Complexity of Compositional Model Checking of Computation Tree Logic on Simple Structures

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
  • Pallab Dasgupta
  • P. P. Chakrabarti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3326)


Temporal Logic Model Checking is one of the most potent tools for the veri.cation of .nite state systems. Computation Tree Logic (CTL) has gained popularity because unlike most other logics, CTL model checking of a single transition system can be achieved in polynomial time. However, in most real-life problems, specially in distributed and parallel systems, the system consist of a set of concurrent processes and the veri.cation problem translates to model check the composition of the component processes. Since explicit composition leads to state explosion, verifying the system without actually composing the components is attractive, even for possibly restrictive class of systems.We show that the problem of compositional CTL model checking is PSPACE complete for the class of systems composed of components that are tree-like transition structure and do not interact among themselves. For the simplest forms of existential and universal CTL formulas model checking turns out to be NP complete and coNP complete, respectively. The results hold for both synchronous and asynchronous composition.


Model Check Temporal Logic Atomic Proposition Kripke Structure Proof 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.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., Long, D.E., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L.: Symbolic model checking for sequential circuit verification. IEEE Trans. on Computer Aided Design 13(4), 401–424 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. on Program. Lang. & Systems 8(2), 244–263 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Kurshan, R.P.: Computer aided verification. IEEE Spectrum 33(6), 61–67 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L.: Introduction to Algorithms. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emerson, E.A., Mok, A.K., Sistla, A.P., Srinivasan, J.: Quantitative temporal reasoning. In: First Annual Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification, France (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
    • 1
  • Pallab Dasgupta
    • 2
  • P. P. Chakrabarti
    • 2
  1. 1.EECSUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Science & EnggIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpur

Personalised recommendations