Why so Many Temporal Logics Climb up the Trees?

  • Alexander Rabinovich
  • Shahar Maoz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1893)


Many temporal logics were suggested as branching time specification formalisms during the last 20 years. These logics were compared against each other for their expressive power, model checking complexity and succinctness. Yet, unlike the case for linear time logics, no canonical temporal logic of branching time was agreed upon. We offer an explanation for the multiplicity of temporal logics over branching time and provide an objective quantified ‘yardstick’ to measure these logics.

We define an infinite hierarchy BTL k of temporal logics and prove its strictness. We show that CTL* has no finite base, and that almost all of its many sub-logics suggested in the literature are inside the second level of our hierarchy. We show that for every logic based on a finite set of modalities, the complexity of model checking is linear both in the size of structure and the size of formula.


Model Check Temporal Logic Expressive Power Truth Table Computation Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E.M. Clarke and E.A. Emerson (1981). Design and verification of synchronous skeletons using branching time temporal logic. LNCS 131:52–71.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson and A.P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite state concurrent system using temporal logic. In: POPL, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Ehrenfeucht. An application of games to the completeness problem for formalized theories. Fundamenta mathematicae 49, 129–141, 1961.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.A. Emerson (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.A. Emerson (1996). Automated Temporal Reasoning about Reactive Systems. LNCS vol. 1043, pp. 41–101, Springer Verlag 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern (1982). Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. In STOC’82. pp. 169–180.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern (1986). ’sometimes’ and ‘not never’ revisited: on branching versus linear time temporal logics. Journal of the ACM 33(1):151–178.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.A. Emerson and C.L. Lei. Modalities for model checking: branching time strikes back. 12th ACM Symp. on POPL, pp. 84–96, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Gabbay, I. Hodkinson and M. Reynolds (1994). Temporal Logic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Hafer and W. Thomas (1987). Computation tree logic CTL* and path quantifiers in the monadic theory of the binary tree. In ICALP’87, LNCS 267:269–279. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Hirshfeld and A. Rabinovich (1999). Quantitative Temporal Logic. LNCS 1683:172–187, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Janin and I. Walukiewicz (1996). On the expressive completeness of the propositional mu-calculus with respect to monadic second order logic. In CONCUR’96, LNCS 1119:263–277, Springer-Verlag. 639Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H.W. Kamp (1968). Tense logic and the theory of linear order. PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Lamport (1980). “Sometimes” is sometimes ”not never”-On the temporal logic of programs. In POPL’80. pp. 174–185.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Maoz (2000). Infinite Hierarchy of Temporal Logics over Branching Time Models. M.Sc. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Milner (1989). Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Moller and A. Rabinovich (1999). On the expressive power of CTL*. Proceedings of fourteenth IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 360–369.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.M.R. Park (1981). Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. LNCS 104:168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Rabinovich
    • 1
  • Shahar Maoz
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mathematical ScienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations