Model checking Branching-Time Properties of Multi-Pushdown Systems is Hard

We address the model checking problem for shared memory concurrent programs modeled as multi-pushdown systems. We consider here boolean programs with a finite number of threads and recursive procedures. It is well-known that the model checking problem is undecidable for this class of programs. In this paper, we investigate the decidability and the complexity of this problem under the assumption of bounded context-switching defined by Qadeer and Rehof, and of phase-boundedness proposed by La Torre et al. On the model checking of such systems against temporal logics and in particular branching time logics such as the modal $\mu$-calculus or CTL has received little attention. It is known that parity games, which are closely related to the modal $\mu$-calculus, are decidable for the class of bounded-phase systems (and hence for bounded-context switching as well), but with non-elementary complexity (Seth). A natural question is whether this high complexity is inevitable and what are the ways to get around it. This paper addresses these questions and unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly, it shows that branching model checking for MPDSs is inherently an hard problem with no easy solution. We show that parity games on MPDS under phase-bounding restriction is non-elementary. Our main result shows that model checking a $k$ context bounded MPDS against a simple fragment of CTL, consisting of formulas that whose temporal operators come from the set ${\EF, \EX}$, has a non-elementary lower bound.

[1]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  Decision problems over infinite graphs : higher order pushdown systems and synchronized products , 2005 .

[2]  Mohamed Faouzi Atig,et al.  Global Model Checking of Ordered Multi-Pushdown Systems , 2010, FSTTCS.

[3]  Salvatore La Torre,et al.  A Robust Class of Context-Sensitive Languages , 2007, 22nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2007).

[4]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  The Complexity of Games on Higher Order Pushdown Automata , 2007, ArXiv.

[5]  Thomas W. Reps,et al.  Reducing concurrent analysis under a context bound to sequential analysis , 2009, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[6]  Anthony Widjaja Lin,et al.  The Complexity of Model Checking (Collapsible) Higher-Order Pushdown Systems , 2010, FSTTCS.

[7]  Thierry Cachat,et al.  Higher Order Pushdown Automata, the Caucal Hierarchy of Graphs and Parity Games , 2003, ICALP.

[8]  Thomas W. Reps,et al.  Reducing Concurrent Analysis Under a Context Bound to Sequential Analysis , 2008, CAV.

[9]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[10]  Igor Walukiewicz Model Checking CTL Properties of Pushdown Systems , 2000, FSTTCS.

[11]  Tayssir Touili,et al.  Verifying parallel programs with dynamic communication structures , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Luca Breveglieri,et al.  Multi-Push-Down Languages and Grammars , 1996, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Anna Philippou,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FSTTCS 2013, December 12-14, 2013, Guwahati, India , 2011, FSTTCS.

[15]  Larry Joseph Stockmeyer,et al.  The complexity of decision problems in automata theory and logic , 1974 .

[16]  C. R. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 14th International Conference, TACAS 2008, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2008, Budapest, Hungary, March 29-April 6, 2008. Proceedings , 2008, TACAS.

[17]  Mohamed Faouzi Atig From Multi to Single Stack Automata , 2010, CONCUR.

[18]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  Pushdown Processes: Games and Model-Checking , 1996, Inf. Comput..

[19]  Jakob Rehof,et al.  Context-Bounded Model Checking of Concurrent Software , 2005, TACAS.

[20]  Arnaud Carayol,et al.  The Caucal Hierarchy of Infinite Graphs in Terms of Logic and Higher-Order Pushdown Automata , 2003, FSTTCS.

[21]  Christel Baier,et al.  Principles of Model Checking (Representation and Mind Series) , 2008 .

[22]  Benedikt Bollig,et al.  Emptiness of Multi-pushdown Automata Is 2ETIME-Complete , 2008, Developments in Language Theory.

[23]  Stephan Merz,et al.  Model Checking , 2000 .

[24]  Vineet Kahlon Boundedness vs. Unboundedness of Lock Chains: Characterizing Decidability of Pairwise CFL-Reachability for Threads Communicating via Locks , 2009, 2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science.

[25]  Tayssir Touili,et al.  Interprocedural Analysis of Concurrent Programs Under a Context Bound , 2008, TACAS.

[26]  Margherita Napoli,et al.  Reachability of Multistack Pushdown Systems with Scope-Bounded Matching Relations , 2011, CONCUR.

[27]  Mohamed Faouzi Atig,et al.  Context-Bounded Analysis for Concurrent Programs with Dynamic Creation of Threads , 2009, TACAS.

[28]  Anil Seth Games on Multi-stack Pushdown Systems , 2009, LFCS.

[29]  Anil Seth Global Reachability in Bounded Phase Multi-stack Pushdown Systems , 2010, CAV.

[30]  Gennaro Parlato,et al.  The tree width of auxiliary storage , 2011, POPL '11.

[31]  Anca Muscholl,et al.  Reachability Analysis of Communicating Pushdown Systems , 2010, FoSSaCS.

[32]  Salvatore La Torre,et al.  Context-Bounded Analysis of Concurrent Queue Systems , 2008, TACAS.