Spot December 2022

spot@lrde.epita.fr

4 participants
3 discussions

Bug when checking for automata emptiness in print_hoa()

by Beutner, Raven

Dear spot Team, I think I have found a bug in the emptiness checker of spot. When I use the following automation: HOA: v1 States: 8 Start: 0 Start: 1 AP: 0 acc-name: generalized-Buchi 2 Acceptance: 2 Inf(0)&Inf(1) --BODY-- State: 0 {0} [(t)] 2 [(t)] 3 State: 1 {0} [(t)] 4 [(t)] 5 State: 2 {0} [(t)] 2 [(t)] 3 State: 3 {0} [(t)] 6 [(t)] 7 State: 4 {1} [(t)] 4 [(t)] 5 State: 5 {1} [(t)] 6 [(t)] 7 State: 6 [(t)] 6 [(t)] 7 State: 7 [(t)] 6 [(t)] 7 --END-- And invoke "autfilt --is-empty aut.hoa” (where aut.hoa contains the above automaton) I get the following error: autfilt: print_hoa(): automaton has transition-based acceptance despite prop_state_acc()==true This seems to be related to a similar bug that was fixed in version 2.7.1, so should (hopefully) be easy to fix. I used version 2.11.3 on a MacBook Pro with M1 Pro CPU. All the best, Raven

2 years, 1 month

[CfP]: On the Effectiveness of Temporal Logics on Finite Traces in AI

by Antonio Di Stasio

CALL FOR PAPERS "On the Effectiveness of Temporal Logics on Finite Traces in AI" Part of the AAAI 2023 Spring Symposium Series <https://aaai.org/Symposia/Spring/sss23.php> March 27-29, 2023, Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport, CA, USA Website: https://ltlf-symposium.github.io/ Temporal logics, such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), are widely adopted as a logical specification language in Formal Methods. They are also getting increasing attention from the AI Community. In AI, however, there is often a need to interpret such logics over finite traces, rather than the traditional infinite-trace interpretation. This is evident, for instance, in works on Planning, Reinforcement Learning, and Business Process Management. An important computational feature of working with finite traces is that it allows one to use standard finite-state automata to model and reason, rather than the more complex omega-automata used for infinite traces. This is a great simplification that has already had a significant impact on many areas of AI and CS. This symposium aims to bring together researchers working with temporal logics on finite traces, in basic research and applications, in order to discuss current results and future directions, and to facilitate the emergence of teams working across different areas. Topics Topics of interest span the use of temporal logics over finite traces, including (but not limited to) the following areas: - AI Planning - Verification and Synthesis - Reinforcement Learning - Automated Reasoning - Knowledge Representation - Multi-Agent Systems - Robotics - Motion and Task Planning - Discrete-Event Control - Workflow Management - Conversational Systems - Automated Service Composition - Business Process Management - Fintech - Cyber Security - Human Computer Interaction - Natural Language Processing Submissions Submissions should have a single main author, who will be the speaker, and each speaker can have no more than one submission. Each submission must not exceed 2 pages, including references (in AAAI style), and may refer to joint work with other collaborators to be credited in the presentation. There will be no formal proceedings and we encourage submissions of work presented or submitted elsewhere (no copyright transfer is required, only permission to post the abstract on the workshop site). Submissions should be uploaded via the AAAI SSS-23 EasyChair site. <https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sss23> Important Dates - January 30, 2023: Paper submission deadline (AoE). - February 4, 2023: Author notification (AoE). - March 27-29: AAAI Spring Symposium Series. Invited Speakers - Rance Cleaveland <https://www.cs.umd.edu/people/wcleavel>, University of Maryland, USA - Giuseppe De Giacomo <https://www.diag.uniroma1.it//degiacom/>, University of Oxford & Sapienza University of Rome, Italy - Lydia Kavraki <https://www.cs.rice.edu/~kavraki/>, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA - Shiela A. Mcilraith <https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sheila/>, University of Toronto, Canada - Marco Montali <https://www.unibz.it/it/faculties/computer-science/academic-staff/person/31…>, University of Bolzano, Italy - Kristin Y. Rozier <https://www.engineering.iastate.edu/people/profile/kyrozier/>, Iowa State University, USA - Ufuk Topcu <https://www.ae.utexas.edu/people/faculty/faculty-directory/topcu>, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA - Moshe Vardi <https://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/>, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA Organizing Committee - Suguman Bansal <https://suguman.github.io/>, Co-Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, suguman(a)seas.upenn.edu - Antonio Di Stasio <https://antoniodistasio.github.io/>, Co-Chair, Sapienza University of Rome, distasio(a)diag.uniroma1.it - Sasha Rubin <https://sasharubin.github.io/>, Co-Chair, University of Sydney, sasha.rubin(a)sydney.edu.au - Shufang Zhu <https://shufang-zhu.github.io/>, Co-Chair, Sapienza University of Rome, zhu(a)diag.uniroma1.it Website For more information, please see the symposium website: https://ltlf-symposium.github.io/

2 years, 1 month

Generating unsatisfiable LTL formulae using randltl

by Pert, Charles

Hi, I am specifically trying to generate unsatisfiable LTL formulae using the randltl tool in Spot. I am struggling because the default tool is so much more likely to produce consistent and satisfiable formulae. Have you got any tips on how I can alter the generation to produce these types of formulae? Best wishes, Charles Pert

2 years, 1 month

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Spot December 2022