Space-Efficient Fragments of Higher-Order Fixpoint Logic

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10506)


Higher-Order Fixpoint Logic (HFL) is a modal specification language whose expressive power reaches far beyond that of Monadic Second-Order Logic, achieved through an incorporation of a typed \(\lambda \)-calculus into the modal \(\mu \)-calculus. Its model checking problem on finite transition systems is decidable, albeit of high complexity, namely k-EXPTIME-complete for formulas that use functions of type order at most \(k > 0\). In this paper we present a fragment with a presumably easier model checking problem. We show that so-called tail-recursive formulas of type order k can be model checked in \((k-1)\)-EXPSPACE, and also give matching lower bounds. This yields generic results for the complexity of bisimulation-invariant non-regular properties, as these can typically be defined in HFL.


Module Specification Language Maximal Order Type Fixed Point Varieties Tail Recursion Recursion Depth 
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.


  1. 1.
    Andersen, H.R.: A polyadic modal \(\mu \)-calculus. Technical Report ID-TR: 1994–195, Dept. of Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelsson, R., Lange, M.: Model checking the first-order fragment of higher-order fixpoint logic. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4790, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75560-9_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelsson, R., Lange, M., Somla, R.: The complexity of model checking higher-order fixpoint logic. Logical Meth. Comput. Sci. 3, 1–33 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emerson, E.A.: Uniform inevitability is tree automaton ineffable. Inf. Process. Lett. 24(2), 77–79 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harel, D., Pnueli, A., Stavi, J.: Propositional dynamic logic of nonregular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 26(2), 222–243 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmanis, J., Stearns, R.E.: On the computational complexity of algorithms. Trans. AMS 117, 285–306 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janin, D., Walukiewicz, I.: On the expressive completeness of the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus with respect to monadic second order logic. In: CONCUR, pp. 263–277 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones, N.D.: The expressive power of higher-order types or, life without CONS. J. Funct. Progm. 11(1), 5–94 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. TCS 27, 333–354 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lange, M.: Model checking propositional dynamic logic with all extras. J. Appl. Logic 4(1), 39–49 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lange, M.: Temporal logics beyond regularity. Habilitation thesis, University of Munich, BRICS research report RS-07-13 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lange, M., Lozes, E.: Capturing bisimulation-invariant complexity classes with higher-order modal fixpoint logic. In: Diaz, J., Lanese, I., Sangiorgi, D. (eds.) TCS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8705, pp. 90–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44602-7_8 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lange, M., Somla, R.: Propositional dynamic logic of context-free programs and fixpoint logic with chop. Inf. Process. Lett. 100(2), 72–75 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otto, M.: Bisimulation-invariant PTIME and higher-dimensional \(\mu \)-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 224(1–2), 237–265 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Savitch, W.J.: Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 4, 177–192 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stearns, R.E., Hartmanis, J., Lewis II, P.M.: Hierarchies of memory limited computations. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, pp. 179–190. IEEE (1965)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Emde Boas, P.: The convenience of tilings. In: Sorbi, A. (ed.) Complexity, Logic, and Recursion Theory, vol. 187 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pp. 331–363. Marcel Dekker Inc (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Viswanathan, M., Viswanathan, R.: A higher order modal fixed point logic. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 512–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-28644-8_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.LSV, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRSCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations