Pushdown processes: Games and model checking

Extended abstract
  • Igor Walukiewicz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1102)


Games given by transition graphs of pushdown processes are considered. It is shown that if there is a winning strategy in such a game then there is a winning strategy which is realized by a pushdown process. This fact turns out to be connected with the model checking problem for push-down automata and the propositional μ-calculus. It is show that this model checking problem is DEXPTIME-complete.


Model Check Winning Strategy Tree Automaton Priority Function Model Check Problem 
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. Bergstra and J. Klop. Process theory based on bisimulation semantics. Volume 354 of LNCS, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    O. Burkart and B. Steffen. Model checking for context-free processes. In CONCUR '92, volume 630 of LNCS, pages 123–137, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    O. Burkart and B. Steffen. Pushdown processes: Parallel composition and model checking. In CONCUR '94, volume 836 of LNCS, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. K. Chandra, D. C. Kozen, and L. J. Stockmeyer. Alternation. Journal of the ACM, 28(1):114–133, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Christiensen and H. Huttel. Deciding issues for infinite-state processes-a survey. Bulletin of EATCS, 51:156–166, October 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Long. Verification tools for finite-state concurrent systems. In A Decade of Concurrency, volume 803 of LNCS, pages 124–175. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E. A. Emerson and C. Jutla. Tree automata, mu-calculus and determinacy. In Proc. FOCS 91, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. A. Emerson, C. Jutla, and A. Sistla. On model-checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In CAV'93, volume 697 of LNCS, pages 385–396, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Esparza and A. Kiehn. On the model checking problem for branching time logics and basic parallel processes. In CAV '95, volume 939 of LNCS, pages 353–366, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    N. Klarund. Progress measures, immediate determinacy and a subset construction for tree automata. In IEEE LICS, pages 382–393, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Lescow. On polynomial-size programs winning finite-state games. In CAV '95, volume 939 of LNCS, pages 239–252, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. E. Long, A. Browne, E. M. Clarke, S. Jha, and W. R. Marrero. An improved algorithm for the evaluation of fixpoint expressions. In CAV'94, volume 818 of LNCS, pages 338–350, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. W. Mostowski. Games with forbidden positions. Technical Report 78, University of Gdansk, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Muller and P. Schupp. The theory of ends, pushdown automata and second-order logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:51–75, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. S. Street and E. A. Emerson. An automata theoretic procedure for the propositional mu-calculus. Information and Computation, 81:249–264, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Thomas. On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In STAGS '95, volume 900 of LNCS, pages 1–13, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    I. Walukiewicz. Monadic second order logic on tree-like structures. In STAGS '96, LNCS, pages 401–414, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Walukiewicz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Basic Research in Computer ScienceCentre of the Danish National Research FoundationDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations