The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
On the synthesis of a reactive module
POPL '89 Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
Handbook of theoretical computer science (vol. B)
The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems
The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems
The Complexity of Propositional Linear Temporal Logics in Simple Cases (Extended Abstract)
STACS '98 Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science
Deterministic Generators and Games for Ltl Fragments
LICS '01 Proceedings of the 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
Deterministic generators and games for Ltl fragments
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
Games with winning conditions of high Borel complexity
Theoretical Computer Science - Automata, languages and programming: Logic and semantics (ICALP-B 2004)
Hi-index | 0.01 |
We prove two tight bounds on complexity of deciding graph games with winning conditions defined by formulas from fragments of LTL.Our first result is that deciding LTL+(驴,驴, 驴) games is in PSPACE. This is a tight bound: the problem is known to be PSPACE-hard even for the much weaker logic LTL+(驴,驴). We use a method based on a notion of, as we call it, persistent strategy: we prove that in games with positive winning condition the opponent has a winning strategy if and only if he has a persistent winning strategy.The best upper bound one can prove for our problem with the B眉chi automata technique, is EXPSPACE. This means that we identify a natural fragment of LTL for which the algorithm resulting from the B眉chi automata tool is one exponent worse than optimal.As our second result we show that the problem is EXPSPACE-hard if the winning condition is from the logic LTL+(驴, 驴, 驴, 驴). This solves an open problem from [AT01], where the authors use the B眉chi automata technique to show an EXPSPACE algorithm deciding more general LTL(驴, 驴, &and, 驴) games, but do not prove optimality of this upper bound