On the complexity of the linear-time μ-calculus for Petri Nets

The article is written in support of the educational discipline “Non-classical logics”. Within the framework of this discipline, the objects of study are the basic principles and constructive elements, with the help of which the formal construction of various non-classical propositional logics takes place. Despite the abstractness of the theory of non-classical logics, in which the main attention is paid to the strict mathematical formalization of logical reasoning, there are real practical areas of application of theoretical results. In particular, languages of temporal modal logics are widely used for modeling, specification, and verification (correctness analysis) of logic control program systems. This article demonstrates, using the linear temporal logic LTL as an example, how abstract concepts of non-classical logics can be reƒected in practice in the field of information technology and programming. We show the possibility of representing the behavior of a software system in the form of a set of LTL-formulas and using this representation to verify the satisfiability of program system properties through the procedure of proving the validity of logical inferences, expressed in terms of the linear temporal logic LTL. As program systems, for the specification of the behavior of which the LTL logic will be applied, Minsky counter machines are considered. Minsky counter machines are one of the ways to formalize the intuitive concept of an algorithm. They have the same computing power as Turing machines. A counter machine has the form of a computer program written in a high-level language, since it contains variables called counters, and conditional and unconditional jump operators that allow to build loop constructions. It is known that any algorithm (hypothetically) can be implemented in the form of a Minsky three-counter machine.

When specifying goals of agents, temporal logics such as linear temporal logic LTL and branching time temporal logic CTL are adopted as basic tools. In order to specify goals in view of multi-agent cooperation which is one aspect of social interaction, two logic frameworks are proposed in this paper based on alternating-time temporal logic ATL. Firstly, ATL is extended with strong and weak exceptions so as to facilitate non-monotonic reasoning of goals, and N-ATL whose model checking complexity is PTIME-complete is proposed. As far as we know, N-ATL is the first multi-agent cooperation logic that takes non-monotonic reasoning into account in the literature. Secondly, ATL is extended with goal operator which is one kind of modal operators, and ATL-G whose model checking complexity is also PTIME-complete is proposed. Examples are introduced to show the usage of these two new multi-agent cooperation logics whose properties are analyzed as well.

Trace expressions are a compact and expressive formalism, initially devised for runtime verification of agent interactions in multiagent systems, which has been successfully employed to model real protocols, and to generate monitors for mainstream multiagent system platforms, and generalized to support runtime verification of different kinds of properties and systems. In this paper we formally compare the expressive power of trace expressions with the Linear Temporal Logic LTL, a formalism widely adopted in runtime verification. We show that any LTL formula can be translated into a trace expression which is equivalent from the point of view of runtime verification. Since trace expressions are able to express and verify sets of traces that are not context-free, we can derive that in the context of runtime verification trace expressions are more expressive than LTL.

1.1 Relationship between Petri net and linear logic Petri nets were first introduced by Petri in his seminal Ph.D. thesis, and both the theory and the applications of his model have flourished in concurrency theory (Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998a; Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998b). The relationships between Petri nets and linear logics have been studied by many researchers (Engberg & Winskel, 1997; Farwer, 1999; Hirai, 2000; Hirai 1999; Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001; Kamide, 2004, Kamide, 2006; Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994; LarcheyWendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000; Lilius, 1992; Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991; Okada, 1998; Tanabe, 1997). A category theoretical investigation of such a relationship was given by Mart -Oliet and Meseguer (Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991), purely syntactical approach using Horn linear logic was established by Kanovich (Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994), a naive phase linear logic for a certain class of Petri nets was given by Okada (Okada, 1998), a linear logical view of object Petri nets were studied by Farwer (Farwer, 1999), and various Petri net interpretations of linear logic using quantale models were obtained by Ishihara and Hiraishi (Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001), Engberg and Winskel (Engberg & Winskel, 1997), Larchey-Wendling and Galmiche (Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000), and Lilius (Lilius, 1992). Petri net interpretations using Kripke semantics for various fragments and extensions of intuitionistic linear logic were studied by Kamide (Kamide, 2004; Kamide, 2006c). In (Kamide, 2004), Petri net interpretations of various fragments of a spatio-temporal soft linear logic were discussed. In (Kamide, 2006c), Petri nets with inhibitor arcs, which were first introduced by Kosaraju (Kosaraju, 1973) to show the limitation of the usual Petri nets, were described using Kripke semantics for intuitionistic linear logic with strong negation. The approarches using Kripke semantics can obtain a very simple correspondence between Petri net and linear logic.

The linear time μ-calculus extends LTL with arbitrary least and greatest fixpoint operators. This gives it the power to express all ω-regular languages, i.e. strictly more than LTL. The validity problem is PSPACE-complete for both LTL and the linear time μ-calculus. In practice it is more difficult for the latter because of nestings of fixpoint operators and variables with several occurrences. We present a simple sound and complete infinitary proof system for the linear time μ-calculus and then present two decision procedures for provability in the system, hence validity of formulas. One uses nondeterministic Büchi automata, the other one a generalisation of size-change termination analysis (SCT) known from functional programming. The main novelties of this paper are the connection with SCT and the fact that both decision procedures have a better asymptotic complexity than earlier ones and have been implemented.

We present regular linear temporal logic (RLTL), a logic that generalizes linear temporal logic with the ability to use regular expressions arbitrarily as sub-expressions. Every LTL operator can be defined as a context in regular linear temporal logic. This implies that there is a (linear) translation from LTL to RLTL. Unlike LTL, regular linear temporal logic can define all ω-regular languages, while still keeping the satisfiability problem in PSPACE. Unlike the extended temporal logics $\text{ETL}_*$ , RLTL is defined with an algebraic signature. In contrast to the linear time μ-calculus, RLTL does not depend on fix-points in its syntax.

This article shows how individual Petri nets form models of Girard's intuitionistic linear logic. It explores questions of expressiveness and completeness of linear logic with respect to this interpretation. An aim is to use Petri nets to give an understanding of linear logic and give some appraisal of the value of linear logic as a specification logic for Petri nets. This article might serve as a tutorial, providing one in-road into Girard's linear logic via Petri nets. With this in mind we have added several exercises and their solutions. We have made no attempt to be exhaustive in our treatment, dedicating our treatment to one semantics of intuitionistic linear logic.Completeness is shown for several versions of Girard's linear logic with respect to Petri nets as the class of models. The strongest logic considered is intuitionistic linear logic, with ⊗, ⊸, &, ⊕ and the exponential ! (“of course”), and forms of quantification. This logic is shown sound and complete with respect to atomic nets (these include nets in which every transition leads to a nonempty multiset of places). The logic is remarkably expressive, enabling descriptions of the kinds of properties one might wish to show of nets; in particular, negative properties, asserting the impossibility of an assertion, can also be expressed. A start is made on decidability issues.

Workflow nets (WF-nets) are Petri nets which represent workflows. Soundness is a criterion of logical correctness defined for WF-nets. It is known that soundness verification is intractable. In this paper, we propose a method to verify soundness using a Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) model checking tool, SPIN. We give an LTL necessary and sufficient condition to verify soundness for WF-nets without livelock. Acyclic WF-nets have no livelock, but cyclic WF-nets may have livelock. We also give a necessary and sufficient condition to verify livelock. Meanwhile, we show that any LTL model checking tool cannot verify soundness for WF-nets with livelock. We give necessary conditions to verify soundness for them. Those conditions enable us to use SPIN even if a given WF-net has livelock. We also develop a tool to verify soundness based on our method. We show effectiveness of our method by comparing our tool with existing soundness verification tools on verification time for 200 cyclic ACWF-nets.

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.

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.

: 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.

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.

Linear time temporal logic (LTL) has become a well established tool for specifying the dynamic behaviour of reactive systems with an interleaving semantics, and the automata-theoretic approach has proven to be a very useful mechanism for performing automatic verification in this setting. Especially alternating automata turned out to be a powerful tool in constructing efficient yet simple to understand decision procedures and directly yield further on-the-fly model checking procedures. In this paper we exhibit a decision procedure for LTL over Mazurkiewicz traces which generalises the classical automata-theoretic approach to a linear time temporal logic interpreted no longer over sequences but certain partial orders. Specifically, we construct a (linear) alternating Buchi automaton accepting the set of linearisations of traces satisfying the formula at hand. The salient point of our technique is to apply a notion of independence-rewriting to formulas of the logic. Furthermore, we show that the class of linear and trace-consistent alternating Buchi automata corresponds exactly to LTL formulas over Mazurkiewicz traces, lifting a similar result from Loding and Thomas formulated in the framework of LTL over words.

This article is written in support of the academic discipline “Nonclassical logics”. The objects of study within this discipline are the basic principles and constructive elements used in formal construction of various nonclassical propositional logics. Despite the abstract nature of the theory of nonclassical logics, which is mainly focused on strict mathematical formalization of logical reasoning, there are real practical applications for its theoretical results. In particular, languages of temporal modal logics are widely used for modeling, specification, and verification (correctness analysis) of logic control program systems. This article demonstrates, based on the example of linear temporal logic (LTL), how abstract concepts of nonclassical logics can be applied in practice in the area of information technology and programming. It is shown that the behavior of a software system can be represented as a set of LTL formulas, which can then be used to check the satisfiability of the properties of that software system via the procedure for proving the validity of logical inferences expressed in terms of linear temporal logic (LTL). The approach to using LTL to specify the behavior of software systems is demonstrated based on Minsky counter machines. Minsky machines are one of the ways of formalizing the intuitive concept of an algorithm. Their computational power is equivalent to that of Turing machines. A counter machine is a computer program written in a high-level language, since it contains variables called counters and conditional and unconditional jump operators used for loop construction. It is known that any algorithm can (hypothetically) be implemented as a three-counter Minsky machine.

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.