Faster Model Checking for Open Systems

  • Madhavan Mukund
  • K. Narayan Kumar
  • Scott A. Smolka
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1742)


We investigate Or E x, a temporal logic for specifying open systems. Path properties in Or E x are expressed using ε-regular expressions, while similar logics for open systems, such as ATL* of Alur et al., use LTL for this purpose. Our results indicate that this distinction is an important one. In particular, we show that Orex has a more efficient model-checking procedure than ATL*, even though it is strictly more expressive. To this end, we present a single-exponential model-checking algorithm for Or E x; the model-checking problem for ATL* in contrast is provably double-exponential.


Model Check Temporal Logic Regular Expression Winning Strategy Label Transition System 
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. [AHK97]
    R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. In Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [CE81]
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In D. Kozen, editor, Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic of Programs, Yorktown Heights, volume 131 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 52–71. Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [CGH+95]
    E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, H. Hiraishi, S. Jha, D. E. Long, K. L. McMillan, and L. A. Ness. Verification of the Future+ cache coherence protocol. Formal Methods in System Design, 6:217–232, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [EH86]
    E. A. Emerson and J. Y. Halpern. ‘Sometime’ and ‘not never’ revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151–178, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [EJ88]
    E.A. Emerson and C. Jutla. The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE FOCS, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [EJ89]
    E.A. Emerson and C. Jutla. On simultaneously determinising and comple-menting !-automata. In Proceedings of the IEEE FOCS, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [Har84]
    David Harel. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume II. Reidel, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [Hol97]
    G. J. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [KV96]
    Orna Kupferman and Moshe Vardi. Module checking. In Proceedings of CAV’96, LNCS 1102. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [McM93]
    K. L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [Par83]
    R. Parikh. Propositional game logic. In Proceedings of 24th IEEE FOCS, pages 195–200, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. [Pnu76]
    A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computing Science. IEEE Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. [RW89]
    P.J.G. Ramadge and W.M. Wonham. The control of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. on Control Theory, 77:81–98, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [Saf88]
    S. Safra. On complexity of !-automata. In In the Proceedings of the 29th FOCS, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [Tho90]
    W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [VW86]
    M. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’ 86), pages 332–344, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 1986. Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madhavan Mukund
    • 1
  • K. Narayan Kumar
    • 1
  • Scott A. Smolka
    • 2
  1. 1.Chennai Mathematical InstituteChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New York at Stony BrookNYUSA

Personalised recommendations