Results 1  10
of
16
Parameterized linear temporal logics meet costs: Still not costlier than LTL
 GandALF 2015, volume 193 of EPTCS
, 2015
"... ar ..."
(Show Context)
Reasoning on LTL on Finite Traces: Insensitivity to Infiniteness
"... In this paper we study when an LTL formula on finite traces (LTLf formula) is insensitive to infiniteness, that is, it can be correctly handled as a formula on infinite traces under the assumption that at a certain point the infinite trace starts repeating an end event forever, trivializing all othe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we study when an LTL formula on finite traces (LTLf formula) is insensitive to infiniteness, that is, it can be correctly handled as a formula on infinite traces under the assumption that at a certain point the infinite trace starts repeating an end event forever, trivializing all other propositions to false. This intuition has been put forward and (wrongly) assumed to hold in general in the literature. We define a necessary and sufficient condition to characterize whether an LTLf formula is insensitive to infiniteness, which can be automatically checked by any LTL reasoner. Then, we show that typical LTLf specification patterns used in process and service modeling in CS, as well as trajectory constraints in Planning and transitionbased LTLf specifications of action domains in KR, are indeed very often insensitive to infiniteness. This may help to explain why the assumption of interpreting LTL on finite and on infinite traces has been (wrongly) blurred. Possibly because of this blurring, virtually all literature detours to Büchi automata for constructing the NFA that accepts the traces satisfying an LTLf formula. As a further contribution, we give a simple direct algorithm for computing such NFA. 1
Monitoring Business Metaconstraints Based on LTL & LDL for Finite Traces
"... Abstract. Runtime monitoring is one of the central tasks to provide operational decision support to running business processes, and check onthefly whether they comply with constraints and rules. We study runtime monitoring of properties expressed in LTL on finite traces (LTLf) and its extension LD ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Runtime monitoring is one of the central tasks to provide operational decision support to running business processes, and check onthefly whether they comply with constraints and rules. We study runtime monitoring of properties expressed in LTL on finite traces (LTLf) and its extension LDLf. LDLf is a powerful logic that captures all monadic second order logic on finite traces, which is obtained by combining regular expressions with LTLf, adopting the syntax of propositional dynamic logic (PDL). Interestingly, in spite of its greater expressivity, LDLf has exactly the same computational complexity of LTLf. We show that LDLf is able to capture, in the logic itself, not only the constraints to be monitored, but also the defacto standard RVLTL monitors. This makes it possible to declaratively capture monitoring metaconstraints, i.e., constraints about the evolution of other constraints, and check them by relying on usual logical services for temporal logics instead of adhoc algorithms. This, in turn, enables to flexibly monitor constraints depending on the monitoring state of other constraints, e.g., “compensation ” constraints that are only checked when others are detected to be violated. In addition, we devise a direct translation of LDLf formulas into nondeterministic automata, avoiding to detour to Büchi automata or alternating automata, and we use it to implement a monitoring plugin for the PROM suite. 1
Automated Composition of Motion Primitives for MultiRobot Systems from Safe LTL Specifications∗
"... Abstract — We present a compositional motion planning framework for multirobot systems based on an encoding to satisfiability modulo theories (SMT). In our framework, the desired behavior of a group of robots is specified using a set of safe linear temporal logic (LTL) properties. Our method relies ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract — We present a compositional motion planning framework for multirobot systems based on an encoding to satisfiability modulo theories (SMT). In our framework, the desired behavior of a group of robots is specified using a set of safe linear temporal logic (LTL) properties. Our method relies on a library of motion primitives, each of which corresponds to a controller that ensures a particular trajectory in a given configuration. Using the closedloop behavior of the robots under the action of different controllers, we formulate the motion planning problem as an SMT solving problem and use an offtheshelf SMT solver to generate trajectories for the robots. Our approach can also be extended to synthesize optimal cost trajectories where optimality is defined with respect to the available motion primitives. Experimental results show that our framework can efficiently solve complex motion planning problems in the context of multirobot systems. I.
M.: Parametric linear dynamic logic (full version
 CoRR abs/1504.03880 (2015), http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03880
"... ar ..."
(Show Context)
Declarative process modeling in BPMN
 In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE
, 2015
"... Abstract. Traditional business process modeling notations, including the standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), rely on an imperative paradigm wherein the process model captures all allowed activity flows. In other words, every flow that is not specified is implicitly disallowed. In t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Traditional business process modeling notations, including the standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), rely on an imperative paradigm wherein the process model captures all allowed activity flows. In other words, every flow that is not specified is implicitly disallowed. In the past decade, several researchers have exposed the limitations of this paradigm in the context of business processes with high variability. As an alternative, declarative process modeling notations have been proposed (e.g., Declare). These notations allow modelers to capture constraints on the allowed activity flows, meaning that all flows are allowed provided that they do not violate the specified constraints. Recently, it has been recognized that the boundary between imperative and declarative process modeling is not crisp. Instead, mixtures of declarative and imperative process modeling styles are sometimes preferable, leading to proposals for hybrid process modeling notations. These developments raise the question of whether completely new notations are needed to support hybrid process modeling. This paper answers this question negatively. The paper presents a conservative extension of BPMN for declarative process modeling, namely BPMND, and shows that Declare models can be transformed into readable BPMND models.
From Declarative Processes to Imperative Models
"... Abstract. Nowadays organizations support their creation of value by explicitly defining the processes to be carried out. Processes are specifically discussed from the angle of simplicity, i.e., how compact and easy to understand they can be represented. In most cases, organizations rely on imperativ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Nowadays organizations support their creation of value by explicitly defining the processes to be carried out. Processes are specifically discussed from the angle of simplicity, i.e., how compact and easy to understand they can be represented. In most cases, organizations rely on imperative models which, however, become complex and cluttered when it comes to flexibility and optionality. As an alternative, declarative modeling reveals to be effective under such circumstances. While both approaches are well known for themselves, there is still not a deep understanding of their semantic interoperability. With this work, we examine the latter and show how to obtain an imperative model out of a set of declarative constraints. To this aim, we devise an approach leading from a Declare model to a behaviorally equivalent Petri net. Furthermore, we demonstrate that any declarative control flow can be represented by means of a Petri net for which the property of safety always holds true. 1
Dynamic Causal Calculus
, 2014
"... All intext references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
All intext references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
A New Notational Framework for Declarative Process Modeling
"... Abstract In order to capture flexible scenarios, a declarative approach to business process modeling describes constraints that limit a process' behavior instead of specifying all its allowed enactments. However, current graphical notations for declarative processes are tough to understand, th ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract In order to capture flexible scenarios, a declarative approach to business process modeling describes constraints that limit a process' behavior instead of specifying all its allowed enactments. However, current graphical notations for declarative processes are tough to understand, thus hampering a widespread usage of the approach. To overcome this issue, we present a novel notational framework for representing declarative processes, devised in compliance with wellknown notation design principles.
LTLf and LDLf monitoring : a technical report
, 2014
"... Abstract. Runtime monitoring is one of the central tasks to provide operational decision support to running business processes, and check onthefly whether they comply with constraints and rules. We study runtime monitoring of properties expressed in LTL on finite traces (LTL f ) and in its extens ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Runtime monitoring is one of the central tasks to provide operational decision support to running business processes, and check onthefly whether they comply with constraints and rules. We study runtime monitoring of properties expressed in LTL on finite traces (LTL f ) and in its extension LDL f . LDL f is a powerful logic that captures all monadic second order logic on finite traces, which is obtained by combining regular expressions and LTL f , adopting the syntax of propositional dynamic logic (PDL). Interestingly, in spite of its greater expressivity, LDL f has exactly the same computational complexity of LTL f . We show that LDL f is able to capture, in the logic itself, not only the constraints to be monitored, but also the defacto standard RVLTL monitors. This makes it possible to declaratively capture monitoring metaconstraints, and check them by relying on usual logical services instead of adhoc algorithms. This, in turn, enables to flexibly monitor constraints depending on the monitoring state of other constraints, e.g., "compensation" constraints that are only checked when others are detected to be violated. In addition, we devise a direct translation of LDL f formulas into nondeterministic automata, avoiding to detour to Büchi automata or alternating automata, and we use it to implement a monitoring plugin for the PROM suite.