Exploiting the Temporal Logic Hierarchy and the Non-Confluence Property for Efficient LTL Synthesis

The classic approaches to synthesize a reactive system from a linear temporal logic (LTL) specification first translate the given LTL formula to an equivalent omega-automaton and then compute a winning strategy for the corresponding omega-regular game. To this end, the obtained omega-automata have to be (pseudo)-determinized where typically a variant of Safra's determinization procedure is used. In this paper, we show that this determinization step can be significantly improved for tool implementations by replacing Safra's determinization by simpler determinization procedures. In particular, we exploit (1) the temporal logic hierarchy that corresponds to the well-known automata hierarchy consisting of safety, liveness, Buechi, and co-Buechi automata as well as their boolean closures, (2) the non-confluence property of omega-automata that result from certain translations of LTL formulas, and (3) symbolic implementations of determinization procedures for the Rabin-Scott and the Miyano-Hayashi breakpoint construction. In particular, we present convincing experimental results that demonstrate the practical applicability of our new synthesis procedure

On the Complexity of Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formulas

We show that (1) the Minimal False QCNF search-problem (MF-search) and the Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formula search problem (MU-search) are FPSPACE complete because of the very expressive power of QBF/LTL, (2) we extend the PSPACE-hardness of the MF decision problem to the MU decision problem. As a consequence, we deduce a positive answer to the open question of PSPACE hardness of the inherent Vacuity Checking problem. We even show that the Inherent Non Vacuous formula search problem is also FPSPACE-complete.Comment: Minimal unsatisfiable cores For LTL causes inherent vacuity checking redundancy coverag

Reasoning about Minimal Belief and Negation as Failure

We investigate the problem of reasoning in the propositional fragment of MBNF, the logic of minimal belief and negation as failure introduced by Lifschitz, which can be considered as a unifying framework for several nonmonotonic formalisms, including default logic, autoepistemic logic, circumscription, epistemic queries, and logic programming. We characterize the complexity and provide algorithms for reasoning in propositional MBNF. In particular, we show that entailment in propositional MBNF lies at the third level of the polynomial hierarchy, hence it is harder than reasoning in all the above mentioned propositional formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning. We also prove the exact correspondence between negation as failure in MBNF and negative introspection in Moore's autoepistemic logic

Model-Checking Problems as a Basis for Parameterized Intractability

Most parameterized complexity classes are defined in terms of a parameterized version of the Boolean satisfiability problem (the so-called weighted satisfiability problem). For example, Downey and Fellow's W-hierarchy is of this form. But there are also classes, for example, the A-hierarchy, that are more naturally characterised in terms of model-checking problems for certain fragments of first-order logic. Downey, Fellows, and Regan were the first to establish a connection between the two formalisms by giving a characterisation of the W-hierarchy in terms of first-order model-checking problems. We improve their result and then prove a similar correspondence between weighted satisfiability and model-checking problems for the A-hierarchy and the W^*-hierarchy. Thus we obtain very uniform characterisations of many of the most important parameterized complexity classes in both formalisms. Our results can be used to give new, simple proofs of some of the core results of structural parameterized complexity theory.Comment: Changes in since v2: Metadata update