Model Checking CTL is Almost Always Inherently Sequential

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004). For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that, in cases where the combined complexity is of relevance, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism cannot be expected to result in any significant speedup. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+

Model Checking CTL is Almost Always Inherently Sequential

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations—restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004). For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that in most applications, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism will not result in the desired speed up. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL +, and ECTL +

A Casual Tour Around a Circuit Complexity Bound

I will discuss the recent proof that the complexity class NEXP (nondeterministic exponential time) lacks nonuniform ACC circuits of polynomial size. The proof will be described from the perspective of someone trying to discover it.Comment: 21 pages, 2 figures. An earlier version appeared in SIGACT News, September 201

Sciduction: Combining Induction, Deduction, and Structure for Verification and Synthesis

Even with impressive advances in automated formal methods, certain problems in system verification and synthesis remain challenging. Examples include the verification of quantitative properties of software involving constraints on timing and energy consumption, and the automatic synthesis of systems from specifications. The major challenges include environment modeling, incompleteness in specifications, and the complexity of underlying decision problems. This position paper proposes sciduction, an approach to tackle these challenges by integrating inductive inference, deductive reasoning, and structure hypotheses. Deductive reasoning, which leads from general rules or concepts to conclusions about specific problem instances, includes techniques such as logical inference and constraint solving. Inductive inference, which generalizes from specific instances to yield a concept, includes algorithmic learning from examples. Structure hypotheses are used to define the class of artifacts, such as invariants or program fragments, generated during verification or synthesis. Sciduction constrains inductive and deductive reasoning using structure hypotheses, and actively combines inductive and deductive reasoning: for instance, deductive techniques generate examples for learning, and inductive reasoning is used to guide the deductive engines. We illustrate this approach with three applications: (i) timing analysis of software; (ii) synthesis of loop-free programs, and (iii) controller synthesis for hybrid systems. Some future applications are also discussed

Communication Complexity and Secure Function Evaluation

We suggest two new methodologies for the design of efficient secure protocols, that differ with respect to their underlying computational models. In one methodology we utilize the communication complexity tree (or branching for f and transform it into a secure protocol. In other words, "any function f that can be computed using communication complexity c can be can be computed securely using communication complexity that is polynomial in c and a security parameter". The second methodology uses the circuit computing f, enhanced with look-up tables as its underlying computational model. It is possible to simulate any RAM machine in this model with polylogarithmic blowup. Hence it is possible to start with a computation of f on a RAM machine and transform it into a secure protocol. We show many applications of these new methodologies resulting in protocols efficient either in communication or in computation. In particular, we exemplify a protocol for the "millionaires problem", where two participants want to compare their values but reveal no other information. Our protocol is more efficient than previously known ones in either communication or computation

Branching-time model checking of one-counter processes

One-counter processes (OCPs) are pushdown processes which operate only on a unary stack alphabet. We study the computational complexity of model checking computation tree logic (CTL) over OCPs. A PSPACE upper bound is inherited from the modal mu-calculus for this problem. First, we analyze the periodic behaviour of CTL over OCPs and derive a model checking algorithm whose running time is exponential only in the number of control locations and a syntactic notion of the formula that we call leftward until depth. Thus, model checking fixed OCPs against CTL formulas with a fixed leftward until depth is in P. This generalizes a result of the first author, Mayr, and To for the expression complexity of CTL's fragment EF. Second, we prove that already over some fixed OCP, CTL model checking is PSPACE-hard. Third, we show that there already exists a fixed CTL formula for which model checking of OCPs is PSPACE-hard. To obtain the latter result, we employ two results from complexity theory: (i) Converting a natural number in Chinese remainder presentation into binary presentation is in logspace-uniform NC^1 and (ii) PSPACE is AC^0-serializable. We demonstrate that our approach can be used to obtain further results. We show that model-checking CTL's fragment EF over OCPs is hard for P^NP, thus establishing a matching lower bound and answering an open question of the first author, Mayr, and To. We moreover show that the following problem is hard for PSPACE: Given a one-counter Markov decision process, a set of target states with counter value zero each, and an initial state, to decide whether the probability that the initial state will eventually reach one of the target states is arbitrarily close to 1. This improves a previously known lower bound for every level of the Boolean hierarchy by Brazdil et al

Subclasses of Presburger Arithmetic and the Weak EXP Hierarchy

It is shown that for any fixed $i>0$, the $\Sigma_{i+1}$-fragment of Presburger arithmetic, i.e., its restriction to $i+1$ quantifier alternations beginning with an existential quantifier, is complete for $\mathsf{\Sigma}^{\mathsf{EXP}}_{i}$, the $i$-th level of the weak EXP hierarchy, an analogue to the polynomial-time hierarchy residing between $\mathsf{NEXP}$ and $\mathsf{EXPSPACE}$. This result completes the computational complexity landscape for Presburger arithmetic, a line of research which dates back to the seminal work by Fischer & Rabin in 1974. Moreover, we apply some of the techniques developed in the proof of the lower bound in order to establish bounds on sets of naturals definable in the $\Sigma_1$-fragment of Presburger arithmetic: given a $\Sigma_1$-formula $\Phi(x)$, it is shown that the set of non-negative solutions is an ultimately periodic set whose period is at most doubly-exponential and that this bound is tight.Comment: 10 pages, 2 figure