Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results

Carlos Areces
1,2
, Raul Fervari
1
& Guillaume Homann
1
1
FaMAF, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina,
2
CONICET, Argentina
WoLLIC 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 1/19
Modal logics: we like to talk about models

Modal logics are known to describe models.

Choose the right paintbrush:

. . .

Now, what about operators that can modify models?

Change the domain of the model.

Change the properties of the elements of the domain while we are

evaluating a formula.

Evaluate after deleting/adding/swapping around an edge.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 2/19
Logics that change the model 1/2
What about a swapping modal operator?
w
sw
v w v

What happens when you add that to the basic modal logic?
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 3/19
Logics that change the model 2/2
What about:

an edge-deleting modality?

an edge-adding modality?
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 4/19
Logics that change the model 2/2
What about:

an edge-deleting modality?

an edge-adding modality?
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 4/19
Sabotage Modal Logic [van Benthem 2002]
/, w [= gs i pair (u, v) of / such that /

{(u,v)}
, w [= ,
where /

{(u,v)}
is / without the edge (u, v).
Note: (u, v) can be anywhere in the model.
What we know [Loding & Rohde 03]:

Model checking is PSPACE-complete.

Satisability is undecidable.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 5/19
Sabotage Modal Logic [van Benthem 2002]
/, w [= gs i pair (u, v) of / such that /

{(u,v)}
, w [= ,
where /

{(u,v)}
is / without the edge (u, v).
Note: (u, v) can be anywhere in the model.
What we know [Loding & Rohde 03]:

Model checking is PSPACE-complete.

Satisability is undecidable.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 5/19
Epistemic Operators

Those are operators that also modify models!

[!]: announce that if is true, eliminate states of the model where

holds (Public Announcement Logic) [Plaza 89].

: there is a -free announcement such that [!] holds

(Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) [Balbiani et al. 07].

In some way these operators are deleting states.

We will focus on operators that modify the accesibility relation.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 6/19
Epistemic Operators

Those are operators that also modify models!

[!]: announce that if is true, eliminate states of the model where

holds (Public Announcement Logic) [Plaza 89].

: there is a -free announcement such that [!] holds

(Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) [Balbiani et al. 07].

In some way these operators are deleting states.

We will focus on operators that modify the accesibility relation.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 6/19
Epistemic Operators

Those are operators that also modify models!

[!]: announce that if is true, eliminate states of the model where

holds (Public Announcement Logic) [Plaza 89].

: there is a -free announcement such that [!] holds

(Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) [Balbiani et al. 07].

In some way these operators are deleting states.

We will focus on operators that modify the accesibility relation.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 6/19
Epistemic Operators

Those are operators that also modify models!

[!]: announce that if is true, eliminate states of the model where

holds (Public Announcement Logic) [Plaza 89].

: there is a -free announcement such that [!] holds

(Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) [Balbiani et al. 07].

In some way these operators are deleting states.

We will focus on operators that modify the accesibility relation.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 6/19
Epistemic Operators

Those are operators that also modify models!

[!]: announce that if is true, eliminate states of the model where

holds (Public Announcement Logic) [Plaza 89].

: there is a -free announcement such that [!] holds

(Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) [Balbiani et al. 07].

In some way these operators are deleting states.

We will focus on operators that modify the accesibility relation.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 6/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Meet the new operators
Remember the Basic Modal Logic (B/L).

Syntax: propositional language + a modal operator .

Semantics of : traverse some edge, then evaluate .

Now add new dynamic operators:

Semantics of swap, global/local sabotage and bridge:

sw: traverse some edge, turn it around, then evaluate .

gs: delete some edge anywhere, then evaluate .

ls: traverse some edge, delete it, then evaluate .

br : add a new edge, traverse it, then evaluate .

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 7/19
Examples: no tree model property
Theorem
/L() lacks the tree model property, for sw, gs, ls, br .
Proof.
1. br w and v ,= w are unconnected.
2. [gs] w is reexive.
3. [ls] w is reexive.
4. p (

1i 3

i
p) swp w has a reexive successor.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 8/19
Examples: no tree model property
Theorem
/L() lacks the tree model property, for sw, gs, ls, br .
Proof.
1. br w and v ,= w are unconnected.
2. [gs] w is reexive.
3. [ls] w is reexive.
4. p (

1i 3

i
p) swp w has a reexive successor.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 8/19
Bisimulations
We want to learn more about the models that these logics can describe.
So we need:

Denition of -bisimilarity.

A bisimilarity theorem that says that two -bisimilar models are

undistinguishable by /L().
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 9/19
Conditions for -bisimulations 1/2
always (nontriv) Z is not empty
always (agree) If (w, S)Z(w

, S

), w and w

agree propositionally.
(zig) If wSv, there is v

s.t. w

and (v, S)Z(v

, S

)
(zag) If w

, there is vW s.t. wSv and (v, S)Z(v

, S

)
sw (sw-zig) If wSv, there is v

s.t. w

and (v, S

vw
)Z(v

, S

w
)
(sw-zag) If w

, there is vW s.t. wSv and (v, S

vw
)Z(v

, S

w
)
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 10/19
Conditions for -bisimulations 2/2
gs (gs-zig) If vSu, there is v

, u

s.t. v

and (w, S

vu
)Z(w

, S

)
(gs-zag) If v

, there is v, uW s.t. vSu and (w, S

vu
)Z(w

, S

)
ls (ls-zig) If wSv, there is v

s.t. w

and (v, S

wv
)Z(v

, S

)
(ls-zag) If w

, there is vW s.t. wSv and (v, S

wv
)Z(v

, S

)
br (br-zig) If wSv, there is v

s.t. w

and (v, S
+
wv
)Z(v

, S
+
w

)
(br-zag) If w

, there is vW s.t. wSv and (v, S

+
wv
)Z(v

, S
+
w

)
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 11/19
Invariance for Dynamic Logics
Theorem
For /L(), sw, gs, ls, br , /, w

ML()
/

, w

implies
/, w
ML()
/

, w

.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 12/19
Comparing expressiveness
What if we want to show that all of these logics are uncomparable?

Find two
1
-bisimilar models distinguishable by /L(
2
).

Find two
2
-bisimilar models distinguishable by /L(
1
).
Then /L(
1
) and /L(
2
) are uncomparable.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 13/19
Now lets have fun!
/ /

Distinct by Bisimilar for

w
w

br br
gs
/L(ls)
/L(sw)
w
w

ls
gs
/L(sw)
/L(br )
w
w

swsw
[br ][br ]
/L(gs)
/L(ls)
w
. . . . . .
w

. . .
sw /L(br )
w
. . .
. . .
w

. . .
. . .
ls /L(gs)
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 14/19
It all boils down to that. . .
Theorem
For all
1
,
2
sw, gs, ls, br with
1
,=
2
, /L(
1
) and
/L(
2
) are uncomparable.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 15/19
Other results: Model checking modal logics

It is well known that model checking B/L is only polynomial.

But, what happens with dynamic operators?

Model checking PAL is PSPACE-complete [Balbiani et al. 07].

For global sabotage is PSPACE-complete [Loding & Rohde 03].

Let us prove PSPACE-completeness for local sabotage, bridge and

swap logic.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 16/19
Other results: Model checking modal logics

It is well known that model checking B/L is only polynomial.

But, what happens with dynamic operators?

Model checking PAL is PSPACE-complete [Balbiani et al. 07].

For global sabotage is PSPACE-complete [Loding & Rohde 03].

Let us prove PSPACE-completeness for local sabotage, bridge and

swap logic.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 16/19
Other results: Model checking modal logics

It is well known that model checking B/L is only polynomial.

But, what happens with dynamic operators?

Model checking PAL is PSPACE-complete [Balbiani et al. 07].

For global sabotage is PSPACE-complete [Loding & Rohde 03].

Let us prove PSPACE-completeness for local sabotage, bridge and

swap logic.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 16/19
Other results: Model checking modal logics

It is well known that model checking B/L is only polynomial.

But, what happens with dynamic operators?

Model checking PAL is PSPACE-complete [Balbiani et al. 07].

For global sabotage is PSPACE-complete [Loding & Rohde 03].

Let us prove PSPACE-completeness for local sabotage, bridge and

swap logic.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 16/19
Other results: Model checking modal logics

It is well known that model checking B/L is only polynomial.

But, what happens with dynamic operators?

Model checking PAL is PSPACE-complete [Balbiani et al. 07].

For global sabotage is PSPACE-complete [Loding & Rohde 03].

Let us prove PSPACE-completeness for local sabotage, bridge and

swap logic.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 16/19
Model checking /L(sw) is PSPACE-hard
For a Quantied Boolean Formula with k variables:
1. Build /
k
as:
p
1
p

p
1
. . .
p
k
p

p
k
2. Build a /L(sw) formula from a QBF as follows:
(x
i
.)

= sw(p
i
()

)
(x
i
)

= (p
i
p

)
()

= ()

( ) = ()

()

3. is true i /
k
, w [= ()

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 17/19
Model checking /L(sw) is PSPACE-hard
For a Quantied Boolean Formula with k variables:
1. Build /
k
as:
p
1
p

p
1
. . .
p
k
p

p
k
2. Build a /L(sw) formula from a QBF as follows:
(x
i
.)

= sw(p
i
()

)
(x
i
)

= (p
i
p

)
()

= ()

( ) = ()

()

3. is true i /
k
, w [= ()

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 17/19
Model checking /L(sw) is PSPACE-hard
For a Quantied Boolean Formula with k variables:
1. Build /
k
as:
p
1
p

p
1
. . .
p
k
p

p
k
2. Build a /L(sw) formula from a QBF as follows:
(x
i
.)

= sw(p
i
()

)
(x
i
)

= (p
i
p

)
()

= ()

( ) = ()

()

3. is true i /
k
, w [= ()

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 17/19
Model checking /L(sw) is PSPACE-hard
For a Quantied Boolean Formula with k variables:
1. Build /
k
as:
p
1
p

p
1
. . .
p
k
p

p
k
2. Build a /L(sw) formula from a QBF as follows:
(x
i
.)

= sw(p
i
()

)
(x
i
)

= (p
i
p

)
()

= ()

( ) = ()

()

3. is true i /
k
, w [= ()

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 17/19
Model checking is PSPACE-complete
We have similar translations for /L(gs), /L(ls) and /L(br ).
Being in PSPACE is shown with a depth-rst algorithm that follows the
denition of [=.
Theorem
For sw, gs, ls, br , model checking for any of the logics
/L() is PSPACE-complete.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 18/19
Model checking is PSPACE-complete
We have similar translations for /L(gs), /L(ls) and /L(br ).
Being in PSPACE is shown with a depth-rst algorithm that follows the
denition of [=.
Theorem
For sw, gs, ls, br , model checking for any of the logics
/L() is PSPACE-complete.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 18/19
Model checking is PSPACE-complete
We have similar translations for /L(gs), /L(ls) and /L(br ).
Being in PSPACE is shown with a depth-rst algorithm that follows the
denition of [=.
Theorem
For sw, gs, ls, br , model checking for any of the logics
/L() is PSPACE-complete.
C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 18/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19
Conclusions

These logics have similar features to Sabotage Modal Logic:

Lack of tree model property.

PSPACE-complete model checking problem.

They are all uncomparable in expressivity.

Decidability of the satisability problem?

We have a proof that /L(sw) is undecidable.

We dont know yet about /L(ls) and /L(br ).

Further step: axiomatizations.

C. Areces, R. Fervari & G. Homann: Moving Arrows and Four Model Checking Results WoLLIC 2012 19/19