Stutter-Invariant Languages, ω-Automata, and Temporal Logic

  • Kousha Etessami
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1633)


Temporal logic and ω-automata are two ofthe common frameworks for specifying properties of reactive systems in modern verification tools. In this paper we unify these two frameworks in the linear time setting for the specification of stutter-invariant properties, which are used in the context ofpartial-order verification. We will observe a simple variant oflinear time propositional temporal logic (LTL) for expressing exactly the stutter-invariant ω-regular languages. The complexity of, and algorithms for, all the relevant decision procedures for this logic remain essentially the same as with ordinary LTL. In particular, satisfiability remains PSPACE-complete and temporal formulas can be converted to at most exponential sized ω-automata. More importantly, we show that the improved practical algorithms for conversion ofL TL formulas to automata, used in model-checking tools such as SPIN, which typically produce much smaller than worst-case output, can be modified to incorporate this extension to LTL with the same benefits. In this way, the specification mechanism in temporal logic-based tools that employ partial-order reduction can be extended to incorporate all stutter-invariant ω-regular properties.


Model Check Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Acceptance Condition Kripke Structure 
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.


  1. 1.
    J. R. Büchi. On a decision method in restricted second-order arithmetic. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, 1960. Stanford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. A. Emerson. Temporal and modal logics. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoret. Comput. Sci., volume B, pages 995–1072. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Etessami. Stutter-invariant languages, ω-automata, and temporal logic. Technical Report BL011272-980611-07TM, Bell Laboratories, June 11 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Gerth, D. Peled, M. Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. Simple on-the-fly automatic verification oflinear temporal logic. In PSTV95, Protocol Specification Testing and Verification, pages 3–18, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Godefroid and P. Wolper. A partial approach to model checking. In Proc. 6th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pages 406–415, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. J. Holzmann. The model checker spin. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. J. Holzmann and D. Peled. An improvement in formal verification. In 7th International Conference on Formal Description Techniques, pages 177–194, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Kupferman. Augmenting branching temporal logics with existential quantification over atomic propositions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 7:1–14, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Lamport. What good is temporal logic. In R. E. A. Mason, editor, Information Processing’ 83: Proc. IFIP 9th World Computer Congress, pages 657–668, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Lamport. The temporal logic ofactions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, pages 872–923, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Specification and verification ofconcurren t programs by ω-automata. In Proc. 14th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 1–12, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. McMillan, 1998. See for recent versions ofSMV and its documentation.
  13. 13.
    R. McNaughton. Testing and generating infinite sequences by a finite automaton. Information and Control, 9:521–530, 1966.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Peled. Combining partial order reductions with on-the-fly model checking. Formal Methods in System Design, 8:39–64, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Peled and T. Wilke. Stutter-invariant temporal properties are expressible without the next-time operator. Information Processing Letters, 63:243–246, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Pnueli. The temporal logic ofprograms. In Proc. 18th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46–57, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Rabinovich. Expressive completeness oftemp oral logic ofactions. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, pages 229–238, August 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. P. Sistla and E. M. Clarke. The complexity ofprop ositional linear temporal logics. Journal of the ACM, 32(3):733–749, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. P. Sistla, M. Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. The complementation problem for büchi automata with applications to temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 49:217–237, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas, W. Classifying regular events in symbolic logic. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 25:360–376, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Valmari. A stubborn attack on state explosion. Formal Methods in System Design, 1:297–322, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Reasoning about infinite computation. Information and Computation, 115:1–37, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pierre Wolper. Temporal logic can be more expressive. Information and Control, 56:72–99, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kousha Etessami
    • 1
  1. 1.Bell LabsMurray Hill

Personalised recommendations