Skip to main content

On CTL* with Graded Path Modalities

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9450))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Graded path modalities count the number of paths satisfying a property, and generalize the existential (\(\mathsf {E}\)) and universal \((\mathsf {A})\) path modalities of \(\textsc {CTL}^{*}\). The resulting logic is denoted \(\textsc {G}\textsc {CTL}^{*}\), and is a very powerful logic since (as we show) it is equivalent, over trees, to monadic path logic. We settle the complexity of the satisfiability problem of \(\textsc {G}\textsc {CTL}^{*}\), i.e., 2ExpTime-Complete, and the complexity of the model checking problem of \(\textsc {G}\textsc {CTL}^{*}\), i.e., PSpace-Complete. The lower bounds already hold for \(\textsc {CTL}^{*}\), and so we supply the upper bounds. The significance of this work is two-fold: \(\textsc {G}\textsc {CTL}^{*}\) is much more expressive than \(\textsc {CTL}^{*}\) as it adds to it a form of quantitative reasoning, and this is done at no extra cost in computational complexity.

Benjamin Aminof is supported by the Austrian National Research Network S11403-N23 (RiSE) of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through grant ICT12-059. Aniello Murano is partially supported by the FP7 EU project 600958-SHERPA. Sasha Rubin is a Marie Curie fellow of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Strictly speaking, GHTA generalise the symmetric variant of AHTA. That is, for every language accepted by an AHTA and that is closed under the operation of permuting siblings, there is a GHTA that accepts the same language.

  2. 2.

    The combination of a Büchi and a co-Büchi condition that hesitant automata use can be thought of as a special case of the parity condition with 3 colors. Thus, we could have defined Graded Parity Tree Automata instead (using the parity condition, our automata strictly generalise the ones in [5, 19]) However, we do not need the full power of the parity condition, and in order to achieve optimal complexity for model checking of \(\textsc {G}\textsc {CTL}^{*}\) we need to be able to decide membership of our automata in a space efficient way, which cannot be done with the parity acceptance condition.

  3. 3.

    For example, when building an automaton for \(\phi = \varphi _0 \vee \varphi _1\), in the degenerate case that \(\varphi _0 = \varphi _1\) then \(\mathsf {A}_{\varphi _1}\) is taken to be a copy of \(\mathsf {A}_{\varphi _0}\) with its states renamed to be disjoint from those of \(\mathsf {A}_{\varphi _0}\). Also, the new state \(q_0\) may be renamed to avoid a collision with any of the other states.

References

  1. Almagor, S., Boker, U., Kupferman, O.: What’s decidable about weighted automata? In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 482–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Aminof, B., Kupferman, O., Lampert, R.: Rigorous approximated determinization of weighted automata. In: Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 345–354, IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aminof, B., Kupferman, O., Murano, A.: Improved model checking of hierarchical systems. Inf. Comput. 210, 68–86 (2012)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Arenas, M., Barceló, P., Libkin, L.: Combining temporal logics for querying XML documents. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 359–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bianco, A., Mogavero, F., Murano, A.: Graded computation tree logic. In: Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 342–351, IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bianco, A., Mogavero, F., Murano, A.: Graded computation tree logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 13(3), 25 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonatti, P.A., Lutz, C., Murano, A., Vardi, M.Y.: The complexity of enriched Mu-Calculi. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 4(3), 1–27 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Reasoning in expressive description logics with fixpoints based on automata on infinite trees. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 84–89 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. de Rijke, M.: A note on graded modal logic. Studia Logica 64(2), 271–283 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Droste, M., Kuich, W., Vogler, H.: Handbook of Weighted Automata. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Van Campenhout, D.: Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Deciding branching time logic, pp. 14–24. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ferrante, A., Murano, A., Parente, M.: Enriched \(\mu \)-calculi module checking. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 4(3), 1–21 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrante, A., Napoli, M., Parente, M.: Model checking for graded CTL. Fundamenta Informaticae 96(3), 323–339 (2009)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Fine, K.: In so many possible worlds. Notre Dame J. Formal Log. 13, 516–520 (1972)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gutiérrez-Basulto, V., Jung, J.C., Lutz, C.: Complexity of branching temporal description logics. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 390–395 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Henzinger, T.A.: Quantitative reactive modeling and verification. Comput. Sci. 28(4), 331–344 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kupferman, O., Sattler, U., Vardi, M.Y.: The complexity of the graded \(\mu \)-calculus. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 423–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J. ACM 47(2), 312–360 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Malvone, V., Mogavero, F., Murano, A., Sorrentino, L.: On the counting of strategies. In: International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, IEEE (2015, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moller, F., Rabinovich, A.: Counting on CTL*: on the expressive power of monadic path logic. Inf. Comput. 184(1), 147–159 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Tobies, S.: PSPACE reasoning for graded modal logics. J. Log. Comput. 11(1), 85–106 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Hoek, W., Meyer, JJ.Ch.: Graded modalities in epistemic logic. In: Symposium on Logical Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 503–514 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. Inf. Comput. 115(1), 1–37 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aniello Murano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Aminof, B., Murano, A., Rubin, S. (2015). On CTL* with Graded Path Modalities. In: Davis, M., Fehnker, A., McIver, A., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9450. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48899-7_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48899-7_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-48898-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-48899-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics