Skip to main content

Temporal Logics with Language Parameters

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12638))

  • 312 Accesses

Abstract

We develop a generic framework to extend the logics LTL, CTL\(^+\) and CTL\(^*\) by automata-based connectives from formal language classes and analyse this framework with regard to regular languages, visibly pushdown languages and (deterministic) context-free languages. More precisely, we consider how the use of different automata classes changes the expressive power of the logics and provide algorithms for the satisfiability and model checking problems induced by the use of different automata. For the model checking problem, we treat not only finite Kripke transition systems, but also visibly pushdown systems and pushdown systems. We provide completeness or undecidability results in almost all cases and show that the extensions we consider can formulate properties not expressible in classical temporal logics or regular extensions thereof.

This work was partially funded by the DFG under project MoNaLog (MU 1508/3).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed, as the undecidability results for DCFL carry over to CFL, we do not consider the latter explicitly in the following.

References

  1. Alur, R., Etessami, K., Madhusudan, P.: A temporal logic of nested calls and returns. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 467–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24730-2_35

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Visibly pushdown languages. In: STOC 2004, pp. 202–211. ACM (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Axelsson, R., Hague, M., Kreutzer, S., Lange, M., Latte, M.: Extended computation tree logic. In: Fermüller, C.G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6397, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16242-8_6

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozzelli, L.: Alternating automata and a temporal fixpoint calculus for visibly pushdown languages. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74407-8_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Demri, S., Goranko, V., Lange, M.: Temporal Logics in Computer Science: Finite-State Systems. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. In: STOC 1982, pp. 169–180 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.S.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. SIAM J. Comput. 29(1), 132–158 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Kozen, D.: Lower bounds for natural proof systems. In: FOCS 1977, pp. 254–266 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lange, M.: Model checking propositional dynamic logic with all extras. J. Appl. Logic 4(1), 39–49 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Laroussinie, F., Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking CTL\({}^{\text{+}}\) and FCTL is hard. In: FOSSACS 2001, pp. 318–331 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Löding, C., Lutz, C., Serre, O.: Propositional dynamic logic with recursive programs. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 73(1–2), 51–69 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwoon, S. Model checking pushdown systems. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Munich, Germany (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weinert, A., Zimmermann, M.: Visibly linear dynamic logic. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 747, 100–117 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolper, P. Temporal logic can be more expressive. Inf. Control 56(1/2), 72–99 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Oliver Gutsfeld .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gutsfeld, J.O., Müller-Olm, M., Dielitz, C. (2021). Temporal Logics with Language Parameters. In: Leporati, A., Martín-Vide, C., Shapira, D., Zandron, C. (eds) Language and Automata Theory and Applications. LATA 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12638. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68195-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68195-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68195-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics