Modal μ-calculus explained
In theoretical computer science, the modal μ-calculus (Lμ, Lμ, sometimes just μ-calculus, although this can have a more general meaning) is an extension of propositional modal logic (with many modalities) by adding the least fixed point operator μ and the greatest fixed point operator ν, thus a fixed-point logic.
The (propositional, modal) μ-calculus originates with Dana Scott and Jaco de Bakker,[1] and was further developed by Dexter Kozen[2] into the version most used nowadays. It is used to describe properties of labelled transition systems and for verifying these properties. Many temporal logics can be encoded in the μ-calculus, including CTL* and its widely used fragments - linear temporal logic and computational tree logic.[3]
An algebraic view is to see it as an algebra of monotonic functions over a complete lattice, with operators consisting of functional composition plus the least and greatest fixed point operators; from this viewpoint, the modal μ-calculus is over the lattice of a power set algebra.[4] The game semantics of μ-calculus is related to two-player games with perfect information, particularly infinite parity games.[5]
Syntax
Let P (propositions) and A (actions) be two finite sets of symbols, and let Var be a countably infinite set of variables. The set of formulas of (propositional, modal) μ-calculus is defined as follows:
- each proposition and each variable is a formula;
- if
and
are formulas, then
is a formula;
is a formula, then
is a formula;
is a formula and
is an action, then
is a formula; (pronounced either:
box
or after
necessarily
)
is a formula and
a variable, then
is a formula, provided that every free occurrence of
in
occurs positively, i.e. within the scope of an even number of negations.
(The notions of free and bound variables are as usual, where
is the only binding operator.)
Given the above definitions, we can enrich the syntax with:
meaning
\neg(\neg\phi\land\neg\psi)
(pronounced either:
diamond
or after
possibly
) meaning
means
\neg\nuZ.\neg\phi[Z:=\negZ]
, where
means substituting
for
in all
free occurrences of
in
.
The first two formulas are the familiar ones from the classical propositional calculus and respectively the minimal multimodal logic K.
The notation
(and its dual) are inspired from the
lambda calculus; the intent is to denote the least (and respectively greatest) fixed point of the expression
where the "minimization" (and respectively "maximization") are in the variable
, much like in lambda calculus
is a function with formula
in bound variable
;
[6] see the denotational semantics below for details.
Denotational semantics
Models of (propositional) μ-calculus are given as labelled transition systems
where:
is a set of states;
maps to each label
a binary relation on
;
, maps each proposition
to the set of states where the proposition is true.
Given a labelled transition system
and an interpretation
of the variables
of the
-calculus,
, is the function defined by the following rules:
;
;
[[\phi\wedge\psi]]i=[[\phi]]i\cap[[\psi]]i
;
[[\neg\phi]]i=S\smallsetminus[[\phi]]i
;
[[[a]\phi]]i=\{s\inS\mid\forallt\inS,(s,t)\inRa → t\in[[\phi]]i\}
;
[[\nuZ.\phi]]i=cup\{T\subseteqS\midT\subseteq[[\phi]]i[Z\}
, where
maps
to
while preserving the mappings of
everywhere else.
By duality, the interpretation of the other basic formulas is:
[[\phi\vee\psi]]i=[[\phi]]i\cup[[\psi]]i
;
[[\langlea\rangle\phi]]i=\{s\inS\mid\existst\inS,(s,t)\inRa\wedget\in[[\phi]]i\}
;
[[\muZ.\phi]]i=cap\{T\subseteqS\mid[[\phi]]i[Z\subseteqT\}
Less formally, this means that, for a given transition system
:
holds in the set of states
;
holds in every state where
and
both hold;
holds in every state where
does not hold.
holds in a state
if every
-transition leading out of
leads to a state where
holds.
holds in a state
if there exists
-transition leading out of
that leads to a state where
holds.
holds in any state in any set
such that, when the variable
is set to
, then
holds for all of
. (From the
Knaster–Tarski theorem it follows that
is the
greatest fixed point of
, and
its
least fixed point.)
The interpretations of
and
are in fact the "classical" ones from
dynamic logic. Additionally, the operator
can be interpreted as
liveness ("something good eventually happens") and
as
safety ("nothing bad ever happens") in
Leslie Lamport's informal classification.
[7] Examples
is interpreted as "
is true along every
a-path".
[7] The idea is that "
is true along every
a-path" can be defined axiomatically as that (weakest) sentence
which implies
and which remains true after processing any
a-label.
[8] \muZ.\phi\vee\langlea\rangleZ
is interpreted as the existence of a path along
a-transitions to a state where
holds.
- The property of a state being deadlock-free, meaning no path from that state reaches a dead end, is expressed by the formula[9]
Decision problems
Satisfiability of a modal μ-calculus formula is EXPTIME-complete.[10] Like for linear temporal logic,[11] the model checking, satisfiability and validity problems of linear modal μ-calculus are PSPACE-complete.[12]
See also
Notes
- Scott . Dana . Dana Scott. Bakker . Jacobus . 1969 . A theory of programs . Unpublished Manuscript.
- Kozen. Dexter. Results on the propositional μ-calculus. ICALP. 1982. Automata, Languages and Programming. 140. 348–359. 978-3-540-11576-2. 10.1007/BFb0012782.
- Clarke p.108, Theorem 6; Emerson p. 196
- Arnold and Niwiński, pp. viii-x and chapter 6
- Arnold and Niwiński, pp. viii-x and chapter 4
- Arnold and Niwiński, p. 14
- Bradfield and Stirling, p. 731
- Bradfield and Stirling, p. 6
- Book: Erich Grädel . Phokion G. Kolaitis . Leonid Libkin. Leonid Libkin . Maarten Marx . . . Yde Venema . Scott Weinstein . Finite Model Theory and Its Applications . 2007 . Springer . 978-3-540-00428-8 . 159.
- Book: Klaus Schneider. Verification of reactive systems: formal methods and algorithms. 2004. Springer. 978-3-540-00296-3. 521.
- Sistla. A. P.. Clarke. E. M.. 1985-07-01. The Complexity of Propositional Linear Temporal Logics. J. ACM. 32. 3. 733–749. 10.1145/3828.3837. 0004-5411. free.
- Book: Vardi, M. Y.. Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '88 . A temporal fixpoint calculus . 1988-01-01. New York, NY, USA. ACM. 250–259. 10.1145/73560.73582. 0897912527. free.
References
- Book: Clarke
, Edmund M. Jr.
. Orna Grumberg . Doron A. Peled . Model Checking. 1999. MIT press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 0-262-03270-8., chapter 7, Model checking for the μ-calculus, pp. 97–108
- Book: Stirling
, Colin.
. Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. 2001. Springer Verlag. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg. 0-387-98717-7., chapter 5, Modal μ-calculus, pp. 103–128
- Book: André Arnold. Damian Niwiński. Rudiments of μ-Calculus. 2001. Elsevier. 978-0-444-50620-7., chapter 6, The μ-calculus over powerset algebras, pp. 141–153 is about the modal μ-calculus
- Yde Venema (2008) Lectures on the Modal μ-calculus; was presented at The 18th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information
- Book: Bradfield, Julian . Stirling, Colin . amp . 2006 . Modal mu-calculi . The Handbook of Modal Logic . P. Blackburn . J. van Benthem . F. Wolter . . 721–756 . http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jcb/Research/pubs.html#mlh-chapter .
- E. Allen . Emerson. E. Allen Emerson . Model Checking and the Mu-calculus . Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models . 1996 . 185–214 . . 0-8218-0517-7.
- Kozen, Dexter . 1983 . Results on the Propositional μ-Calculus . . 27 . 3 . 333–354 . 10.1016/0304-3975(82)90125-6 .
External links