Document Open Access Logo

On Temporal and Separation Logics (Invited Paper)

Author Stéphane Demri

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TIME.2018.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 279 kB
  • 4 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Stéphane Demri
  • LSV, CNRS, ENS Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, France

Cite AsGet BibTex

Stéphane Demri. On Temporal and Separation Logics (Invited Paper). In 25th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2018). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 120, pp. 1:1-1:4, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2018.1

Abstract

There exist many success stories about the introduction of logics designed for the formal verification of computer systems. Obviously, the introduction of temporal logics to computer science has been a major step in the development of model-checking techniques. More recently, separation logics extend Hoare logic for reasoning about programs with dynamic data structures, leading to many contributions on theory, tools and applications. In this talk, we illustrate how several features of separation logics, for instance the key concept of separation, are related to similar notions in temporal logics. We provide formal correspondences (when possible) and present an overview of related works from the literature. This is also the opportunity to present bridges between well-known temporal logics and more recent separation logics.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Modal and temporal logics
  • Theory of computation → Separation logic
Keywords
  • separation logics
  • temporal logics
  • expressive power

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. T. Antonopoulos and A. Dawar. Separating graph logic from MSO. In FOSSACS'09, volume 5504 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 63-77. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  2. J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P. O'Hearn. A decidable fragment of separation logic. In FST&TCS'04, volume 3328 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 97-109. Springer, 2004. Google Scholar
  3. J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, and P. O'Hearn. Smallfoot: Modular automatic assertion checking with separation logic. In FMCO'05, volume 4111 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 115-137. Springer, 2005. Google Scholar
  4. J. Boudou. Decidable logics with associative binary modalities. In CSL'17, volume 82 of LIPIcs, pages 1-15. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017. Google Scholar
  5. R. Brochenin, S. Demri, and E. Lozes. Reasoning about sequences of memory states. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 161(3):305-323, 2009. Google Scholar
  6. R. Brochenin, S. Demri, and E. Lozes. On the almighty wand. Information and Computation, 211:106-137, 2012. Google Scholar
  7. J. Brotherston, C. Fuhs, N. Gorogiannis, and J. Navarro Perez. A decision procedure for satisfiability in separation logic with inductive predicates. In CSL-LICS'14, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. J. Brotherston and J. Villard. Parametric completeness for separation theories. In POPL'14, pages 453-464. ACM, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. C. Calcagno and D. Distefano. Infer: An automatic program verifier for memory safety of C programs. In NASA Formal Methods, volume 6617 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 459-465. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  10. C. Calcagno, D. Distefano, P.W. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. Compositional shape analysis by means of bi-abduction. Journal of the ACM, 58(6):26:1-26:66, 2011. Google Scholar
  11. C. Calcagno, Ph. Gardner, and M. Hague. From separation logic to first-order logic. In FOSSACS'05, volume 3441 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 395-409. Springer, 2005. Google Scholar
  12. J. Spring D. Pym and P. O'Hearn. Why separation logic works. Manuscript, 2017. Google Scholar
  13. M. Dams. Relevance logic and concurrent composition. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989. Google Scholar
  14. A. Dawar, Ph. Gardner, and G. Ghelli. Expressiveness and complexity of graph logic. Information and Computation, 205(3):263-310, 2007. Google Scholar
  15. S. Demri and M. Deters. Separation logics and modalities: A survey. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 25(1):50-99, 2015. Google Scholar
  16. S. Demri and M. Deters. Two-variable separation logic and its inner circle. ACM Transactions on Computational Logics, 2(16), 2015. Google Scholar
  17. S. Demri and M. Deters. Expressive completeness of separation logic with two variables and no separating conjunction. ACM Transactions on Computational Logics, 17(2):12, 2016. Google Scholar
  18. S. Demri and R. Fervari. On the complexity of modal separation logics. In AiML'18, 2018. to appear. Google Scholar
  19. S. Demri, E. Lozes, and A. Mansutti. The effects of adding reachability predicates in propositional separation logic. In FOSSACS'18, volume 10803 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 476-493. Springer, 2018. Google Scholar
  20. D. Distefano, P. O'Hearn, and H. Yang. A local shape analysis based on separation logic. In TACAS'06, volume 3920 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 287-302. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  21. C. Haase, S. Ishtiaq, J. Ouaknine, and M. Parkinson. SeLoger: A tool for graph-based reasoning in separation logic. In CAV'13, volume 8044 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 790-795. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  22. L. Hella, K. Luosto, K. Sano, and J. Virtema. The expressive power of modal dependence logic. In AIML'14, pages 294-312. College Publications, 2014. Google Scholar
  23. A. Herzig. A simple separation logic. In WoLLIC'13, volume 8071 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 168-178. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  24. C.A.R. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12(10):576-580, 1969. Google Scholar
  25. I. Hodkinson, A. Montanari, and G. Sciavicco. Non-finite axiomatizability and undecidability of interval temporal logics with C, D, and T. In CSL'08, volume 5213 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 308-322. Springer, 2008. Google Scholar
  26. Z. Hou, R. Goré, and A. Tiu. Automated theorem proving for assertions in separation logic with all connectives. In CADE'15, volume 9195 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 501-516. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  27. R. Iosif, A. Rogalewicz, and J. Simacek. The tree width of separation logic with recursive definitions. In CADE'13, volume 7898 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 21-38. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  28. S. Ishtiaq and P. O'Hearn. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In POPL'01, pages 14-26. ACM, 2001. Google Scholar
  29. V. Kuncak and M. Rinard. On spatial conjunction as second-order logic. Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-2004-067, MIT CSAIL, October 2004. Google Scholar
  30. A. Kurucz, I. Németi, I. Sain, and A. Simon. Decidable and undecidable logics with a binary modality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 4:191-206, 1995. Google Scholar
  31. F. Laroussinie and N. Markey. Quantified CTL: Expressiveness and complexity. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 10(4:17), 2014. Google Scholar
  32. E. Lozes. Expressivité des Logiques Spatiales. Phd thesis, ENS Lyon, 2004. Google Scholar
  33. Xu Lu, Cong Tian, and Zhenhua Duan. Temporalising separation logic for planning with search control knowledge. In IJCAI'17, pages 1167-1173, 2017. Google Scholar
  34. A. Mansutti. Extending propositional separation logic for robustness properties, July 2018. Manuscript. Google Scholar
  35. D. Della Monica, V. Goranko, A. Montanari, and G. Sciavicco. Interval temporal logics: a journey. Bulletin of the EATCS, 105:73-99, 2011. Google Scholar
  36. B. Moszkowski. Reasoning about digital circuits. Technical Report STAN-CS-83-970, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1983. Google Scholar
  37. P. Müller, M. Schwerhoff, and A.J. Summers. Viper: A verification infrastructure for permission-based reasoning. In VMCAI'16, volume 9583 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 41-62. Springer, 2016. Google Scholar
  38. P. O'Hearn and D. Pym. The logic of bunched implications. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 5(2):215-244, 1999. Google Scholar
  39. P.W. O'Hearn, J.C. Reynolds, and H. Yang. Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In CSL'01, volume 2142 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1-19. Springer, 2001. Google Scholar
  40. D. Pym. The Semantics and Proof Theory of the Logic of Bunched Implications, volume 26 of Applied Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. Google Scholar
  41. J.C. Reynolds. Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In LICS'02, pages 55-74. IEEE, 2002. Google Scholar
  42. M. Schwerhoff and A. Summers. Lightweight support for magic wands in an automatic verifier. In ECOOP'15, pages 999-1023. Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, LIPICS, 2015. Google Scholar
  43. A. Thakur, J. Breck, and T. Reps. Satisfiability modulo abstraction for separation logic with linked lists. In SPIN'14, pages 58-67. ACM, 2014. Google Scholar
  44. Y. Venema. Expressiveness and completeness of an interval tense logic. NDJFL, 31(4):529-547, 1990. Google Scholar
  45. Y. Venema. A modal logic for chopping intervals. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(4):453-476, 1991. Google Scholar
  46. H. Yang, O. Lee, J. Berdine, C. Calcagno, B. Cook, D. Distefano, and P. O'Hearn. Scalable shape analysis for systems code. In CAV'08, volume 5123 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 385-398. Springer, 2008. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact