rather than derived from independent evidence.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard multi-agent epistemic logic axioms
    The paper builds directly on existing epistemic logic.
  • domain assumption Graded explanation structures and term algebra capture degrees of understanding
    This modeling choice is introduced in the semantics section of the abstract.
invented entities (3)
  • level-indexed understanding modalities no independent evidence
    purpose: Represent degrees of understanding
    New operators introduced to model graded understanding.
  • comparative connective for understanding no independent evidence
    purpose: Express that one agent understands better than another
    New connective for comparisons.
  • agent-indexed graded explanation structures no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide semantics for the modalities
    New semantic component.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5718 in / 1372 out tokens · 46349 ms · 2026-07-01T02:16:22.915111+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

34 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Review of Symbolic Logic 1(4), pp

    Sergei Artemov (2008): The logic of justification . The Review of Symbolic Logic 1(4), pp. 477–513, doi:10.1017/S1755020308090060

    work page doi:10.1017/s1755020308090060 2008

  2. [2]

    216, Cambridge University Press

    Sergei Artemov & Melvin Fitting (2019): Justification Logic: Reasoning with Reasons . 216, Cambridge University Press

    2019

  3. [3]

    Con- ceptus 40(98), pp

    Christoph Baumberger (2014): Types of understanding: Their nature and their relation to knowledge. Con- ceptus 40(98), pp. 67–88, doi:10.1515/cpt-2014-0002

    work page doi:10.1515/cpt-2014-0002 2014

  4. [5]

    Preprint

    Pierre Beckmann & Matthieu Queloz (2025): Mechanistic Indicators of Understanding in Large Language Models, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.08017. Preprint

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08017 2025

  5. [6]

    Routledge

    Ivan Boh (1993): Epistemic logic in the later middle ages. Routledge

    1993

  6. [7]

    Theoria 34(1), pp

    Ivan Boh (2000): Four phases of medieval epistemic logic. Theoria 66(2), pp. 129–144, doi:10.1111/j.1755- 2567.2000.tb01159.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1755- 2000

  7. [8]

    Erken- ntnis 90, pp

    Felipe Morales Carbonell (2025): Compressing Graphs: a Model for the Content of Understanding . Erken- ntnis 90, pp. 187–215, doi:10.1007/s10670-023-00694-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10670-023-00694-3 2025

  8. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), pp

    Hans van Ditmarsch, Wiebe van der Hoek & Barteld Kooi (2009): Knowing More — From Global to Local Correspondence. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), pp. 955–960

    2009

  9. [10]

    Doder & Z

    D. Doder & Z. Ognjanovi ´c (2024): Probabilistic Temporal Logic with Countably Additive Semantics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 175, p. 103389, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2023.103389

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apal.2023.103389 2024

  10. [11]

    Synthese 199(3–4), pp

    Miguel Egler (2021): Why Understanding-Why Is Contrastive . Synthese 199(3–4), pp. 6061–6083, doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03059-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03059-x 2021

  11. [12]

    Logica Yearbook, pp

    Melvin Fitting (2004): A logic of explicit knowledge. Logica Yearbook, pp. 11–22

    2004

  12. [13]

    Annals of Pure and Applied Logic132(1), pp

    Melvin Fitting (2005): The logic of proofs, semantically. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic132(1), pp. 1–25, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2004.04.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apal.2004.04.009 2005

  13. [14]

    181–192, doi:10.5840/logos-episteme20123234

    Emma C Gordon (2012): Is there propositional understanding? Logos & Episteme 3(2), pp. 181–192, doi:10.5840/logos-episteme20123234

    work page doi:10.5840/logos-episteme20123234 2012

  14. [15]

    Grimm (2017): Understanding and Transparency

    Stephen R. Grimm (2017): Understanding and Transparency. In Stephen Grimm, Christoph Baumberger & Sabine Ammon, editors: Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, pp. 212–229, doi:10.4324/9781315686110

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315686110 2017

  15. [16]

    The Free Press

    Carl Hempel (1965): Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science . The Free Press

    1965

  16. [17]

    Philosophy of Science 15(2), pp

    Carl Gustav Hempel & Paul Oppenheim (1948): Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 15(2), pp. 135–175, doi:10.1086/286983

    work page doi:10.1086/286983 1948

  17. [18]

    North-Holland

    Carol Karp (1964): Languages with Expressions of Infinite Length. North-Holland

    1964

  18. [19]

    The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64(1), pp

    Kareem Khalifa (2013): The role of explanation in understanding. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64(1), pp. 161–187, doi:10.1093/bjps/axr057

    work page doi:10.1093/bjps/axr057 2013

  19. [20]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, doi:10.1017/9781108164276

    Kareem Khalifa (2017): Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, doi:10.1017/9781108164276

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108164276 2017

  20. [21]

    Synthese 196(11), pp

    Insa Lawler (2019): Understanding why, knowing why, and cognitive achievements. Synthese 196(11), pp. 4583–4603, doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1672-9. Y . Wei 769

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1672-9 2019

  21. [22]

    65–83, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2011.01416.x

    Rachel McKinnon (2012): How do you know that ‘how do you know?’Challenges a speaker’s knowledge? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93(1), pp. 65–83, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2011.01416.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2011.01416.x 2012

  22. [23]

    Krakauer (2023): The Debate Over Understanding in AI’s Large Language Models

    Melanie Mitchell & David C. Krakauer (2023): The Debate Over Understanding in AI’s Large Language Models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120(13), p. e2215907120, doi:10.1073/pnas.2215907120

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2215907120 2023

  23. [24]

    In: Virtue Epistemology Naturalized, Springer, pp

    Duncan Pritchard (2014): Knowledge and understanding . In: Virtue Epistemology Naturalized, Springer, pp. 315–327, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04672-3_18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04672-3_18 2014

  24. [25]

    Salmon (1985): Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World

    Wesley C. Salmon (1985): Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press

    1985

  25. [26]

    Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 115(1, Part 1), pp

    Paulina Sliwa (2015): IV—Understanding and knowing . Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 115(1, Part 1), pp. 57–74, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2015.00384.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2015.00384.x 2015

  26. [27]

    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44(3), pp

    Michael Strevens (2013): No Understanding Without Explanation . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44(3), pp. 510–515, doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.12.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.12.005 2013

  27. [28]

    Lecture notes, University of Bern

    Thomas Studer (2012): Lectures on Justification Logic. Lecture notes, University of Bern

    2012

  28. [29]

    Thórisson, David Kremelberg, Bas R

    Kristinn R. Thórisson, David Kremelberg, Bas R. Steunebrink & Eric Nivel (2016): About Understanding. In Bas Steunebrink, Pei Wang & Ben Goertzel, editors: International Conference on Artificial General Intel- ligence, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 106–117, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41649-6_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41649-6_11 2016

  29. [30]

    In: Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game-Theoretical Semantics, Springer, pp

    Yanjing Wang (2018): Beyond knowing that: a new generation of epistemic logics . In: Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game-Theoretical Semantics, Springer, pp. 499–533, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62864-6_21

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62864-6_21 2018

  30. [31]

    In Alexandra Pavlova, Mina Young Pedersen & Raffaella Bernardi, editors: Selected Reflections in Language, Logic, and Information , Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp

    Yu Wei (2024): A Logical Framework for Understanding Why. In Alexandra Pavlova, Mina Young Pedersen & Raffaella Bernardi, editors: Selected Reflections in Language, Logic, and Information , Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 203–220, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50628-4_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50628-4_13 2024

  31. [32]

    Wilkenfeld (2014): Functional Explaining: A New Approach to the Philosophy of Explanation

    Daniel A. Wilkenfeld (2014): Functional Explaining: A New Approach to the Philosophy of Explanation . Synthese 191(14), pp. 3367–3391, doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0452-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0452-z 2014

  32. [33]

    Wilkenfeld (2019): Understanding as Compression

    Daniel A. Wilkenfeld (2019): Understanding as Compression . Philosophical Studies 176(10), pp. 2807– 2831, doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1152-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1152-1 2019

  33. [34]

    In Edward N

    James Woodward & Lauren Ross (2021): Scientific Explanation. In Edward N. Zalta, editor: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2021 edition, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

    2021

  34. [35]

    Synthese 198(2), pp

    Chao Xu, Yanjing Wang & Thomas Studer (2021): A Logic of Knowing Why . Synthese 198(2), pp. 1259– 1285, doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02104-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02104-0 2021