An interval logic for higher-level temporal reasoning

Prior work explored temporal logics, based on classical modal logics, as a framework for specifying and reasoning about concurrent programs, distributed systems, and communications protocols, and reported on efforts using temporal reasoning primitives to express very high level abstract requirements that a program or system is to satisfy. Based on experience with those primitives, this report describes an Interval Logic that is more suitable for expressing such higher level temporal properties. The report provides a formal semantics for the Interval Logic, and several examples of its use. A description of decision procedures for the logic is also included

LTLf and LDLf Monitoring: A Technical Report

Runtime monitoring is one of the central tasks to provide operational decision support to running business processes, and check on-the-fly whether they comply with constraints and rules. We study runtime monitoring of properties expressed in LTL on finite traces (LTLf) and in its extension LDLf. LDLf is a powerful logic that captures all monadic second order logic on finite traces, which is obtained by combining regular expressions and LTLf, adopting the syntax of propositional dynamic logic (PDL). Interestingly, in spite of its greater expressivity, LDLf has exactly the same computational complexity of LTLf. We show that LDLf is able to capture, in the logic itself, not only the constraints to be monitored, but also the de-facto standard RV-LTL monitors. This makes it possible to declaratively capture monitoring metaconstraints, and check them by relying on usual logical services instead of ad-hoc algorithms. This, in turn, enables to flexibly monitor constraints depending on the monitoring state of other constraints, e.g., "compensation" constraints that are only checked when others are detected to be violated. In addition, we devise a direct translation of LDLf formulas into nondeterministic automata, avoiding to detour to Buechi automata or alternating automata, and we use it to implement a monitoring plug-in for the PROM suite

LTLf/LDLf Non-Markovian Rewards

In Markov Decision Processes (MDPs), the reward obtained in a state is Markovian, i.e., depends on the last state and action. This dependency makes it difficult to reward more interesting long-term behaviors, such as always closing a door after it has been opened, or providing coffee only following a request. Extending MDPs to handle non-Markovian reward functions was the subject of two previous lines of work. Both use LTL variants to specify the reward function and then compile the new model back into a Markovian model. Building on recent progress in temporal logics over finite traces, we adopt LDLf for specifying non-Markovian rewards and provide an elegant automata construction for building a Markovian model, which extends that of previous work and offers strong minimality and compositionality guarantees

The Role of Deontic Logic in the Specification of Information Systems

In this paper we discuss the role that deontic logic plays in the specification of information systems, either because constraints on the systems directly concern norms or, and even more importantly, system constraints are considered ideal but violable (so-called `soft¿ constraints).\ud To overcome the traditional problems with deontic logic (the so-called paradoxes), we first state the importance of distinguishing between ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints and next focus on the most severe paradox, the so-called Chisholm paradox, involving contrary-to-duty norms. We present a multi-modal extension of standard deontic logic (SDL) to represent the ought-to-be version of the Chisholm set properly. For the ought-to-do variant we employ a reduction to dynamic logic, and show how the Chisholm set can be treated adequately in this setting. Finally we discuss a way of integrating both ought-to-be and ought-to-do reasoning, enabling one to draw conclusions from ought-to-be constraints to ought-to-do ones, and show by an example the use(fulness) of this

Learning Linear Temporal Properties

We present two novel algorithms for learning formulas in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) from examples. The first learning algorithm reduces the learning task to a series of satisfiability problems in propositional Boolean logic and produces a smallest LTL formula (in terms of the number of subformulas) that is consistent with the given data. Our second learning algorithm, on the other hand, combines the SAT-based learning algorithm with classical algorithms for learning decision trees. The result is a learning algorithm that scales to real-world scenarios with hundreds of examples, but can no longer guarantee to produce minimal consistent LTL formulas. We compare both learning algorithms and demonstrate their performance on a wide range of synthetic benchmarks. Additionally, we illustrate their usefulness on the task of understanding executions of a leader election protocol