Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1085–1102 | Cite as

On decidability of recursive weighted logics

  • Kim G. Larsen
  • Radu Mardare
  • Bingtian Xue


In this paper, we develop and study two recursive weighted logics (RWLs) \(\mathcal {L}^w\) and \(\mathcal {L}^t\), which are multi-modal logics that express qualitative and quantitative properties of labelled weighted transition systems (LWSs). LWSs are transition systems describing systems with quantitative aspects. They have labels with both actions and real-valued quantities representing the costs of transitions with respect to various resources. RWLs use first-order variables to measure local costs. The main syntactic operators are similar to the ones of timed logics for real-time systems. \(\mathcal {L}^w\) has operators that constrain the value of resource-variables at the current state. \(\mathcal {L}^t\) extends \(\mathcal {L}^w\) by having quantitative constraints on the transition modalities as well. This extension makes sure that \(\mathcal {L}^t\) is adequate, i.e. the semantic equivalence induced by \(\mathcal {L}^t\) coincides with the weighted bisimilarity of LWSs. In addition, our logic is endowed, with simultaneous recursive equations, which allow encoding of properties of infinite behaviours. We prove that unlike in the case of the timed logics, the satisfiability problems for RWLs are decidable. The proofs use a variant of the region construction technique used in the literature with timed automata, which we adapt to the specific settings of RWLs. For \(\mathcal {L}^t\), we also propose an attractive alternative proof which makes use of the algorithm for \(\mathcal {L}^w\).


Labelled weighted transition system Multi-modal logic Maximal fixed point computation Weighted constraints Satisfiability Model construction 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aceto L, Ingólfsdóttir A, Larsen KG, Srba J (2007) Reactive systems: modelling, specification and verification. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alur R, Dill DL (1990) Automata for modeling real-time systems. In: Paterson M (ed) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 443. ICALP, Springer, pp 322–335Google Scholar
  3. Alur R, Courcoubetis C, Dill DL (1990) Model-checking for real-time systems. In: LICS, pp 414–425Google Scholar
  4. Alur R, Courcoubetis C, Dill DL (1993a) Model-checking in dense real-time. Inf Comput 104(1):2–34MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Alur R, Courcoubetis C, Dill DL (1993b) Model-checking in dense real-time. Inf Comput 104(1):2–34MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Alur R, Torre SL, Pappas GJ (2001) Optimal paths in weighted timed automata. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, 2001, pp 49–62Google Scholar
  7. Behrmann G, Fehnker A, Hune T, Larsen KG, Pettersson P, Romijn J, Vaandrager FW (2001) Minimum-cost reachability for priced timed automata. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, 2001, pp 147–161Google Scholar
  8. Cleaveland R, Steffen B (1993) A linear-time model-checking algorithm for the alternation-free modal mu-calculus. Form Methods Syst Des 2(2):121–147CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleaveland R, Klein M, Steffen B (1992) Faster model checking for the modal mu-calculus. In: von Bochmann G, Probst DK (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 663. CAV, Springer, pp 410–422Google Scholar
  10. Droste M, Kuich W, Vogler H (eds) (2009) Handbook of weighted automata. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Harel D, Kozen D, Tiuryn J (2001) Dynamic logic. The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Henzinger TA, Nicollin X, Sifakis J, Yovine S (1992) Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. In: LICS, pp 394–406Google Scholar
  13. Hughes G, Cresswell MJ (1996) A new introduction to modal logic. Routhledge, LondonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Laroussinie F, Larsen KG, Weise C (1995) From timed automata to logic—and back. In: Wiedermann J, Hájek P (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 969. MFCS, Springer, pp 529–539Google Scholar
  15. Larsen KG (1990) Proof systems for satisfiability in Hennessy–Milner logic with recursion. Theor Comput Sci 72(2&3):265–288MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Larsen KG, Mardare R (2014) Complete proof systems for weighted modal logic. Theor Comput Sci 546:164–175. doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2014.03.007
  17. Larsen KG, Mardare R, Xue B (2014a) Adequacy and strongly-complete axiomatization for timed modal logic. In: MFPSGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsen KG, Mardare R, Xue B (2014b) Decidability and expressiveness of recursive weighted logic. In: Ershov informatics conference (PSI)Google Scholar
  19. Larsen KG, Mardare R, Xue B (2014c) A decidable recursive logic for weighted transition systems. In: 11th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computingGoogle Scholar
  20. Tarski A (1955) A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pac J Mathe 5(2):285–309MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Walukiewicz I (2000) Completeness of Kozen’s axiomatisation of the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. Inf Comput 157(1–2):142–182MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations