Parametric Linear Dynamic Logic

We introduce Parametric Linear Dynamic Logic (PLDL), which extends Linear Dynamic Logic (LDL) by temporal operators equipped with parameters that bound their scope. LDL was proposed as an extension of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) that is able to express all $\omega$-regular specifications while still maintaining many of LTL's desirable properties like an intuitive syntax and a translation into non-deterministic B\"uchi automata of exponential size. But LDL lacks capabilities to express timing constraints. By adding parameterized operators to LDL, we obtain a logic that is able to express all $\omega$-regular properties and that subsumes parameterized extensions of LTL like Parametric LTL and PROMPT-LTL. Our main technical contribution is a translation of PLDL formulas into non-deterministic B\"uchi word automata of exponential size via alternating automata. This yields a PSPACE model checking algorithm and a realizability algorithm with doubly-exponential running time. Furthermore, we give tight upper and lower bounds on optimal parameter values for both problems. These results show that PLDL model checking and realizability are not harder than LTL model checking and realizability.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2014, arXiv:1408.556

Parameterized Linear Temporal Logics Meet Costs: Still not Costlier than LTL

We continue the investigation of parameterized extensions of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) that retain the attractive algorithmic properties of LTL: a polynomial space model checking algorithm and a doubly-exponential time algorithm for solving games. Alur et al. and Kupferman et al. showed that this is the case for Parametric LTL (PLTL) and PROMPT-LTL respectively, which have temporal operators equipped with variables that bound their scope in time. Later, this was also shown to be true for Parametric LDL (PLDL), which extends PLTL to be able to express all omega-regular properties. Here, we generalize PLTL to systems with costs, i.e., we do not bound the scope of operators in time, but bound the scope in terms of the cost accumulated during time. Again, we show that model checking and solving games for specifications in PLTL with costs is not harder than the corresponding problems for LTL. Finally, we discuss PLDL with costs and extensions to multiple cost functions.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2015, arXiv:1509.0685