Real-time Logics Expressiveness and Decidability

Similar documents
Classical First-Order Logic

Syntax. Notation Throughout, and when not otherwise said, we assume a vocabulary V = C F P.

Overview. CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning. Lecture 7: Validity Proofs and Properties of FOL. Motivation for semantic argument method

CHURCH SYNTHESIS PROBLEM and GAMES

Logics with Counting. Ian Pratt-Hartmann School of Computer Science University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Classical First-Order Logic

Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations

One-dimensional Fragment of First-order Logic

Modal logics and their semantics

Undecidability of the validity problem

The Expressiveness of Metric Temporal Logic II:

Theory Combination. Clark Barrett. New York University. CS357, Stanford University, Nov 2, p. 1/24

Lecture 2: Syntax. January 24, 2018

Abstract model theory for extensions of modal logic

Weak Cost Monadic Logic over Infinite Trees

GS03/4023: Validation and Verification Predicate Logic Jonathan P. Bowen Anthony Hall

On the satisfiability problem for a 4-level quantified syllogistic and some applications to modal logic

An On-the-fly Tableau Construction for a Real-Time Temporal Logic

The Classical Decision Problem

Rabin Theory and Game Automata An Introduction

A Proof of Kamp s theorem

Axiomatisation of Hybrid Logic

A PROOF OF KAMP S THEOREM

The Mother of All Paradoxes

From Monadic Second-Order Definable String Transformations to Transducers

Eliminating past operators in Metric Temporal Logic

Modal logic of time division

Automata, Logic and Games: Theory and Application

Duality in Logic. Duality in Logic. Lecture 2. Mai Gehrke. Université Paris 7 and CNRS. {ε} A ((ab) (ba) ) (ab) + (ba) +

Monadic Second Order Logic and Automata on Infinite Words: Büchi s Theorem

Lecturecise 22 Weak monadic second-order theory of one successor (WS1S)

Algebras with finite descriptions

ACLT: Algebra, Categories, Logic in Topology - Grothendieck's generalized topological spaces (toposes)

PROOFS IN PREDICATE LOGIC AND COMPLETENESS; WHAT DECIDABILITY MEANS HUTH AND RYAN 2.3, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 2

0-1 Laws for Fragments of SOL

Deciding Continuous-time Metric Temporal Logic with Counting Modalities

Axioms for Set Theory

Introduction to first-order logic:

Verifying qualitative and quantitative properties with LTL over concrete domains

Declarative modelling for timing

First-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms

CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC

Finite Model Theory and Descriptive Complexity

Reversal-Bounded Counter Machines

TWO-VARIABLE LOGIC WITH COUNTING AND A LINEAR ORDER

LGIC 310/MATH 570/PHIL 006 Fall, 2010 Scott Weinstein 9

Informal Statement Calculus

Pattern Logics and Auxiliary Relations

On Recognizable Languages of Infinite Pictures

Expressiveness, decidability, and undecidability of Interval Temporal Logic

Modal Logic XVI. Yanjing Wang

Team Semantics and Recursive Enumerability

Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata

Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems for verification

Automata theory. An algorithmic approach. Lecture Notes. Javier Esparza

Monodic fragments of first-order temporal logics

The Complexity of Computing the Behaviour of Lattice Automata on Infinite Trees

Complete Axiomatization of Discrete-Measure Almost-Everywhere Quantification

Covering of ordinals

Recall that the expression x > 3 is not a proposition. Why?

Overview of Topics. Finite Model Theory. Finite Model Theory. Connections to Database Theory. Qing Wang

On the bisimulation invariant fragment of monadic Σ 1 in the finite

From Löwenheim to Pnueli, from Pnueli to PSL and SVA

The Expressive Completeness of Metric Temporal Logic

Herbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness

CS 2800: Logic and Computation Fall 2010 (Lecture 13)

(i) By Corollary 1.3 (a) on P. 88, we know that the predicate. Q(x, y, z) S 1 (x, (z) 1, y, (z) 2 )

On Recognizable Languages of Infinite Pictures

Modal Logic XIII. Yanjing Wang

Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic

A Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL )

Section 0. Sets and Relations

Algorithmic Model Theory SS 2016

3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.

Complexity Theory VU , SS The Polynomial Hierarchy. Reinhard Pichler

Outline. Complexity Theory EXACT TSP. The Class DP. Definition. Problem EXACT TSP. Complexity of EXACT TSP. Proposition VU 181.

A Resolution Decision Procedure for the Guarded Fragment with Transitive Guards

Weighted automata and weighted logics

7 RC Simulates RA. Lemma: For every RA expression E(A 1... A k ) there exists a DRC formula F with F V (F ) = {A 1,..., A k } and

Stéphane Demri Arnaud Sangnier. When Model-Checking Freeze LTL over Counter Machines Becomes Decidable. Research Report LSV-10-05

On the Satisfiability of Two-Variable Logic over Data Words

Applied Automata Theory

First Order Logic (FOL) 1 znj/dm2017

A Theory of Duration Calculus with Application

Büchi Automata and Their Determinization

A Model Theoretic Proof of Completeness of an Axiomatization of Monadic Second-Order Logic on Infinite Words

Spectra and satisfiability for logics with successor and a unary function

A Tableau Calculus for Minimal Modal Model Generation

Undecidable propositional bimodal logics and one-variable first-order linear temporal logics with counting

Logic in Automatic Verification

This paper is also taken by Combined Studies Students. Optional Subject (i): Set Theory and Further Logic

Forking and Dividing in Random Graphs

VAUGHT S THEOREM: THE FINITE SPECTRUM OF COMPLETE THEORIES IN ℵ 0. Contents

Quandles and the Towers of Hanoi

Weak Alternating Timed Automata

ECS 120 Lesson 18 Decidable Problems, the Halting Problem

Duality and Automata Theory

Set Theory and Indiscernibles. Ali Enayat. IPM Logic Conference

From Constructibility and Absoluteness to Computability and Domain Independence

Trace Diagnostics using Temporal Implicants

Transcription:

Real-time Logics Expressiveness and Decidability Paritosh K. Pandya Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Mumbai email: pandya@tifr.res.in IITG 2006 p. 1

Timed Behaviours Observable propositions X 1,X 2,...,X n. Time frame (T,<) a linear order. Behaviour M such that M(X i ) : T {, }. Some commonly used notions of time and behaviour (R, <) the standard set of real numbers. Continuous time, Canonical behaviors. (Q,<) the set of rational numbers. (ℵ, <) the set of natural numbers. Discrete time. Behaviours over (R, <) are called canonical continous and over (ℵ, <) canonical discrete. IITG 2006 p. 2

Finite Variability M such that in any finite interval M(X) changes finitely often for any X are called Finitely variable behaviours. Interval based model (s 0,I 0 ), (s 1,I 1 ),... (S, <) where S is countably infinite set of sampling points from R which is divergent Point based models (s 0,t 0 ), (s 1,t 1 ),... In this talk: Canonical Continuous Models and subclass Finitely Variable models. IITG 2006 p. 3

Logics of Qualitative Time Monadic First Order Logic MFO First order logic with equality over linear order (T, <) and monadic predicates (observable propositions) X i. Examples x y.(x < y X 1 (y)) says that X 1 never stops occuring! x y.(x < y ( z.x < z < y)) Let φ(x 1,...,X n,y 1,...,y k ) be a formula with given free variables. Its model has the form M = (T,<,P 1,...,P n,t 1,...,t k ). We can ine M = φ as usual. Monadic Secondorder Logic (MSO) IITG 2006 p. 4

Temporal Logics Example (P QUR). A temporal logic TL(O 1,...,O k ) with modalities O 1,...,O k. Truth Table For each modality O i of arity k we have a MFO formula [O i (X 1,...,X k )] = φ(t 0,X 1,...,X k ) giving its behaviour. Examples [ X] [XUY ] = t.t 0 < t X(t) = t.t 0 < t Y (t) z.((t 0 < z < y) X(z)). A popular temporal logic TL(U, S) called TL. IITG 2006 p. 5

Correspondences Proposition If every modality of a temporal logic TL has a truth table then for every φ(x 1,...,X n ) TL we can construct a MFO formula ˆφ(t 0,X 1,...,X n ) such that M = φ iff M = ˆφ. Every such Temporal logic is a fragment of MFO! IITG 2006 p. 6

Expressive Completeness Definition A subset L 1 of logic L 2 is expressively complete for L 2 over class of models C provided for all φ L 2 there exists ˆφ 2 L 1 such that C = φ ˆφ. Theorems ([Kamp68,GPSS80,GHR94]) Logic T L(U, S) is expressively complete for M F O over canonical models (discrete or continous). There exists TL(U s, S S ) which is expressively complete for MFO over the class of all linear order. IITG 2006 p. 7

Decidability A logic L is decidable if there exists an algorithm for finding whether φ L is satisfiable (valid). Results MSO over (ℵ,<) is decidable. [Buchi60] MFO over (R,<) is decidable. [BG85] MSO over (R,<) is undecidable. MSO with quantification over monadic predicates restricted to countable subsets of reals is decidable. [Shelah75] MSO over (Q,<) is decidabe. [Rabin69] MSO over (R,<) with finitely variable behaviours is decidable. [Rabin69][Rabinovich98]. IITG 2006 p. 8

Quantitative Realtime Logics Logic MFO + Constructs of MFO, together with +1 function. Example ( t.((t 0 < t < t 0 + 1 P(t))) Q(t 0 + 1) Theorem Logic MFO + is undecidable. Proof Method We can encode accepting runs of a 2-counter machine by a formula. Encode each configuration within an interval of time length 1. Number of alternations of X 1,X 2 represent value of counters C 1,C 2. The configuration can be copied from one unit interval to next. IITG 2006 p. 9

Guarded Measurements Logic QM F O [Hirschfeld-Rabinovich] M F O constructs together with two bounded quantifiers below. Let φ(t) be a QMFO formula with only variable t free. Define ( t) <t 0+1 >t 0 φ(t) = t(t 0 < t < t 0 + 1 φ(t)). Dually, ( t) <t 0+1 >t 0 φ(t) = t(t 0 < t < t 0 + 1 φ(t)). Define ( t) <t 0 >t 0 1φ(t) = t(t < t 0 < t + 1 φ(t)). Dually ( t) <t 0 >t 0 1φ(t) = t(t < t 0 < t + 1 φ(t)). Example Timer(X,Y ) = t(y (t) ( t 1 ) <t 0 >t 0 1 X(t 1)). Y is true at a time iff X has been invariantly true for the previous (open) unit interval. IITG 2006 p. 10

Temporal Logic QTL Logic QTL TL(U, S, 1, 1 ) with two constrained modalities below. 1 X has truth table ( t) <t 0+1 >t 0 X(t) 1 X has truth table ( t) <t 0 >t 0 1 X(t) Define duals 1φ = 1 φ and 1φ = 1 φ. Example: (Y 1X). IITG 2006 p. 11

Expressive Completeness Theorem For any temporal logic TL(τ) which is expressively complete for MFO, the logic TL(τ, 1, 1 ) is expressively complete for QM F O. Specifically, QTL is expressively complete for QMFO. Consequence: Any temporal modality which has a truth-table in QMFO can be expressed within QTL. Notation Denote 1 X by (0,1) X and 1 X by ( 1,0) X. IITG 2006 p. 12

Interval Bounded Modalities ( t) <t 0+1 t 0 X(t) = X(t 0 ) ( t) <t 0+1 t 0 X(t). [0,1) X = X (0,1) X ( t) t 0+1 >t 0 X(t) = ( t) <t 0+1 >t 0 X(t) First(t 0,X) ( t 1 ) <t 0+1 >t 0 ( t) <t 1+1 >t 1 X(t) (0,1] X = (0,1) X [( XUX) (0,1) (0,1) X] (1, ) X = (0,1] X. (n,n+1) X = (n 1,n) (0,1) (0,1) X.. IITG 2006 p. 13

A Variety of Modalities Thus, we can ine constrained modality I where I is non-singular interval I has integer end-point or infinity as end-points. Non-singular, i.e. not a singleton set or empty. Can be closed, open, partially closed. Logic MITL TL(U I, S I ) where I is non-singular interval. Let X U ( n,n + m) Y = ( (0,n] (X XUY )) (n,n+m) Y. Theorem MITL and QTL have same expressive power. IITG 2006 p. 14

A Variety of Modalities (Cont) Nearest Next [Wilke,Raskin] (n,n+m) X = ( XUX) (m,m+n) X (0,n]) X. Age Constraints [MP93] Age(X) > n = ( n,0) X. Age(X) = n = ( n,0) X ( n, (n 1)) ( 1,0) X. IITG 2006 p. 15

Summary Logic QTL is expressively complete for QMSO. Modalities from most know decidable timed logics can be ined within QTL and QMSO Question Is QM SO decidable? IITG 2006 p. 16

Decidability of QMFO Overview Timer Normal Form TNF QMFO Transform QMFO TNF (equivalent formula) Transform TNF MFO (equisatisfiable formula) Decidability of MFO IITG 2006 p. 17

Timer Normal Form (TNF) In QTL, ine TIMER(X,Y ) In QMFO ine TIMER(X,Y ) Timer n (X 1,...,X n,y 1,...,Y n ) = (Y 1X). = t(y (t) ( t 1 ) <t 0 >t 0 1 X(t 1)) = i Timer(X i,y i) IITG 2006 p. 18

Timer Normal Form (TNF) In QTL, ine TIMER(X,Y ) In QMFO ine TIMER(X,Y ) Timer n (X 1,...,X n,y 1,...,Y n ) = (Y 1X). = t(y (t) ( t 1 ) <t 0 >t 0 1 X(t 1)) = i Timer(X i,y i) Formula is in first order TNF if it has the following form where φ MFO and W is list of monadic predicates. W.(Timer n (X 1,...,X n,y 1,...,Y n ) φ IITG 2006 p. 18

Timer Normal Form (TNF) In QTL, ine TIMER(X,Y ) In QMFO ine TIMER(X,Y ) Timer n (X 1,...,X n,y 1,...,Y n ) = (Y 1X). = t(y (t) ( t 1 ) <t 0 >t 0 1 X(t 1)) = i Timer(X i,y i) Formula is in first order TNF if it has the following form where φ MFO and W is list of monadic predicates. W.(Timer n (X 1,...,X n,y 1,...,Y n ) φ If in above inition, if φ MSO we have second order TNF. If φ TL we have TL TNF. IITG 2006 p. 18

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies ψ 1 = (Y Y UX). IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies ψ 1 ψ 2 = (Y Y UX). = (X 1Y ). IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3 = (Y Y UX). = (X 1Y ). = (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ) Let ψ = ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3. IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3 = (Y Y UX). = (X 1Y ). = (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ) Let ψ = ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3. Also, ψ 1 ψ 3 (Y ( 1 X)) and ψ 2 (( 1 X) Y ). IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing Future to Past Aim: To represent 1 by 1 (using U, S). Consider witness (Y 1 Y ). This implies ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3 = (Y Y UX). = (X 1Y ). = (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ) Let ψ = ψ 1 ψ 2 ψ 3. Also, ψ 1 ψ 3 (Y ( 1 X)) and ψ 2 (( 1 X) Y ). Hence, (Y 1 Y ) ψ. 1 Y Y.(Y ψ). IITG 2006 p. 19

Reducing ψ (Y Y UX) (X 1Y ) (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ). IITG 2006 p. 20

Reducing ψ (Y Y UX) (X 1Y ) (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ). [ 1,0) Y = ( 1 Y (Y S Y ) 1 1 Y ) and 1 Z 1 Z. IITG 2006 p. 20

Reducing ψ (Y Y UX) (X 1Y ) (( 1 X) [ 1,0) Y ). [ 1,0) Y = ( 1 Y (Y S Y ) 1 1 Y ) and 1 Z 1 Z. Hence, ψ (Y Y UX) (X 1Y ) (( 1 X) ( 1Y (Y S Y ) 1 1Y )) IITG 2006 p. 20

Eliminating 1X using Timers Consider subformula 1X. Introduce Timer(X,W) = (W 1X). Hence, ψ W.(Timer(X,W) ψ[ 1X/W] IITG 2006 p. 21

Eliminating 1X using Timers Consider subformula 1X. Introduce Timer(X,W) = (W 1X). Hence, ψ W.(Timer(X,W) ψ[ 1X/W] We obtain, ψ T 1,T 2,T 3. Timer( X,T 1 ) Timer(Y,T 2 ) Timer( T 2,T 3 ) (Y Y UX) (X T 2 ) (T 1 ( T 2 ((Y S Y ) T 3 ))) IITG 2006 p. 21

Eliminating 1X using Timers Consider subformula 1X. Introduce Timer(X,W) = (W 1X). Hence, ψ W.(Timer(X,W) ψ[ 1X/W] We obtain, ψ T 1,T 2,T 3. Timer( X,T 1 ) Timer(Y,T 2 ) Timer( T 2,T 3 ) (Y Y UX) (X T 2 ) (T 1 ( T 2 ((Y S Y ) T 3 ))) Recall that 1 X Y.(Y ψ)) IITG 2006 p. 21

Reduction to Timer Normal Form Theorem For any φ(t,z) in QMFO, we can associate auxiliary monadic predicates X,Y and formula φ(t,z,x,y ) in MFO such that φ(t,z) X,Y.(Timer n (X,Y ) φ(t,z,x,y )) The theorem is true even when φ QMSO and gives a reduction to MSO. The theorem is true ven when φ QTL and gives a reduction to TL(U, S). IITG 2006 p. 22

Elimination of Metric Let X = X 1,...,X n and Y = Y 1,...,Y n. We transform Timer(X,overlineY ) into Timer(X,Y ) in MFO such that satisfiability is preserved (equisatisfiable). MFO Properties of Timers Formula A i is conjuction of Y i is true at 0 Y i is finitely variable. Set of point where Y i is true is closed. I.e. if Y i holds for (a,b) it also holds for [a,b]. Formula B i is conjuction of For t > 0 if Y i (t) then X i is true is small left neighbourhood of t. IITG 2006 p. 23

Metric Elimination (Cont) If X i continuously true from t onwards then Y i becomes continuously true from some future point t > t. If Y i (t) and X i holds in [t,t ) then Y i (t ). Formula C i,j is conjunction of If Y i (t) Y j (t) then for some t < t we have X i holds invariantly for (t,t) but X j does not hold invariantly in (t,t). If Y i and Y j become true at t then for every previous t we have X i is true over (t,t) iff X j is true over (t,t). Let Timer(X,Y ) = i A i B i i,j C i,j. IITG 2006 p. 24

Timer Elimination Theorem Theorem [HR03] The predicates P 1,...,P n,q 1,...,Q n = Timer(X,Y ) iff there is an order preserving bijection ρ : RrightarrowR such that ρ(p 1 ),...,ρ(p n ),ρ(q 1 ),...,ρ(q n ) = Timer(X,Y ) For φ MFO, we have M = φ iff ρ(m) = φ. IITG 2006 p. 25

Decidability of QMFO Theorem For evert φ QMFO (or QMSO,QTL) we can construct (φ) MFO (or MSO,TL) which is equisatisfiable. Corollary QM F O is decidable over continous canonical models. QM SO is decidable over finitiely variable models. (Alternative proof of M IT L decidability.) QT L is decidable over continuous canonical models. IITG 2006 p. 26

References Y. Hirshfeld and A. Rabinovich, Logics for Real-Time: Decidability and Compleixty, Fundamenta Informatica (2004). Thomas A. Henzinger. It s about time: Real-time logics reviewed. (CONCUR 1998). Kamal Lodaya and P.K. Pandya, A dose of time, in guarded measures, to appear in Proc. FORMATS 2006. IITG 2006 p. 27