Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTemporal Logic and Model Checking for Operator Precedence Languages
215
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In the last decades much research effort has been devoted to extending the success of model checking from the traditional field of finite state machines and vario
rate research
Read More
Floyds Operator Precedence (OP) languages are a deterministic context-free family having many desirable properties. They are locally and parallely parsable, and languages having a compatible structure are closed under Boolean operations, concatenation and star; they properly include the family of Visibly Pushdown (or Input Driven) languages. OP languages are based on three relations between any two consecutive terminal symbols, which assign syntax structure to words. We extend such relations to k-tuples of consecutive terminal symbols, by using the model of strictly locally testable regular languages of order k at least 3. The new corresponding class of Higher-order Operator Precedence languages (HOP) properly includes the OP languages, and it is still included in the deterministic (also in reverse) context free family. We prove Boolean closure for each subfamily of structurally compatible HOP languages. In each subfamily, the top language is called max-language. We show that such languages are defined by a simple cancellation rule and we prove several properties, in particular that max-languages make an infinite hierarchy ordered by parameter k. HOP languages are a candidate for replacing OP languages in the various applications where they have have been successful though sometimes too restrictive.
In the last years, model checking with interval temporal logics is emerging as a viable alternative to model checking with standard point-based temporal logics, such as LTL, CTL, CTL*, and the like. The behavior of the system is modeled by means of (finite) Kripke structures, as usual. However, while temporal logics which are interpreted point-wise describe how the system evolves state-by-state, and predicate properties of system states, those which are interpreted interval-wise express properties of computation stretches, spanning a sequence of states. A proposition letter is assumed to hold over a computation stretch (interval) if and only if it holds over each component state (homogeneity assumption). A natural question arises: is there any advantage in replacing points by intervals as the primary temporal entities, or is it just a matter of taste? In this paper, we study the expressiveness of Halpern and Shohams interval temporal logic (HS) in model checking, in comparison with those of LTL, CTL, and CTL*. To this end, we consider three semantic variants of HS: the state-based one, introduced by Montanari et al., that allows time to branch both in the past and in the future, the computation-tree-based one, that allows time to branch in the future only, and the trace-based variant, that disallows time to branch. These variants are compared among themselves and to the aforementioned standard logics, getting a complete picture. In particular, we show that HS with trace-based semantics is equivalent to LTL (but at least exponentially more succinct), HS with computation-tree-based semantics is equivalent to finitary CTL*, and HS with state-based semantics is incomparable with all of them (LTL, CTL, and CTL*).
The problem of model checking procedural programs has fostered much research towards the definition of temporal logics for reasoning on context-free structures. The most notable of such results are temporal logics on Nested Words, such as CaRet and NWTL. Recently, the logic OPTL was introduced, based on the class of Operator Precedence Languages (OPLs), more powerful than Nested Words. We define the new OPL-based logic POTL and prove its FO-completeness. POTL improves on NWTL by enabling the formulation of requirements involving pre/post-conditions, stack inspection, and others in the presence of exception-like constructs. It improves on OPTL too, which instead we show not to be FO-complete; it also allows to express more easily stack inspection and function-local properties. In a companion paper we report a model checking procedure for POTL and experimental results based on a prototype tool developed therefor. For completeness a short summary of this complementary result is provided in this paper too.
The expressive power of interval temporal logics (ITLs) makes them really fascinating, and one of the most natural choices as specification and planning language. However, for a long time, due to their high computational complexity, they were considered not suitable for practical purposes. The recent discovery of several computationally well-behaved ITLs has finally changed the scenario. In this paper, we investigate the finite satisfiability and model checking problems for the ITL D featuring the sub-interval relation, under the homogeneity assumption (that constrains a proposition letter to hold over an interval if and only if it holds over all its points). First we prove that the satisfiability problem for D, over finite linear orders, is PSPACE-complete; then we show that its model checking problem, over finite Kripke structures, is PSPACE-complete as well. The paper enrich the set of tractable interval temporal logics with a meaningful representative.
Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) is a language scheme for combining two declarative paradigms: constraint solving and logic programming. Concurrent Constraint Programming (CCP) is a declarative model for concurrency where agents interact by telling and asking constraints in a shared store. In a previous paper, we developed a framework for dynamic slicing of CCP where the user first identifies that a (partial) computation is wrong. Then, she marks (selects) some parts of the final state corresponding to the data (constraints) and processes that she wants to study more deeply. An automatic process of slicing begins, and the partial computation is depurated by removing irrelevant information. In this paper we give two major contributions. First, we extend the framework to CLP, thus generalizing the previous work. Second, we provide an assertion language suitable for both, CCP and CLP, which allows the user to specify some properties of the computations in her program. If a state in a computation does not satisfy an assertion then some wrong information is identified and an automatic slicing process can start. This way we make one step further towards automatizing the slicing process. We show that our framework can be integrated with the previous semi-automatic one, giving the user more choices and flexibility. We show by means of examples and experiments the usefulness of our approach.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
