Results 1  10
of
331
Automatic verification of finitestate concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications
 ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
, 1986
"... We give an efficient procedure for verifying that a finitestate concurrent system meets a specification expressed in a (propositional, branchingtime) temporal logic. Our algorithm has complexity linear in both the size of the specification and the size of the global state graph for the concurrent ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1385 (62 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We give an efficient procedure for verifying that a finitestate concurrent system meets a specification expressed in a (propositional, branchingtime) temporal logic. Our algorithm has complexity linear in both the size of the specification and the size of the global state graph for the concurrent system. We also show how this approach can be adapted to handle fairness. We argue that our technique can provide a practical alternative to manual proof construction or use of a mechanical theorem prover for verifying many finitestate concurrent systems. Experimental results show that state machines with several hundred states can be checked in a matter of seconds.
Temporal and modal logic
 HANDBOOK OF THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1995
"... We give a comprehensive and unifying survey of the theoretical aspects of Temporal and modal logic. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1300 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We give a comprehensive and unifying survey of the theoretical aspects of Temporal and modal logic.
Alternatingtime Temporal Logic
 Journal of the ACM
, 1997
"... Temporal logic comes in two varieties: lineartime temporal logic assumes implicit universal quantification over all paths that are generated by system moves; branchingtime temporal logic allows explicit existential and universal quantification over all paths. We introduce a third, more general var ..."
Abstract

Cited by 616 (55 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Temporal logic comes in two varieties: lineartime temporal logic assumes implicit universal quantification over all paths that are generated by system moves; branchingtime temporal logic allows explicit existential and universal quantification over all paths. We introduce a third, more general variety of temporal logic: alternatingtime temporal logic offers selective quantification over those paths that are possible outcomes of games, such as the game in which the system and the environment alternate moves. While lineartime and branchingtime logics are natural specification languages for closed systems, alternatingtime logics are natural specification languages for open systems. For example, by preceding the temporal operator "eventually" with a selective path quantifier, we can specify that in the game between the system and the environment, the system has a strategy to reach a certain state. Also the problems of receptiveness, realizability, and controllability can be formulated as modelchecking problems for alternatingtime formulas.
An AutomataTheoretic Approach to BranchingTime Model Checking
 JOURNAL OF THE ACM
, 1998
"... Translating linear temporal logic formulas to automata has proven to be an effective approach for implementing lineartime modelchecking, and for obtaining many extensions and improvements to this verification method. On the other hand, for branching temporal logic, automatatheoretic techniques ..."
Abstract

Cited by 361 (67 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Translating linear temporal logic formulas to automata has proven to be an effective approach for implementing lineartime modelchecking, and for obtaining many extensions and improvements to this verification method. On the other hand, for branching temporal logic, automatatheoretic techniques have long been thought to introduce an exponential penalty, making them essentially useless for modelchecking. Recently, Bernholtz and Grumberg have shown that this exponential penalty can be avoided, though they did not match the linear complexity of nonautomatatheoretic algorithms. In this paper we show that alternating tree automata are the key to a comprehensive automatatheoretic framework for branching temporal logics. Not only, as was shown by Muller et al., can they be used to obtain optimal decision procedures, but, as we show here, they also make it possible to derive optimal modelchecking algorithms. Moreover, the simple combinatorial structure that emerges from the a...
An automatatheoretic approach to linear temporal logic
 Logics for Concurrency: Structure versus Automata, volume 1043 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1996
"... Abstract. The automatatheoretic approach to linear temporal logic uses the theory of automata as a unifying paradigm for program specification, verification, and synthesis. Both programs and specifications are in essence descriptions of computations. These computations can be viewed as words over s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 295 (27 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The automatatheoretic approach to linear temporal logic uses the theory of automata as a unifying paradigm for program specification, verification, and synthesis. Both programs and specifications are in essence descriptions of computations. These computations can be viewed as words over some alphabet. Thus,programs and specificationscan be viewed as descriptions of languagesover some alphabet. The automatatheoretic perspective considers the relationships between programs and their specifications as relationships between languages.By translating programs and specifications to automata, questions about programs and their specifications can be reduced to questions about automata. More specifically, questions such as satisfiability of specifications and correctness of programs with respect to their specifications can be reduced to questions such as nonemptiness and containment of automata. Unlike classical automata theory, which focused on automata on finite words, the applications to program specification, verification, and synthesis, use automata on infinite words, since the computations in which we are interested are typically infinite. This paper provides an introduction to the theory of automata on infinite words and demonstrates its applications to program specification, verification, and synthesis. 1
Decision Procedures and Expressiveness in the Temporal Logic of Branching Time
, 1985
"... We consider the computation tree logic (CTL) proposed in (Set. Comput. Programming 2 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 191 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the computation tree logic (CTL) proposed in (Set. Comput. Programming 2
Reasoning about The Past with TwoWay Automata
 In 25th International Colloqium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP ’98
, 1998
"... Abstract. The pcalculus can be viewed as essentially the "ultimate" program logic, as it expressively subsumes all propositional program logics, including dynamic logics, process logics, and temporal logics. It is known that the satisfiability problem for the pcalculus is EXPTIMEcomplete ..."
Abstract

Cited by 162 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The pcalculus can be viewed as essentially the "ultimate" program logic, as it expressively subsumes all propositional program logics, including dynamic logics, process logics, and temporal logics. It is known that the satisfiability problem for the pcalculus is EXPTIMEcomplete. This upper bound, however, is known for a version of the logic that has only forward modalities, which express weakest preconditions, but not backward modalities, which express strongest postconditions. Our main result in this paper is an exponential time upper bound for the satisfiability problem of the pcalculus with both forward and backward modalities. To get this result we develop a theory of twoway alternating automata on infinite trees. 1
Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems
 FORMAL METHODS IN SYSTEM DESIGN, VOL 6, ISS
, 1995
"... We study property preserving transformations for reactive systems. The main idea is the use of simulations parameterized by Galois connections ( �), relating the lattices of properties of two systems. We propose and study a notion of preservation of properties expressed by formulas of a logic, by a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 152 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We study property preserving transformations for reactive systems. The main idea is the use of simulations parameterized by Galois connections ( �), relating the lattices of properties of two systems. We propose and study a notion of preservation of properties expressed by formulas of a logic, by a function mapping sets of states of a system S into sets of states of a system S'. We give results on the preservation of properties expressed in sublanguages of the branching timecalculus when two systems S and S' are related via h � isimulations. They can be used to verify a property for a system by verifying the same property on a simpler system which is an abstraction of it. We show also under which conditions abstraction of concurrent systems can be computed from the abstraction of their components. This allows a compositional application of the proposed verification method. This is a revised version of the papers [2] and [16] � the results are fully developed in [27].
Module Checking
, 1996
"... . In computer system design, we distinguish between closed and open systems. A closed system is a system whose behavior is completely determined by the state of the system. An open system is a system that interacts with its environment and whose behavior depends on this interaction. The ability of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 114 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. In computer system design, we distinguish between closed and open systems. A closed system is a system whose behavior is completely determined by the state of the system. An open system is a system that interacts with its environment and whose behavior depends on this interaction. The ability of temporal logics to describe an ongoing interaction of a reactive program with its environment makes them particularly appropriate for the specification of open systems. Nevertheless, modelchecking algorithms used for the verification of closed systems are not appropriate for the verification of open systems. Correct model checking of open systems should check the system with respect to arbitrary environments and should take into account uncertainty regarding the environment. This is not the case with current modelchecking algorithms and tools. In this paper we introduce and examine the problem of model checking of open systems (mod ule checking, for short). We show that while module che...
Verifying properties of large sets of processes with network invariants,” in Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems
, 1990
"... If a system is built from a large number of identical finitestate processes, it seems intuitively obvious that, with the help of "a little induction", the verification of such a system can be reduced to a finitestate problem. The difficulty is to find the right form of "a little in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 104 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
If a system is built from a large number of identical finitestate processes, it seems intuitively obvious that, with the help of "a little induction", the verification of such a system can be reduced to a finitestate problem. The difficulty is to find the right form of "a little induction". There have been several attempts to address this problem in the context of modelchecking [CGBS6], [CGS7], [GSS7]. In very general terms (see Section 6 for more details), the approach is to find ways of proving that if a process atisfies a fornmla, then the nfold parallel composition of this process with itself still satisfies the same (or a related) formula. This approach makes some interesting verifications possible. However, it has its limits and usually requires the implementation of special purpose tools. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach. It is an attempt o make the "little induction " explicit and simple. If one wants to prove that some property holds for the composition of n processes P, one ought to be able to proceed as follows. Prove that one process satisfies the property or, as is often necessary when using induction, a stronger property I. Then prove that the composition of any process satisfying I with one of the processes P still satisfies I. Such a property I essentially represents the joint behavior of any number of processes P. Since adding one more process P to a network satisfying I does not change I, we call it a network invariant. All this is general and quite obvious. The problem is to find a framework in which it works. For this, we turn to process theory in the style of CCS and CSP [MilS0], [Hoa85]. We actually use a variant of TCSP, but this choice is not important as long as some conditions made explicit in Section 2 are satisfied. The idea is that the network invariant I is itself expressed as a process. The inductive step then essentially reduces to proving in the process theory that I I I P is a process equal to or stronger than I. Of course if the processes are finitestate, this can be done with an automatic verification toot. Hence, once the invariant I is found, our method is completely automatic.