Dynamic linear time temporal logic

Specifying and verifying interaction protocols in a temporal action logic

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.

Modalities for model checking: branching time logic strikes back

<p>A basic result concerning LTL, the propositional temporal logic of linear time, is that it is expressively complete; it is equal in expressive power to the first order theory of sequences. We present here a smooth extension of this result to the class of partial orders known as Mazurkiewicz traces. These partial orders arise in a variety of contexts in concurrency theory and they provide the conceptual basis for many of the partial order reduction methods that have been developed in connection with LTL-specifications.</p><p>We show that LTrL, our linear time temporal logic, is equal in expressive power to the first order theory of traces when interpreted over (finite and) infinite traces. This result fills a prominent gap in the existing logical theory of infinite traces. LTrL also provides a syntactic characterisation of the so-called trace consistent (robust) LTL-specifications. These are specifications expressed as LTL formulas that do not distinguish between different linearisations of the same trace and hence are amenable to partial order reduction methods.</p>

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

Propositional dynamic logic with local assignment

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

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.

In classical deterministic planning, solutions to planning tasks are simply sequences of actions, but that is not sufficient for contingent plans in non-deterministic environments. Contingent plans are often expressed through policies that map states to actions. An alternative is to specify contingent plans as programs, e.g. in the syntax of Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL). PDL is a logic for reasoning about programs with sequential composition, test and non-deterministic choice. However, as we show in the paper, none of the existing PDL modalities directly captures the notion of a solution to a planning task under non-determinism. We add a new modality to star-free PDL correctly capturing this notion. We prove the appropriateness of the new modality by showing how to translate back and forth between policies and PDL programs under the new modality. More precisely, we show how a policy solution to a planning task gives rise to a program solution expressed via the new modality, and vice versa. We also provide an axiomatisation of our PDL extension through reduction axioms into standard star-free PDL.

Matching logic is a logic for specifying and reasoning about structure by means of patterns and pattern matching. This paper makes two contributions. First, it proposes a sound and complete proof system for matching logic in its full generality. Previously, sound and complete deduction for matching logic was known only for particular theories providing equality and membership. Second, it proposes matching μ -Iogic, an extension of matching logic with a least fixpoint μ -binder, It is shown that matching μ -Iogic captures as special instances many important logics in mathematics and computer science, including first-order logic with least fixpoints, modal μ -Iogic as well as dynamic logic and various temporal logics such as infinite/finite-trace linear temporal logic and computation tree logic, and notably reachability logic, the underlying logic of the \mathbbk framework for programming language semantics and formal analysis. Matching μ -logic therefore serves as a unifying foundation for specifying and reasoning about fixpoints and induction, programming languages and program specification and verification.

: 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.

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.

On undecidability of propositional temporal logics on trace systems

We study the problem of efficiently computing all (usually infinitely many) facts which are entailed by a specification written in linear temporal logic (LTL)-a standard formalism for specifying and verifying properties of computations in reactive systems. This problem can be seen as a generalisation of the standard entailment checking, but whose output provides a much wider understanding of the system’s behaviour. We show that in full LTL the problem can be solved in doubly exponential time, whereas for Horn fragments of LTL, which can be seen as temporal logic programs, the problem can be solved in exponential or only quadratic time, depending on the allowed temporal operators in the input formula. Moreover, we show that all these bounds are optimal. We also implement and experimentally compare two techniques for solving the problem: an automata-based algorithm for full LTL and a materialisation-based algorithm for Horn fragments. The obtained results suggest practical usefulness of our approach.