Abstract
We argue that the standard constraints on liveness conditions in nonblocking trace models—machine closure for closed systems, and receptiveness for open systems—are unnecessarily weak and complex, and that liveness should, instead, be specified by augmenting transition systems with acceptance conditions that satisfy a locality constraint. First, locality implies machine closure and receptiveness, and thus permits the composition and modular verification of live transition systems. Second, while machine closure and receptiveness are based on infinite games, locality is based on repeated finite games, and thus easier to check. Third, no expressive power is lost by the restriction to local liveness conditions. We illustrate the appeal of local liveness using the model of Fair Reactive Systems, a nonblocking trace model of communicating processes.
Keywords
- Liveness Condition
- Parallel Composition
- Winning Strategy
- Local Liveness
- Private State
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.
Supported in part by the NSF grant CCR-9200794, by the AFOSR contract F49620-93-1-0056, and by the DARPA grant NAG2-892.
Download conference paper PDF
References
M. Abadi, L. Lamport. Composing specifications. ACM TOPLAS, 15(1):73–132, 1993.
M. Abadi, L. Lamport. Conjoining Specifications. Technical Report 118, DEC-SRC, 1993.
M. Abadi, L. Lamport, P. Wolper. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. Automata, Languages, and Programming, LNCS 372, pp. 1–17. Springer, 1989.
R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger. Fair Reactive Systems. Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Cornell University, 1995.
K. Apt, N. Francez, S. Katz. Appraising fairness in languages for distributed programming. Distributed Computing, 2(4):226–241, 1988.
D. Dill. Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-independent Circuits. MIT Press, 1989.
E.A. Emerson, C. Lei. Modalities for model checking: branching time strikes back. Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 84–95. ACM, 1985.
R. Gawlick, R. Segala, J. Sogaard-Andersen, N. Lynch. Liveness in timed and untimed systems. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-587, MIT, 1993.
O. Grumberg, D. Long. Model checking and modular verification. ACM TOPLAS, 16(3):843–871, 1994.
R. Kurshan. Computer-aided Verification: The Automata-theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, 1994.
L. Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. Technical Report 79, DEC-SRC, 1991.
H. Lescow. On polynomial-size programs winning finite-state games. Computer-aided Verification, LNCS. Springer, 1995.
N. Lynch, M. Tuttle. Hierarchical correctness proofs for distributed algorithms. Symp. Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 137–151. ACM, 1987.
Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer, 1991.
J. Misra, K. Chandy. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, 7(4):417–426, 1981.
P. Pandya, M. Joseph. P-A logic—a compositional proof system for distributed programs. Distributed Computing, 5(1):37–54, 1991.
A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems. pp. 123–144. Springer, 1984.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (1995). Local liveness for compositional modeling of fair reactive systems. In: Wolper, P. (eds) Computer Aided Verification. CAV 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 939. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60045-0_49
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60045-0_49
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60045-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49413-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive