The Satisfiability Problem for Probabilistic CTL

We study the satisfiability problem for qualitative PCTL (probabilistic computation tree logic), which is obtained from "ordinary" CTL by replacing the EX, AX, EU, and AU operators with their qualitative counterparts X > 0, X = 1, U > 0, and U = 1, respectively. As opposed to CTL, qualitative PCTL does not have a small model property, and there are even qualitative PCTL formulae which have only infinite- state models. Nevertheless, we show that the satisfiability problem for qualitative PCTL is EXPTIME-complete and we give an exponential-time algorithm which for a given formula phi computes a finite description of a model (if it exists), or answers "not satisfiable" (otherwise). We also consider the finite satisfiability problem and provide analogous results. That is, we show that the finite satisfiability problem for qualitative PCTL is EXPTIME-complete, and every finite satisfiable formula has a model of an exponential size which can effectively be constructed in exponential time. Finally, we give some results about the quantitative PCTL, where the numerical bounds in probability constraints can be arbitrary rationals between 0 and 1. We prove that the problem whether a given quantitative PCTL formula phi has a model of the branching degree at most k, where k > 2 is an arbitrary but fixed constant, is highly undecidable. We also show that every satisfiable formula phi has a model with branching degree at most \phi\ + 2. However, this does not yet imply the undecidability of the satisfiability problem for quantitative PCTL, and we in fact conjecture the opposite.

[1]  Bengt Jonsson,et al.  A logic for reasoning about time and reliability , 1990, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[2]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  An automata-theoretic approach to modular model checking , 2000, TOPL.

[3]  Christel Baier,et al.  Controller Synthesis for Probabilistic Systems , 2004, IFIP TCS.

[4]  J. Esparza,et al.  Model checking probabilistic pushdown automata , 2004, LICS 2004.

[5]  Michael Huth,et al.  Quantitative analysis and model checking , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[6]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  On the Universal and Existential Fragments of the µ-Calculus , 2003, TACAS.

[7]  Antonín Kucera,et al.  On the Controller Synthesis for Finite-State Markov Decision Processes , 2005, Fundam. Informaticae.

[8]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs , 1979, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[9]  Larry J. Stockmeyer,et al.  Improved upper and lower bounds for modal logics of programs , 1985, STOC '85.

[10]  Tomás Brázdil,et al.  Stochastic games with branching-time winning objectives , 2006, 21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06).

[11]  Kousha Etessami,et al.  Recursive Markov Chains, Stochastic Grammars, and Monotone Systems of Nonlinear Equations , 2005, STACS.

[12]  Tomás Brázdil,et al.  Controller Synthesis and Verification for Markov Decision Processes with Qualitative Branching Time Objectives , 2008, ICALP.

[13]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  Temporal and Modal Logic , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[14]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time , 1982, STOC '82.

[15]  Tomás Brázdil,et al.  On the Decidability of Temporal Properties of Probabilistic Pushdown Automata , 2005, STACS.

[16]  Howard Barringer,et al.  Temporal Logic with Fixed Points , 1987, Temporal Logic in Specification.

[17]  Jan Johannsen,et al.  CTL+ Is Complete for Double Exponential Time , 2003, ICALP.

[18]  Dexter Kozen,et al.  A finite model theorem for the propositional μ-calculus , 1988, Stud Logica.

[19]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  The complexity of probabilistic verification , 1995, JACM.

[20]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  The Complexity of Tree Automata and Logics of Programs , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..