This paper presents a new method for obtaining small algebras to check the admissibility---equivalently, validity in free algebras---of quasi-identities in a finitely generated quasivariety. Unlike a previous algebraic approach of Metcalfe and Röthlisberger that is feasible only when the relevant free algebra is not too large, this method exploits natural dualities for quasivarieties to work with structures of smaller cardinality and surjective rather than injective morphisms. A number of case studies are described here that could not be be solved using the algebraic approach, including (quasi)varieties of MS-algebras, double Stone algebras, and involutive Stone algebras.
For finite automata as coalgebras in a category C we study languages they accept, and varieties of such languages. This generalizes Eilenbergs concept of a variety of languages which corresponds to choosing as C the category of boolean algebras. Eilenberg established a bijective correspondence between pseudovarieties of monoids and varieties of regular languages. In our generalization we work with a pair C / D of locally fi nite varieties of algebras that are predual, i.e. dualize on the level of fi nite algebras, and we prove that pseudovarieties of D-monoids bijectively correspond to varieties of regular languages in C . As one instance, Eilenbergs result is recovered by choosing D = sets and C = boolean algebras. Another instance, Pins result on pseudovarieties of ordered monoids, is covered by taking D = posets and C = distributive lattices. By choosing as C = D the self-predual category of join-semilattices we obtain Poláks result on pseudovarieties of idempotent semirings. Similar, using the self-preduality of vector spaces over a finite field K , our result covers that of Reutenauer on pseudovarieties of K-algebras. Several new variants of Eilenbergs theorem arise by taking other predualities, e.g. between the categories of non-unital boolean rings and of pointed sets. In each of these cases we also prove a local variant of the bijection, where a fixed alphabet is assumed and one considers local varieties of regular languages over that alphabet in the category C .
Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) and in particular ROBDDs (Reduced Ordered BDDs) are a common data structure for manipulating Boolean Expressions Integrated Circuit design, type inferencers, model checkers, and many other applications. Although a lightweight data structure to implement, the memory-wise behavior of ROBDDs may not be obvious to the program architect. We explore experimentally and theoretically the typical and worst-cases ROBDD sizes in terms of number of nodes and residual compression ratios as compared to un-reduced BDDs; in addition, we provide an algorithm to calculate the worst-case size. Finally, we present an algorithm for constructing a worst-case ROBDD of a given number of variables. Our approach may be useful to projects deciding whether the ROBDD is the appropriate data structure to use, and in building worst-case examples to test their code.
In this work we explore the connections between (linear) nested sequent calculi and ordinary sequent calculi for normal and non-normal modal logics. By proposing local versions to ordinary sequent rules we obtain linear nested sequent calculi for a number of logics, including to our knowledge the first nested sequent calculi for a large class of simply dependent multimodal logics, and for many standard non-normal modal logics. The resulting systems are modular and have separate left and right introduction rules for the modalities, which makes them amenable to specification as linear logic clauses. While this granulation of the sequent rules introduces more choices for proof search, we show how linear nested sequent calculi can be restricted to blocked derivations, which directly correspond to ordinary sequent derivations.
We analyse how the standard reductions between constraint satisfaction problems affect their proof complexity. We show that, for the most studied propositional, algebraic, and semi-algebraic proof systems, the classical constructions of pp-interpretability, homomorphic equivalence and addition of constants to a core preserve the proof complexity of the CSP. As a result, for those proof systems, the classes of constraint languages for which small unsatisfiability certificates exist can be characterised algebraically. We illustrate our results by a gap theorem saying that a constraint language either has resolution refutations of constant width, or does not have bounded-depth Frege refutations of subexponential size. The former holds exactly for the widely studied class of constraint languages of bounded width. This class is also known to coincide with the class of languages with refutations of sublinear degree in Sums-of-Squares and Polynomial Calculus over the real-field, for which we provide alternative proofs. We then ask for the existence of a natural proof system with good behaviour with respect to reductions and simultaneously small size refutations beyond bounded width. We give an example of such a proof system by showing that bounded-degree Lovász-Schrijver satisfies both requirements. Finally, building on the known lower bounds, we demonstrate the applicability of the method of reducibilities and construct new explicit hard instances of the graph 3-coloring problem for all studied proof systems.
In the last years, model checking with interval temporal logics is emerging as a viable alternative to model checking with standard point-based temporal logics, such as LTL, CTL, CTL*, and the like. The behavior of the system is modelled by means of (finite) Kripke structures, as usual. However, while temporal logics which are interpreted "point-wise" describe how the system evolves state-by-state, and predicate properties of system states, those which are interpreted "interval-wise" express properties of computation stretches, spanning a sequence of states. A proposition letter is assumed to hold over a computation stretch (interval) if and only if it holds over each component state (homogeneity assumption). A natural question arises: is there any advantage in replacing points by intervals as the primary temporal entities, or is it just a matter of taste? In this paper, we study the expressiveness of Halpern and Shoham's interval temporal logic (HS) in model checking, in comparison with those of LTL, CTL, and CTL*. To this end, we consider three semantic variants of HS: the state-based one, introduced by Montanari et al., that allows time to branch both in the past and in the future, the computation-tree-based one, that allows time to branch in the future only, and the trace-based variant, that disallows time to branch. These variants are compared among themselves and to the aforementioned standard logics, getting a complete picture. In particular, we show that HS with trace-based semantics is equivalent to LTL (but at least exponentially more succinct), HS with computation-tree-based semantics is equivalent to finitary CTL*, and HS with state-based semantics is incomparable with all of them (LTL, CTL, and CTL*).
The complexity of large-scale distributed systems, particularly when deployed in physical space, calls for new mechanisms to address composability and reusability of collective adaptive behaviour. Computational fields have been proposed as an effective abstraction to fill the gap between the macro-level of such systems (specifying a systems collective behaviour) and the micro-level (individual devices actions of computation and interaction to implement that collective specification), thereby providing a basis to better facilitate the engineering of collective APIs and complex systems at higher levels of abstraction. This paper proposes a full formal foundation for field computations, in terms of a core (higher-order) calculus of computational fields containing a few key syntactic constructs, and equipped with typing, denotational and operational semantics. Critically, this allows formal establishment of a link between the micro- and macro-levels of collective adaptive systems, by a result of full abstraction and adequacy for the (aggregate) denotational semantics with respect to the (per-device) operational semantics.