Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 161 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 40 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 26 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 117 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 149 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 440 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Two Variable vs. Linear Temporal Logic in Model Checking and Games (1303.4533v2)

Published 19 Mar 2013 in cs.LO and cs.FL

Abstract: Model checking linear-time properties expressed in first-order logic has non-elementary complexity, and thus various restricted logical languages are employed. In this paper we consider two such restricted specification logics, linear temporal logic (LTL) and two-variable first-order logic (FO2). LTL is more expressive but FO2 can be more succinct, and hence it is not clear which should be easier to verify. We take a comprehensive look at the issue, giving a comparison of verification problems for FO2, LTL, and various sublogics thereof across a wide range of models. In particular, we look at unary temporal logic (UTL), a subset of LTL that is expressively equivalent to FO2; we also consider the stutter-free fragment of FO2, obtained by omitting the successor relation, and the expressively equivalent fragment of UTL, obtained by omitting the next and previous connectives. We give three logic-to-automata translations which can be used to give upper bounds for FO2 and UTL and various sublogics. We apply these to get new bounds for both non-deterministic systems (hierarchical and recursive state machines, games) and for probabilistic systems (Markov chains, recursive Markov chains, and Markov decision processes). We couple these with matching lower-bound arguments. Next, we look at combining FO2 verification techniques with those for LTL. We present here a language that subsumes both FO2 and LTL, and inherits the model checking properties of both languages. Our results give both a unified approach to understanding the behaviour of FO2 and LTL, along with a nearly comprehensive picture of the complexity of verification for these logics and their sublogics.

Citations (11)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.