Skip to main content

Model Checking Almost All Paths Can Be Less Expensive Than Checking All Paths

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 4855))

Abstract

We compare the complexities of the following two model checking problems: checking whether a linear-time formula is satisfied by all paths (which we call universal model checking) and checking whether a formula is satisfied by almost all paths (which we call fair model checking here). For many interesting classes of linear-time formulas, both problems have the same complexity: for instance, they are PSPACE-complete for LTL.

In this paper, we show that fair model checking can have lower complexity than universal model checking, viz., we prove that fair model checking for L(F ∞ ) can be done in time linear in the size of the formula and of the system, while it is known that universal model checking for L(F ∞ ) is co-NP-complete. L(F ∞ ) denotes the class of LTL formulas in which F ∞  is the only temporal operator. We also present other new results on the complexity of fair and universal model checking. In particular, we prove that fair model checking for RLTL is co-NP-complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Local liveness for compositional modeling of fair reactive systems. In: Wolper, P. (ed.) CAV 1995. LNCS, vol. 939, pp. 166–179. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Berwanger, D., Grädel, E., Kreutzer, S.: Once upon a time in the west - determinacy, definability, and complexity of path games. In: Vardi, M.Y., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2850, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Courcoubetis, C., Yannakakis, M.: The complexity of probabilistic verification. J. ACM 42(4), 857–907 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science B(16), 995–1072 (1990)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.-L.: Modalities for model checking: Branching time logic strikes back. Sci. Comput. Program. 8(3), 275–306 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A.: Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In: POPL, pp. 97–107. ACM Press, New York (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schmalz, M.: Extensions of an algorithm for generalised fair model checking. Diploma Thesis, Technical Report B 07-01, University of Lübeck, Germany (2007), http://www.tcs.uni-luebeck.de/Forschung/B0701.pdf

  8. Schmalz, M., Völzer, H., Varacca, D.: Model checking almost all paths can be less expensive than checking all paths. Technical Report 573, ETH Zürich, Switzerland (2007), http://www.inf.ethz.ch/research/disstechreps/techreports

  9. Schnoebelen, P.: The complexity of temporal logic model checking. In: AiML, pp. 393–436. King’s College Publications (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics. J. ACM 32(3), 733–749 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Sistla, A.P., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: The complementation problem for Büchi automata with applications to temporal logic. In: Brauer, W. (ed.) Automata, Languages and Programming. LNCS, vol. 194, pp. 465–474. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Varacca, D., Völzer, H.: Temporal logics and model checking for fairly correct systems. In: LICS, pp. 389–398. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vardi, M.Y.: Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs. In: FOCS, pp. 327–338. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: LICS, pp. 332–344. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Völzer, H., Varacca, D., Kindler, E.: Defining fairness. In: Abadi, M., de Alfaro, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3653, pp. 458–472. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Zuck, L.D., Pnueli, A., Kesten, Y.: Automatic verification of probabilistic free choice. In: Cortesi, A. (ed.) VMCAI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2294, pp. 208–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

V. Arvind Sanjiva Prasad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schmalz, M., Völzer, H., Varacca, D. (2007). Model Checking Almost All Paths Can Be Less Expensive Than Checking All Paths. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds) FSTTCS 2007: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science. FSTTCS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4855. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77050-3_44

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77050-3_44

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77049-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77050-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics