# Solving Quantified Modal Logic Problems by Translation to Classical Logics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09570 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09570/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [An Extensible Logic Embedding Tool for Lightweight Non-Classical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.12352/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Faithful Logic Embeddings in HOL -- Deep and Shallow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19311/) (2025)
- [Many Logics, One Methodology: A Plea for Logical Pluralism in Formalised Reasoning (preprint)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27246/) (2026)
- [Same Formulas, Different Semantics: Do Language Models Follow Modal Logic Specifications?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.05097/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This article describes an evaluation of Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems on problems taken from the QMLTP library of first-order modal logic problems. Principally, the problems are translated to both typed first-order and higher-order logic in the TPTP language using an embedding approach, and solved using first-order resp. higher-order logic ATP systems and model finders. Additionally, the results from native modal logic ATP systems are considered, and compared with the results from the embedding approach. The findings are that the embedding process is reliable and successful when state-of-the-art ATP systems are used as backend reasoners, The first-order and higher-order embeddings perform similarly, native modal logic ATP systems have comparable performance to classical systems using the embedding for proving theorems, native modal logic ATP systems are outperformed by the embedding approach for disproving conjectures, and the embedding approach can cope with a wider range of modal logics than the native modal systems considered.