Improving Automata Generation for Linear Temporal Logic by Considering the Automaton Hierarchy

  • K. Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2250)


We present newalgorithms to translate linear time temporal logic (LTL) formulas with past operators to equivalent ω-automata. The resulting automata are given in a symbolic representation that directly supports symbolic model checking. Furthermore, this has the advantage that the translations run in linear time wrt. the length of the input formula. To increase the efficiency of the model checking, our translations avoid as far as possible the introduction of computationally expensive fairness constraints, or at least replace them by simpler reachability constraints. Using the well-known automaton hierarchy, we show that our improvements are complete. Finally, we show how large parts of the formulas can be translated to the simpler logic CTL, which accelerates the LTL model checking by orders of magnitude which is shown by experimental results.


Model Check Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Symbolic Model Check Linear Time Temporal Logic 
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.
    R. Bloem, H. Gabow, and F. Somenzi. An algorithm for strongly connected component analysis in n log(n) symbolic steps. In International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), LNCS 1954, pp. 37–54. Springer Verlag, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bloem, K. Ravi, and F. Somenzi. Efficient decision procedures for model checking of linear time logic properties. In Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 1633, Trento, Italy, 1999. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Burch, E. Clarke, K. McMillan, D. Dill, and L. Hwang. Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond. Information and Computing, 98(2):142–170, June 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. NuSMV:Anewsymbolic model verifier. In Conference on Computer AidedVerification (CAV), 3 1633, pp. 495–499, Trento, Italy, 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Clarke and E. Emerson. Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons using Branching Time Temporal Logic. In Workshop on Logics of Programs, LNCS 131, pp. 52–71, Yorktown Heights, NewYork, May 1981. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and K. Hamaguchi. Another look at LTL model checking. In Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 818, pp. 415–427, lStandford, California, USA, June 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Cleaveland and B. Steffen. A linear-time model checking algorithm for the alternation-free μ-calculus. Formal Methods in System Design, 2(2):121–147, April 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-M. Couvreur. On-the-fly verification of linear temporal logic. In FM’99-Formal Methods, LNCS 1708, pp. 233–252, Toulouse, France, 1999. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Daniele, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Vardi. Improved automata generation for linear temporal logic. In Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 1633, Trento, Italy, 1999. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Emerson. Temporal and Modal Logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pp. 996–1072, Amsterdam, 1990. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Emerson and J. Halpern. “sometimes” and “not never” revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151–178, January 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Emerson and C.-L. Lei. Modalities for model checking: Branching time strikes back. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 84–96, NewYork, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Etessami and G. Holzmann. Optimizing Büchi automata. In International Conference on Concurrency Theory, LNCS 1877, pp. 153–168. Springer Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Gastin and D. Oddoux. Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 2102, pp. 53–65, Paris, France, 2001. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Gerth, D. Peled, M. Vardi, and P. Wolper. Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (PSTV), Warsaw, June 1995. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Gordon and T. Melham. Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Johnson, P. Miner, and A. Camilleri. Studies of the single pulser in various reasoning systems. In International Conference on Theorem Provers in Circuit Design (TPCD), LNCS 901, pp. 126–145, Bad Herrenalb, Germany, September 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Kesten, A. Pnueli, and L. Raviv. Algorithmic verification of linear temporal logic specifications. In Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), LNCS 1443, Aalborg, Denmark, 1998. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O. Lichtenstein and A. Pnueli. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 97–107, NewYork, January 1985. ACM.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Ahierarchy of temporal properties. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 377–408, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell Massachusetts, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. McMillan. Cadence SMV,, 2000.
  23. 23.
    M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation, 115(1):1–37, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, volume 18, pp. 46–57, NewYork, 1977. IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Ravi, R. Bloem, and F. Somenzi. A comparative study of symbolic algorithms for the computation of fair cycles. In International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD), LNCS 1954. Springer Verlag, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. Schneider. CTL and equivalent sublanguages of CTL*. In IFIP Conference on Computer Hardware Description Languages and their Applications (CHDL), pp. 40–59, Toledo, Spain, April 1997. IFIP, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. Schneider. Model checking on product structures. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, LNCS 1522, pp. 483–500, Palo Alto, USA, November 1998. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Schneider. Exploiting Hierarchies in Temporal Logics, Finite Automata, Arithmetics, and μ-Calculus for Efficiently Verifying Reactive Systems. Habilitation Thesis. University of Karlsruhe, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. Schneider and D. Hoffmann. A HOL conversion for translating linear time temporal logic to ω-automata. In Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, LNCS 1690, pp. 255–272, Nice, France, September 1999. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Schneider and V. Sabelfeld. Introducing mutual exclusion in Esterel. In Andrei Ershov Third International Conference Perspectives of Systems Informatics, LNCS 1755, pp. 445–459, Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk, Russia, July 1999. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Somenzi and R. Bloem. Efficient Büchi automata from LTL formulae. In Conference on Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 1633, pp. 247–263, Trento, Italy, 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 133–191, Amsterdam, 1990. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Vardi. Branching vs. linear time: Final showdown. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, LNCS 2031, pp. 1–22, Genova, Italy, 2001. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 332–344. IEEE Computer Society Press, June 1986.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. Visser, H. Barringer, D. Fellows, G. Gough, and A. Williams. Efficient CTL* model hecking for analysis of rainbow designs. In Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods, Montreal, Canada, October 1997. IFIP WG 10.5, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Wagner. On ω-regular sets. Information and control, 43:123–177, 1979.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Wolper. Temporal logic can be more expressive. Information and Control, 56:72–99, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    P. Wolper. Constructing automata from temporal logic formulas: A tutorial. In Summer School on Formal Methods in Performance Analysis, LNCS 2090, pp. 261–277. Springer Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science Institute for Computer Design and Fault ToleranceUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations