Abstract
We describe BDD-based decision procedures for \( \mathcal{K} \). Our approach is inspired by the automata-theoretic approach, but we avoid explicit automata construction. Our algorithms compute the fixpoint of a set of types, which are sets of formulas satisfying some consistency conditions. We use BDDs to represent and manipulate such sets. Experimental results show that our algorithms are competitive with contemporary methods using benchmarks from TANCS 98 and TANCS 2000.
Supported in part by NSF grants CCR-9700061, CCR-9988322, IIS-9908435, IIS-9978135, and EIA-0086264, by BSF grant 9800096, and by a grant from the Intel Corporation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
H. R. Andersen. An introduction to binary decision diagrams. Technical report, Department of Information Technology, Technical University of Denmark, 1998.
C. Areces, R. Gennari, J. Heguiabehere, and M. de Rijke. Tree-based heuristics in modal theorem proving. In Proceedings of the ECAI’2000, 2000.
F. Baader and S. Tobies. The inverse method implements the automata approach for modal satisfiability. In Proc. of IJCAR-01, volume 2083 of LNCS. Springer Verlag, 2001.
I. Beer, S. Ben-David, D. Geist, R. Gewirtzman, and M. Yoeli. Methodology and system for practical formal verification of reactive hardware. In Proc. of CAV-94, volume 818 of LNCS, pages 182–193, 1994.
P. Blackburn, M. D. Rijke, Y. Venema, and M. D. Rijke. Modal logic. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-35(8):677–691, August 1986.
J. Burch, E. Clarke, K. McMillan, D. Dill, and L. J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Infomation and Computation, 98(2):142–170, 1992.
J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, and D. E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In Int. Conf. on VLSI, pages 49–58, 1991.
A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. NUSMV: A new symbolic model checker. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 2(4):410–425, 2000.
R. Dyckhoff, editor. Proceedings of TABLEAUX 2000, volume 1847 of LNAI. Springer Verlag, 2000.
D. Geist and H. Beer. Efficient model checking by automated ordering of transition relation partitions. In Proc. of the sixth Int. Conf. on CAV, pages 299–310, 1994.
E. Giunchiglia, M. Maratea, A. Tacchella, and D. Zambonin. Evaluating search heuristics and optimization techniques in propositional satisfiability. In IJCAR, pages 347–363, 2001.
F. Giunchiglia and R. Sebastiani. Building decision procedures for modal logics from propositional decision procedure-the case study of modal K(m). Infomation and Computation, 162:158–178, 2000.
J. Y. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54:319–379, 1992.
A. Heuerding and S. Schwendimann. A benchmark method for the propositional modal logics K, KT, S4. Technical report, Universität Bern, Switzerland, 1996.
U. Hustadt and R. Schmidt. MSPASS: modal reasoning by translation and first order resolution. In [10], pages 67–71.
G. Kamhi, L. Fix, and Z. Binyamini. Symbolic model checking visualization. In Proc. of FMCAD’98, volume 1522 of LNCS, pages 290–303. Springer Verlag, November 1998.
R. E. Ladner. The computational complexity of provability in systems of modal propositional logic. SIAM J. Comput., 6(3):467–480, 1977.
F. Massacci and F. M. Donini. Design and results of TANCS-00. In [10], pages 52–56.
I.-H. Moon, G. D. Hachtel, and F. Somenzi. Border-block trianglular form and conjunction schedule in image computation. In W. H. Jr. and S. Johnson, editors, FMCAD2000, volume 1954 of LNCS, pages 73–90. Springer Verlag, 2000.
H. Ohlbach, A. Nonnengart, M. de Rijke, and D. Gabbay. Encoding two-valued non-classical logics in classical logic. In J. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier, 1999.
P. F. Patel-Schneider and I. Horrocks. DLP and FaCT. In Proc. of TABLEAUX-99, volume 1397 of LNAI, pages 19–23. Springer Verlag, 1999.
V. Pratt. A near-optimal method for reasoning about action. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 20(2):231–254, 1980.
R. Ranjan, A. Aziz, R. Brayton, B. Plessier, and C. Pixley. Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Logic Synthesis, 1995.
F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU decision diagram package, 1998.
G. Sutcliffe and C. Suttner. Evaluating general purpose automated theorem proving systems. Artificial intelligence, 131:39–54, 2001.
A. Tacchella. *SAT system description. In Collected Papers from the International Description Logics Workshop (DL’99). CEUR, 1999.
J. van Benthem. Modal Logic and Classical Logic. Bibliopolis, 1983.
M. Vardi. What makes modal logic so robustly decidable? In N. Immerman and P. Kolaitis, editors, Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models, pages 149–183. American Mathematical Society, 1997.
A. Voronkov. How to optimize proof-search in modal logics: new methods of proving redundancy criteria for sequent calculi. Computational Logic, 2(2):182–215, 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pan, G., Sattler, U., Vardi, M.Y. (2002). BDD-Based Decision Procedures for \( \mathcal{K} \) . In: Voronkov, A. (eds) Automated Deduction—CADE-18. CADE 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2392. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45620-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45620-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43931-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45620-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive