Affiliation:
1. Software Engineering , East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
2. East China Normal University , Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Computing
3. East China Normal University , National Trusted Embedded Software Engineering Technology Research Center
Abstract
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the minimal unsatisfiable core (MUC) problem for linear temporal logic over finite traces (LTL$_{f}$), which nowadays is a popular formal-specification language for AI-related systems. Efficient algorithms to compute such MUCs can help locate the inconsistency rapidly in the written LTL$_{f}$ specification and are very useful for the system designers to amend the flawed requirement. As far as we know, there are no available tools off-the-shelf so far that provide MUC computation for LTL$_{f}$. We present here two generic approaches NaiveMUC and BinaryMUC to compute an MUC for LTL$_{f}$. Moreover, we introduce heuristics that are based on the Boolean unsatisfiable core (UC) technique to accelerate the two approaches, which are named NaiveMUC+UC and BinaryMUC+UC, respectively. In particular, for global LTL$_{f}$ formulas, we show that the MUC computation can be reduced to the pure Boolean MUC computation, which therefore conducts the GlobalMUC approach. Our experiments show that GlobalMUC performs the best to compute an MUC for global formulas, and BinaryMUC+UC is the best for an arbitrary unsatisfiable formula.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Logic,Hardware and Architecture,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Software,Theoretical Computer Science
Reference40 articles.
1. Planning for temporally extended goals;Bacchus;Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence,1998
2. Hybrid compositional reasoning for reactive synthesis from finite-horizon specifications;Bansal,2020
3. Muser2: an efficient mus extractor;Belov;Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation,2012
4. Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams;Bryant;ACM Computing Surveys,1992
5. Reasoning about actions and planning in LTL action theories;Calvanese,2002