Advertisement

Abstract

This paper presents a range of quantitative extensions for the temporal logic CTL. We enhance temporal modalities with the ability to constrain the number of states satisfying certain sub-formulas along paths. By selecting the combinations of Boolean and arithmetic operations allowed in constraints, one obtains several distinct logics generalizing CTL. We provide a thorough analysis of their expressiveness and of the complexity of their model-checking problem (ranging from P-complete to undecidable).

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Atomic Proposition Kripke Structure Boolean Combination 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, M., Immerman, N.: An n! lower bound on formula size. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 4(3), 296–314 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Dill, D.L.: Model-checking in dense real-time. Inf. Comput. 104(1), 2–34 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernholtz, O., Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model-checking. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 142–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bianco, A., de Alfaro, L.: Model checking of probabilistic and nondeterministic systems. In: Thiagarajan, P.S. (ed.) FSTTCS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1026, pp. 499–513. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouajjani, A., Echahed, R., Habermehl, P.: On the verification problem of nonregular properties for nonregular processes. In: Proc. 10th LICS, pp. 123–133. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouajjani, A., Echahed, R., Habermehl, P.: Verifying infinite state processes with sequential and parallel composition. In: Proc. 22nd POPL, pp. 95–106 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, ch. 16, pp. 995–1072. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson, E.A., Mok, A.K., Sistla, A.P., Srinivasan, J.: Quantitative temporal reasoning. Real-Time Systems 4(4), 331–352 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson, E.A., Trefler, R.J.: Generalized quantitative temporal reasoning: An automata-theoretic approach. In: Bidoit, M., Dauchet, M. (eds.) CAAP 1997, FASE 1997, and TAPSOFT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1214, pp. 189–200. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emerson, E.A., Trefler, R.J.: Parametric quantitative temporal reasoning. In: Proc. 14th LICS, pp. 336–343. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laroussinie, F., Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking CTL  +  and FCTL is hard. In: Honsell, F., Miculan, M. (eds.) FOSSACS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2030, pp. 318–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laroussinie, F., Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Efficient timed model checking for discrete-time systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 353(1-3), 249–271 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laroussinie, F., Schnoebelen, P.: Specification in CTL+Past for verification in CTL. Inf. Comput. 156(1/2), 236–263 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laroussinie, F., Schnoebelen, P., Turuani, M.: On the expressivity and complexity of quantitative branching-time temporal logics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 297(1-3), 297–315 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proc. 18th FOCS, pp. 46–57. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilke, T.: CTL +  is exponentially more succinct than CTL. In: Pandu Rangan, C., Raman, V., Sarukkai, S. (eds.) FST TCS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1738, pp. 110–121. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolper, P.: Temporal logic can be more expressive. Inf. and Control 56(1/2), 72–99 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, J., Mok, A.K., Wang, F.: Symbolic model checking for event-driven real-time systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(2), 386–412 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Laroussinie
    • 1
  • Antoine Meyer
    • 2
  • Eudes Petonnet
    • 1
  1. 1.LIAFAUniversité Paris Diderot – Paris 7 & CNRS UMRFrance
  2. 2.LIGMUniversité Paris Est – Marne-la-Valle & CNRS UMRFrance

Personalised recommendations