Deciding Full Branching Time Logic by Program Transformation

We present a method based on logic program transformation, for verifying Computation Tree Logic (CTL*) properties of finite state reactive systems. The finite state systems and the CTL* properties we want to verify, are encoded as logic programs on infinite lists. Our verification method consists of two steps. In the first step we transform the logic program that encodes the given system and the given property, into a monadic ω -program, that is, a stratified program defining nullary or unary predicates on infinite lists. This transformation is performed by applying unfold/fold rules that preserve the perfect model of the initial program. In the second step we verify the property of interest by using a proof method for monadic ω-program

A Faster Tableau for CTL*

There have been several recent suggestions for tableau systems for deciding satisfiability in the practically important branching time temporal logic known as CTL*. In this paper we present a streamlined and more traditional tableau approach built upon the author's earlier theoretical work. Soundness and completeness results are proved. A prototype implementation demonstrates the significantly improved performance of the new approach on a range of test formulas. We also see that it compares favourably to state of the art, game and automata based decision procedures.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2013, arXiv:1307.416

Satisfiability Games for Branching-Time Logics

The satisfiability problem for branching-time temporal logics like CTL*, CTL and CTL+ has important applications in program specification and verification. Their computational complexities are known: CTL* and CTL+ are complete for doubly exponential time, CTL is complete for single exponential time. Some decision procedures for these logics are known; they use tree automata, tableaux or axiom systems. In this paper we present a uniform game-theoretic framework for the satisfiability problem of these branching-time temporal logics. We define satisfiability games for the full branching-time temporal logic CTL* using a high-level definition of winning condition that captures the essence of well-foundedness of least fixpoint unfoldings. These winning conditions form formal languages of \omega-words. We analyse which kinds of deterministic {\omega}-automata are needed in which case in order to recognise these languages. We then obtain a reduction to the problem of solving parity or B\"uchi games. The worst-case complexity of the obtained algorithms matches the known lower bounds for these logics. This approach provides a uniform, yet complexity-theoretically optimal treatment of satisfiability for branching-time temporal logics. It separates the use of temporal logic machinery from the use of automata thus preserving a syntactical relationship between the input formula and the object that represents satisfiability, i.e. a winning strategy in a parity or B\"uchi game. The games presented here work on a Fischer-Ladner closure of the input formula only. Last but not least, the games presented here come with an attempt at providing tool support for the satisfiability problem of complex branching-time logics like CTL* and CTL+

Flow Logic

Flow networks have attracted a lot of research in computer science. Indeed, many questions in numerous application areas can be reduced to questions about flow networks. Many of these applications would benefit from a framework in which one can formally reason about properties of flow networks that go beyond their maximal flow. We introduce Flow Logics: modal logics that treat flow functions as explicit first-order objects and enable the specification of rich properties of flow networks. The syntax of our logic BFL* (Branching Flow Logic) is similar to the syntax of the temporal logic CTL*, except that atomic assertions may be flow propositions, like $> \gamma$ or $\geq \gamma$, for $\gamma \in \mathbb{N}$, which refer to the value of the flow in a vertex, and that first-order quantification can be applied both to paths and to flow functions. We present an exhaustive study of the theoretical and practical aspects of BFL*, as well as extensions and fragments of it. Our extensions include flow quantifications that range over non-integral flow functions or over maximal flow functions, path quantification that ranges over paths along which non-zero flow travels, past operators, and first-order quantification of flow values. We focus on the model-checking problem and show that it is PSPACE-complete, as it is for CTL*. Handling of flow quantifiers, however, increases the complexity in terms of the network to ${\rm P}^{\rm NP}$, even for the LFL and BFL fragments, which are the flow-counterparts of LTL and CTL. We are still able to point to a useful fragment of BFL* for which the model-checking problem can be solved in polynomial time. Finally, we introduce and study the query-checking problem for BFL*, where under-specified BFL* formulas are used for network exploration

Tree games with regular objectives

We study tree games developed recently by Matteo Mio as a game interpretation of the probabilistic $\mu$-calculus. With expressive power comes complexity. Mio showed that tree games are able to encode Blackwell games and, consequently, are not determined under deterministic strategies. We show that non-stochastic tree games with objectives recognisable by so-called game automata are determined under deterministic, finite memory strategies. Moreover, we give an elementary algorithmic procedure which, for an arbitrary regular language L and a finite non-stochastic tree game with a winning objective L decides if the game is determined under deterministic strategies.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2014, arXiv:1408.556

Disjunctive form and the modal μ\mu alternation hierarchy

This paper studies the relationship between disjunctive form, a syntactic normal form for the modal mu calculus, and the alternation hierarchy. First it shows that all disjunctive formulas which have equivalent tableau have the same syntactic alternation depth. However, tableau equivalence only preserves alternation depth for the disjunctive fragment: there are disjunctive formulas with arbitrarily high alternation depth that are tableau equivalent to alternation-free non-disjunctive formulas. Conversely, there are non-disjunctive formulas of arbitrarily high alternation depth that are tableau equivalent to disjunctive formulas without alternations. This answers negatively the so far open question of whether disjunctive form preserves alternation depth. The classes of formulas studied here illustrate a previously undocumented type of avoidable syntactic complexity which may contribute to our understanding of why deciding the alternation hierarchy is still an open problem.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2015, arXiv:1509.0282