# Reasoning about the past with two-way automata

## Abstract

The *Μ*-calculus can be viewed as essentially the “ultimate” program logic, as it expressively subsumes all propositional program logics, including dynamic logics, process logics, and temporal logics. It is known that the satisfiability problem for the *Μ*-calculus is EXPTIME-complete. This upper bound, however, is known for a version of the logic that has only forward modalities, which express weakest preconditions, but not backward modalities, which express strongest postconditions. Our main result in this paper is an exponential time upper bound for the satisfiability problem of the *Μ*-calculus with both forward and backward modalities. To get this result we develop a theory of two-way alternating automata on infinite trees.

## Keywords

Model Check Exponential Time Atomic Proposition Acceptance Condition Kripke Structure## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.O. Bernholtz, M.Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. In D. L. Dill, editor,
*Computer Aided Verification, Proc. 6th Int. Conference*, volume 818 of*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 142–155, Stanford, June 1994. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar - 2.J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 10
^{20}states and beyond.*Information and Computation*, 98(2):142–170, June 1992.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Characterizing correctness properties of parallel programs using fixpoints. In
*Proc. 7th Int'l Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming*, pages 169–181, 1980.Google Scholar - 4.E.A. Emerson and C. Jutla. The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In
*Proc. 29th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*, pages 368–377, White Plains, October 1988.Google Scholar - 5.E.A. Emerson and C. Jutla. Tree automata, Mu-calculus and determinacy. In
*Proc. 32nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*, pages 368–377, San Juan, October 1991.Google Scholar - 6.E.A. Emerson, C. Jutla, and A.P. Sistla. On model-checking for fragments of
*Μ*-calculus. In*Computer Aided Verification, Proc. 5th Int. Conference*, volume 697, pages 385–396, Elounda, Crete, June 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - 7.E.A. Emerson and C.-L. Lei. Efficient model checking in fragments of the proposoitional Mu-calculus. In
*Proc. 1st Symposium on Logic in Computer Science*, pages 267–278, Cambridge, June 1986.Google Scholar - 8.M.J. Fischer and R.E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs.
*Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences*, 18:194–211, 1979.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Concept languages with number restrictions and fixpoints, and its relationship with
*Μ*-calculus. In*Proc. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-94)*, pages 411–415. John Wiley and Sons, 1994.Google Scholar - 10.G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Description logics with inverse roles, functional restrictions, and
*n*-ary relations. In*Proc. 4th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-94)*, number 838 in Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence, pages 332–346. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar - 11.G. De Giacomo and F. Masacci. Tableaux and algorithms for propositional dynamic logic with converse. In M. A. McRobbie and J.K. Slaney, editors,
*Proc. 13th Int'l Conf. on Automated Deduction*, volume 1104 of*Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence*, pages 613–627. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar - 12.E. Grädel, Ph. G. Kolaitis, and M. Y. Vardi. The decision problem for 2-variable first-order logic.
*Bulletin of Symbolic Logic*, 3:53–69, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.E. Grädel, M. Otto, and E. Rosen. Undecidability results for two-variable logics. Unpublished manuscript, 1996.Google Scholar
- 14.C.S. Jutla. Determinization and memoryless winning strategies.
*Information and Computation*, 133(2):117–134, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.Ph.G. Kolaitis and M.Y. Vardi. On the expressive power of variable-confined logics. In
*Proc. 11th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science*, pages 348–359, 1996.Google Scholar - 16.D. Kozen. Results on the propositional
*Μ*-calculus.*Theoretical Computer Science*, 27:333–354, 1983.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.D. Kozen. A finite model theorem for the propositional
*Μ*-calculus.*Studia Logica*, 47(3):333–354, 1988.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.O. Kupferman and A. Pnueli. Once and for all. In
*Proc. 10th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science*, pages 25–35, San Diego, June 1995.Google Scholar - 19.O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Weak alternating automata and tree automata emptiness. In
*Proc. 30th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*, Dallas, 1998.Google Scholar - 20.O. Lichtenstein, A. Pnueli, and L. Zuck. The glory of the past. In
*Logics of Programs*, volume 193 of*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 196–218, Brooklyn, June 1985. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - 21.D.E. Muller, A. Saoudi, and P. E. Schupp. Weak alternating automata give a simple explanation of why most temporal and dynamic logics are decidable in exponential time. In
*Proceedings 3rd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science*, pages 422–427, Edinburgh, July 1988.Google Scholar - 22.D.E. Muller and P.E. Schupp. Alternating automata on infinite trees.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 54,:267–276, 1987.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.D. Park. Finiteness is
*Μ*-ineffable.*Theoretical Computer Science*, 3:173–181, 1976.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.S. Pinter and P. Wolper. A temporal logic for reasoning about partially ordered computations. In
*Proc. 3rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing*, pages 28–37, Vancouver, August 1984.Google Scholar - 25.A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In K. Apt, editor,
*Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems*, volume F-13 of*NATO Advanced Summer Institutes*, pages 123–144. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar - 26.A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In
*Proc. 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages*, Austin, January 1989.Google Scholar - 27.V.R. Pratt. A decidable Μ-calculus: preliminary report. In
*Proc. 22nd IEEE Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science*, pages 421–427, 1981.Google Scholar - 28.S. Safra. On the complexity of Ω-automata. In
*Proc. 29th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*, pages 319–327, White Plains, October 1988.Google Scholar - 29.G. Slutzki. Alternating tree automata.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 41:305–318, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.R.S. Streett. Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse.
*Information and Control*, 54:121–141, 1982.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.R.S. Streett and E.A. Emerson. An automata theoretic decision procedure for the propositional mu-calculus.
*Information and Computation*, 81(3):249–264, 1989.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.S.S. Streett.
*A propositional dynamic logic for reasoning about program divergence*. PhD thesis, M.Sc. Thesis, MIT, 1980.Google Scholar - 33.W. Thomas. Languages, automata, and logic.
*Handbook of Formal Language Theory*, 111:389–455, 1997.Google Scholar - 34.M.Y. Vardi. The taming of converse: Reasoning about two-way computations. In
*Logic of Programs Workshop*, volume 193, pages 413–424, Brooklyn, June 1985. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - 35.M.Y. Vardi. A temporal fixpoint calculus. In
*Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages*, pages 250–259, San Diego, January 1988.Google Scholar - 36.M.Y. Vardi. Alternating automata — unifying truth and validity checking for temporal logics. In W. McCune, editor,
*Proc. 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction*, volume 1249 of*Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence*, pages 191–206. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, July 1997.Google Scholar - 37.M.Y. Vardi. What makes modal logic so robustly decidable? In
*Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models*, pages 149–183. American Mathematical Society, 1997.Google Scholar - 38.M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Automata-theoretic techniques for modal logics of programs.
*Journal of Computer and System Science*, 32(2):182–221, April 1986.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar