Verifying Temporal Properties Using Explicit Approximants: Completeness for Context-free Processes

  • Ulrich Schöpp
  • Alex Simpson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2303)


We present a sequent calculus for formally verifying modal μ-calculus properties of concurrent processes. Building on work by Dam and Gurov, the proof system contains rules for the explicit manipulation of fixed-point approximants. We develop a new syntax for approximants, incorporating, in particular, modalities for approximant modification. We make essential use of this feature to prove our main result: the sequent calculus is complete for establishing arbitrary μ-calculus properties of context-free processes.


Temporal Property Proof System Sequent Calculus Derivation Tree Canonical Sequent 
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.
    B. Bloom, S. Istrail, and A. R. Meyer. Bisimulation can’t be traced. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 42:232–268, 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Burkart, D. Caucal, F. Moller, and B. Steffen. Verification over infinite states. In Handbook of Process Algebra, pages 545–623. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Burkart and B. Steffen. Model checking the full modal mu-calculus for infinite sequential processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 221(1–2):251–270, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Dam. Compositional proof systems for model checking infinite state processes. In International Conference on Concurrency Theory, pages 12–26, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Dam. Proving properties of dynamic process networks. Information and Computation, 140(2):95–114, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Dam. Proof systems for π-calculus logics. In R. de Queiroz, editor, Logic for Concurrency and Synchronisation. OUP, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Dam, L. Fredlund, and D. Gurov. Toward parametric verification of open distributed systems. In A. Pnueli H. Langmaack and W.-P. de Roever, editors, Compositionality: the Significant Difference. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Dam and D. Gurov. Compositional verification of CCS processes. In Proceedings of PSI’99. Springer LNCS 1755, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Dam and D. Gurov. μ-calculus with explicit points and approximations. Journal of Logic and Computation, to appear, 2001. Abstract in Proceedings of FICS 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Esparza and J. Knoop. An automata-theoretic approach to interprocedural data flow analysis. In Proceedings of FOSSACS’99. Springer LNCS 1578, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Fredlund. A framework for reasoning about Erlang code. PhD Thesis, Swedish Institute of Computer Science, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Hennessy and R. Milner. Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 32:137–161, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Hungar and B. Steffen. Local model checking for context-free processes. Nordic Journal of Computing, 1(3):364–385, Fall 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Kozen. Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27:333–354, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. E. Muller and P. E. Schupp. The theory of ends, pushdown automata, and secondorder logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:51–75, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U. Schöpp. Formal verification of processes. MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2001. Available as
  17. 17.
    A. K. Simpson. Compositionality via cut-elimination: Hennessy-Milner logic for an arbitrary GSOS. In Logic in Computer Science, pages 420–430, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. P. Stirling. Modal logics for communicating systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 49:311–347, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. P. Stirling. Modal and temporal properties of processes. Texts in Computer Science. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Walukiewicz. Pushdown processes: games and model-checking. Information and Computation, 164(2):234–263, January 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Schöpp
    • 1
  • Alex Simpson
    • 1
  1. 1.LFCS, Division of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh

Personalised recommendations