A compositional automata-based semantics and preserving transformation rules for testing property patterns

: The question of whether branching-time temporal logic or linear-time temporal logic is best for reasoning about concurrent programs is one of the most controversial issues in logics of programs. Concurrent programs are usually modelled by labelled state-transition graphs in which some state is designated as the initial state. For historical reasons such graphs are called Kripke structures. In linear temporal logic operators are provided for describing events along a single time path (i.e., along a single path in a Kripke structure). In a branching-time logic the temporal operators quantify over the futures that are possible from a given state (i.e., over the possible paths that lead from a state). It is well known that the two types of temporal logic have different expressive powers. Linear temporal logic, for example, can express certain fairness properties that cannot be expressed in branching-time temporal logic. On the other hand, certain practical decision problems like model checking are easier for branching-time temporal logic than for linear temporal logic. This paper provides further insight on which type of logic is best. It is shown that if two finite Kripke structures can be distinguished by some formula that contains both branching-time and linear-time operators, then the structures can be distinguished by a formula that contains only branching time operators. Specifically, we show that if two finite Kripke structures can be distinguished by some formula of the logic CTL (i.e., if there is some CTL formula that is true in one but not in the other), then they can be distinguished by some formula of the logic CTL.

Based on the Kripke structure, linear temporal logic and generalized possibility measure, this article studies the model checking problems of generalized possibilistic fuzzy linear temporal logic (GPoFTL). The generalized possibilistic Kripke structure is introduced to describe the system model. The syntax of GPoFTL, which includes fuzzy temporal operators such as ``soon'', ``presently'', ``gradually'', ``within'', ``last'', ``nearly always'', ``almost alwayss'', ``in the long distant future'', ``in the middle of'', ``nearly until'' and ``almost until'', and its language semantics and path semantics under generalized possibility measure are given. Next, we explain the semantics of fuzzy temporal operators through some examples and prove that GPoFTL is an extension of generalized possibilistic linear temporal logic in fuzzy time temporal logic. Furthermore, the GPoFTL model checking algorithm is given by explicit calculation formulas one by one for any GPoFTL formula involving fuzzy temporal operators using fuzzy matrix operations. Last, the algorithm of necessary threshold model checking of GPoFTL is studied using automata theory and its time complexity is discussed.

Modalities for model checking: branching time logic strikes back

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.

The paper presents an efficient algorithm for checking the satisfiability of a propositional linear time temporal logic formula, which may have past as well as future operators. This algorithm can be used to check validity of such formulas over all models as well as over computations of a finite-state program (model checking). Unlike previous theoretical presentations of a decision method for checking satisfiability or validity, whose first step is to construct the full set of all possible atoms of a tableau (satisfaction graph) and immediately pay the worst case exponential complexity price, the algorithm presented here builds the tableau incrementally. This means that the algorithm constructs only those atoms that are reachable from a possible initial atom, satisfying the formula to be checked.While incremental tableau construction for the future fragment of linear time temporal logic can be done in a single pass, the presence of past operators requires multiple passes that successively construct augmented versions of existing atoms, while still maintaining consistency and reachability.The proof of correctness of the algorithm is based on showing that any model of the considered formula is embedded as a path in the tableau at all the construction stages, and can be delineated when the construction terminates.The paper also describes an implementation of the algorithm with further attention to efficiency. This implementation is available as a support system for the book [8] under the name “temporal prover”. It has been used to verify all the propositional temporal formulas and to model-check all the finite-state programs appearing in the book.Keywordstemporal logicsatisfiability checkingvalidity checkingmodel checkingpast and future operatorsincremental tableauautomatic verification

Standpoint linear temporal logic (SLTL) is a recently introduced extension of classical linear temporal logic (LTL) with standpoint modalities. Intuitively, these modalities allow to express that, from agent a's standpoint, it is conceivable that a given formula holds. Besides the standard interpretation of the standpoint modalities we introduce four new semantics, which differ in the information an agent can extract from the history. We provide a general model checking algorithm applicable to SLTL under any of the five semantics. Furthermore we analyze the computational complexity of the corresponding model checking problems, obtaining PSPACE-completeness in three cases, which stands in contrast to the known EXPSPACE-completeness of the SLTL satisfiability problem.

In control theory, models of physical processes, such as systems of differential equations, are usually checked against specifications, such as stability and set invariance. In formal methods, rich specifications, such as languages and formulae of temporal logics, are checked against models of software programs and digital circuits, such as finite transition graphs. With the development and integration of cyber physical and safety critical systems, there is an increasing need for computational tools for verification and control of complex systems from rich, temporal logic specifications. The formal verification and synthesis problems have been shown to be undecidable even for very simple classes of infinitespace continuous and hybrid systems. However, provably correct but conservative approaches, in which the satisfaction of a property by a dynamical system is implied by the satisfaction of the property by a finite over-approximation (abstraction) of the system, have received a lot of attention in recent years. Some classes of systems allowing for computationally efficient verification and control from temporal logic specifications are reviewed. For continuous and discrete-time linear systems and continuous-time multi-linear systems, it is shown that finite abstractions can be constructed through polyhedral operations only. By using techniques from model checking and automata games, this allows for verification and control from specifications given as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulae over linear predicates in the state variables. A connection between the existence of Lyapunov functions and finite bisimulations is established for discrete-time linear and switched linear systems. Finally, optimality and correctness requirements are combined in a model predictive approach to generate control strategies for discrete-time linear systems. The usefulness of these computational tools is illustrated with various examples such as verification and synthesis of biological circuits in synthetic biology and motion planning and control in robotics.

The introduction of Past Operators enables to produce more natural formulation of a wide class of properties of reactive systems, compared to traditional pure future temporal logics. For this reason, past temporal logics are gaining increasing interest in several application areas, ranging from Requirement Engineering to Formal Verification and Model Checking. We show how SAT-based Bounded Model Checking techniques can be extended to deal with Linear Temporal Logics with Past Operators (PLTL). Though apparently simple, this task turns out to be absolutely non-trivial when tackled in its full generality. We discuss a bounded semantics for PLTL, we show that it is correct (and complete), and propose an encoding scheme able to cope with PLTL formulas. Finally, we implement the encoding in NuSMV, and present a first experimental evaluation of the approach.

We present a tableau method for the temporal logic of concurrent objects. This method, which combines tableaux and model checking, is based on the semantics of systems written in an object-oriented programming model and a three level logic: action (Hoare triple-like notation), object (temporal logic allowing stuttering-states), and system (linear temporal logic taking into account communication axioms) [BMS95]. The particularity of this method is that it ensures, once a formula proved valid, that every execution of our programming model satisfies this formula.KeywordsTemporal LogicDecision ProcedureAtomic FormulaLinear Temporal LogicGraph ConstructionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Recent development of logic programming languages based on linear logic suggests a successful direction to extend logic programming to be more expressive and more efficient. The treatment of formulasas-resources gives us not only powerful expressiveness, but also efficient access to a large set of data. However, in linear logic, whole resources are kept in one context, and there is no straight way to represent complex data structures as resources. For example, in order to represent an ordered list and time-dependent data, we need to put additional indices for each resource formula. This paper describes a logic programming language, called TLLP, based on intuitionistic temporal linear logic. This logic, an extension of linear logic with some features from temporal logics, allows the use of the modal operators '?'(next-time) and '?'(always) in addition to the operators used in intuitionistic linear logic. The intuitive meaning of modal operators is as follows: ? B means that B can be used exactly once at the next moment in time; ? B means that B can be used exactly once any time; !B means that B can be used arbitrarily many times (including 0 times) at any time. We first give a proof theoretic formulation of the logic of the TLLP language. We then present a series of resource management systems designed to implement not only interpreters but also compilers based on an extension of the standard WAM model.

Summary form only given. We briefly present a rule-based framework, called EAGLE, shown to be capable of defining and implementing finite trace monitoring logics, including future and past time temporal logic, extended regular expressions, real-time and metric temporal logics (MTL), interval logics, forms of quantified temporal logics, and so on. In this paper we focus on a linear temporal logic (LTL) specialisation of EAGLE. For an initial formula of size m, we establish upper bounds of O(m/sup 2/2/sup m/logm) and O(m/sup 4/2/sup 2m/log/sup 2/m) for the space and time complexity, respectively, of single step evaluation over an input trace. EAGLE has been successfully used, in both LTL and metric LTL forms, to test a real-time controller of an experimental NASA planetary rover.

Unified temporal logic

Over the last two decades, there has been an extensive study of logical formalisms on specifying and verifying real-time systems. Temporal logics have been an important research subject within this direction. Although numerous logics have been introduced for formal specification of real-time and complex systems, an up to date survey of these logics does not exist in the literature. In this paper we analyse various temporal formalisms introduced for specification, including propositional/first-order linear temporal logics, branching temporal logics, interval temporal logics, real-time temporal logics and probabilistic temporal logics. We give decidability, axiomatizability, expressiveness, model checking results for each logic analysed. We also provide a comparison of features of the temporal logics discussed.

A formal approach for run-time verification of web applications using scope-extended LTL

We investigate logical consequence in temporal logics in terms of logical consecutions, i.e., inference rules. First, we discuss the question: what does it mean for a logical consecution to be ‘correct’ in a propositional logic. We consider both valid and admissible consecutions in linear temporal logics and discuss the distinction between these two notions. The linear temporal logicLDTL, consisting of all formulas valid in the frame 〈L≤, ≥〉 of all integer numbers, is the prime object of our investigation. We describe consecutions admissible inLDTLin a semantic way—via consecutions valid in special temporal Kripke/Hintikka models. Then we state that any temporal inference rule has a reduced normal form which is given in terms of uniform formulas of temporal degree 1. Using these facts and enhanced semantic techniques we construct an algorithm, which recognizes consecutions admissible inLDTL. Also, we note that using the same technique it follows that the linear temporal logicL(N) of all natural numbers is also decidable w.r.t. inference rules. So, we prove that both logicsLDTLandL(N) are decidable w.r.t. admissible consecutions. In particular, as a consequence, they both are decidable (known fact), and the given deciding algorithms are explicit.