Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation

, Volume 18, Issue 1–2, pp 79–120 | Cite as

Relativizations for the Logic-Automata Connection

  • Nils Klarlund


BDDs and their algorithms implement a decision procedure for Quantified Propositional Logic. BDDs are a kind of acyclic automata. But unrestricted automata (recognizing unbounded strings of bit vectors) can be used to decide monadic second-order logics, which are more expressive. Prime examples are WS1S, a number-theoretic logic, or the string-based logical notation of introductory texts. One problem is that it is not clear which one is to be preferred in practice. For example, it is not known whether these two logics are computationally equivalent to within a linear factor, that is, whether a formula ϕ of one logic can be transformed to a formula %phis;′ of the other such that %phis;′ is true if and only if ϕ is and such that ϕ′ is decided in time linear in that of the time for ϕ.

Another problem is that first-order variables in either version are given automata-theoretic semantics according to relativizations, which are syntactic means of restricting the domain of quantification of a variable. Such relativizations lead to technical arbitrations that may involve normalizing each subformula in an asymmetric manner or may introduce spurious state space explosions.

In this paper, we investigate these problems through studies of congruences on strings. This algebraic framework is adapted to language-theoretic relativizations, where regular languages are intersected with restrictions. The restrictions are also regular languages. We introduce ternary and sexpartite characterizations of relativized regular languages. From properties of the resulting congruences, we are able to carry out detailed state space analyses that allow us to address the two problems.

We report briefly on practical experiments that support our results. We conclude that WS1S with first-order variables can be robustly implemented in a way that efficiently subsumes string-based notations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ayari, A. and Basin, D. Bounded model construction for monadic second-order logics. In Computer Aided Verification, 2000 pp. 99–112.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basin, D. and Klarlund, N. 1998, Automata based symbolic reasoning in hardware verification. Formal Methods in System Design, Extended version of “Hardware verification using monadic second-order logic,” Computer aided verification: 7th International Conference, CAV ‘95, LNCS 939, 1995, pp. 255–288.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, J. and Machover, M. A Course in Mathematical Logic. North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryant, R. E. Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(3) (1992) 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Büchi, J. Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata. Z. Math. Logik Grundl. Math., 6 (1960) 66–92.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elgot, C. Decision problems of finite automata design and related arithmetics. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 98 (1961) 21–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henriksen, J., Jensen, J., Jørgensen, M., Klarlund, N., Paige, B., Rauhe, T., and Sandholm, A. Mona: Monadic Second-order logic in practice. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, First International Workshop, TACAS ‘95, LNCS 1019, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elgaard, J., Klarlund, N., A.M. Mona 1.x: New techniques for WS1S and WS2S. In Computer Aided Verification, CAV ‘98, Proceedings, Vol. 1427 of LNCS. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelb, P., Margaria, T., Mendler, M., and Gsottberger, C. Mosel: A flexible toolset for Monadic Second-order Logic. In Computer Aided Verification, CAV ‘97, Proceedings, 1997,Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klarlund, N. Mona & Fido: The logic-automaton connection in practice. In CSL ‘97 Proceedings. LNCS 1414, Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klarlund, N. and Møller, A. MONA Version 1.3 User Manual, BRICS. URL: http://www.brics.dk/mona, 1998,
  12. 12.
    Klarlund, N., Møller, A., and Schwartzbach, M. MONA implementation Secrets. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 13(4) (2002) 571–586.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Møller, A. and Schwartzbach, M. The pointer assertion logic engine. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference of Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, M. and Klarlund, N. Verification of a sliding window protocol using IOA and MONA. In FORTE/PSTV 2000: IFIP TC6 WG6.1 Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols (FORTE XIII), and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (PSTV XX). Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000 pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Straubing, H. Finite Automata, Formal Logic, and Circuit Complexity. Birkhäuser, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas, W. Languages, automata, and logic. In Handbook of Formal Languages. G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Chapt. Languages, automata, and logic, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trakhtenbrot, B. Finite automata and the logic of one-place predicates. Sib. Math. J, 3 (1962) 103–131. In Russian. English translation: AMS Transl., 59 (1966), 23–55.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaillette, N. Logical specification of finite-state transductions for NLP. Natural Language Engineering, 9(1) (2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils Klarlund
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.AT&T Labs, Research
  2. 2.Bell LabsLucent Technologies

Personalised recommendations