Advertisement

When Model-Checking Freeze LTL over Counter Machines Becomes Decidable

  • Stéphane Demri
  • Arnaud Sangnier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6014)

Abstract

We study the decidability status of model-checking freeze LTL over various subclasses of counter machines for which the reachability problem is known to be decidable (reversal-bounded counter machines, vector additions systems with states, flat counter machines, one-counter machines). In freeze LTL, a register can store a counter value and at some future position an equality test can be done between a register and a counter value. Herein, we complete an earlier work started on one-counter machines by considering other subclasses of counter machines, and especially the class of reversal-bounded counter machines. This gives us the opportuniy to provide a systematic classification that distinguishes determinism vs. nondeterminism and we consider subclasses of formulae by restricting the set of atomic formulae or/and the polarity of the occurrences of the freeze operators, leading to the flat fragment.

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Atomic Formula Hybrid Logic Reachability Problem 
These 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.: A really temporal logic. JACM 41(1), 181–204 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areces, C., Blackburn, P., Marx, M.: A road-map on complexity for hybrid logics. In: Flum, J., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) CSL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1683, pp. 307–321. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Björklund, H., Bojańczyk, M.: Bounded depth data trees. In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 862–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boigelot, B.: Symbolic methods for exploring infinite state spaces. PhD thesis, Université de Liège (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bojańczyk, M., Muscholl, A., Schwentick, T., Segoufin, L., David, C.: Two-variable logic on words with data. In: LICS 2006, pp. 7–16. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouajjani, A., Bozga, M., Habermehl, P., Iosif, R., Moro, P., Vojnar, T.: Programs with lists are counter automata. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 517–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouyer, P., Markey, N., Ouaknine, J., Worrell, J.: The cost of punctuality. In: LICS 2007, pp. 109–118. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bozga, M., Iosif, R., Lakhnech, Y.: Flat parametric counter automata. Fundamenta Informaticae 91(2), 275–303 (2009)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Comon, H., Cortier, V.: Flatness is not a weakness. In: Clote, P.G., Schwichtenberg, H. (eds.) CSL 2000. LNCS, vol. 1862, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dal Lago, U., Montanari, A., Puppis, G.: On the equivalence of automaton-based representations of time granularities. In: TIME 2007, pp. 82–93. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dang, Z., Ibarra, O., San Pietro, P.: Liveness verification of reversal-bounded multicounter machines with a free counter. In: Hariharan, R., Mukund, M., Vinay, V. (eds.) FSTTCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2245, pp. 132–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demri, S., Finkel, A., Goranko, V., van Drimmelen, G.: Towards a model-checker for counter systems. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds.) ATVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4218, pp. 493–507. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demri, S., Gascon, R.: The effects of bounding syntactic resources on Presburger LTL. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 1541–1575 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Demri, S., Lazić, R., Nowak, D.: On the freeze quantifier in constraint LTL: decidability and complexity. I&C 205(1), 2–24 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demri, S., Lazić, R., Sangnier, A.: Model checking freeze LTL over one-counter automata. In: Amadio, R.M. (ed.) FOSSACS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4962, pp. 490–504. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demri, S., Sangnier, A.: When Model-Checking Freeze LTL over Counter Machines Becomes Decidable. Research report, LSV, ENS Cachan (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esparza, J., Finkel, A., Mayr, R.: On the verification of broadcast protocols. In: LICS 1999, pp. 352–359. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finkel, A., Leroux, J.: How to compose Presburger accelerations: Applications to broadcast protocols. In: FST&TCS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2256, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finkel, A., Sangnier, A.: Reversal-bounded counter machines revisited. In: Ochmański, E., Tyszkiewicz, J. (eds.) MFCS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5162, pp. 323–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ginsburg, S., Spanier, E.H.: Semigroups, Presburger formulas, and languages. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 16(2), 285–296 (1966)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Göller, S., Mayr, R., To, A.: On the computational complexity of verifying one-counter processes. In: LICS 2009, pp. 235–244. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goranko, V.: Hierarchies of modal and temporal logics with references pointers. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 5, 1–24 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haase, C., Kreutzer, S., Ouaknine, J., Worrell, J.: Reachability in succinct and parametric one-counter automata. In: Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) CONCUR 2009 - Concurrency Theory. LNCS, vol. 5710, pp. 369–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howell, R., Jančar, P., Rosier, L.: Completeness results for single-path Petri nets. I&C 106(2), 253–265 (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibarra, O.: Reversal-bounded multicounter machines and their decision problems. JACM 25(1), 116–133 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibarra, O.: Restricted one-counter machines with undecidable universe problems. Mathematical Systems Theory 13(181), 181–186 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibarra, O., Dang, Z.: On removing the stack from reachability constructions. In: Eades, P., Takaoka, T. (eds.) ISAAC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2223, pp. 244–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibarra, O., Su, J., Dang, Z., Bultan, T., Kemmerer, R.: Counter machines and verification problems. TCS 289(1), 165–189 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jančar, P.: Decidability of a temporal logic problem for Petri nets. TCS 74(1), 71–93 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lisitsa, A., Potapov, I.: Temporal logic with predicate λ-abstraction. In: TIME 2005, pp. 147–155. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Presburger, M.: Über die Vollständigkeit eines gewissen Systems der Arithmetik ganzer Zahlen, in welchem die Addition als einzige Operation hervortritt. In: Comptes Rendus du Premier Congrès de Mathématiciens des Pays Slaves, Warsaw, pp. 92–101 (1929)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reutenauer, C.: The Mathematics of Petri nets. Masson and Prentice (1990)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sangnier, A.: Vérification de systèmes avec compteurs et pointeurs. Thèse de doctorat, LSV, ENS Cachan, France (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sistla, A., Clarke, E.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. JACM 32(3), 733–749 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. I&C 115, 1–37 (1994)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Demri
    • 1
  • Arnaud Sangnier
    • 2
  1. 1.LSVENS Cachan, CNRS, INRIA Saclay IdFFrance
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di TorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations