### Table 2. CTL Formulae for Absence Pattern with Additional Assumptions

2003

"... In PAGE 3: ...ulae, e.g., CTL, are significantly simplified and easier to adapt for further usage. As an example, Table2 on the next page shows the absence pattern with additional assumptions and an according simplified mapping to CTL formulae. As- sumptions can also be easily mapped to CTL and have to be checked separately.... ..."

Cited by 5

### Table 1 Some CTL Formulas

2006

"... In PAGE 4: ... The rules that pass (are never violated) will return true, and for those that fail the tool will give a counter example. Table1 shows the CTL formulas we found to be useful for verifing a navigation model. We have split the possible verification rules into four categories: page reachability, mode reachability, page/mode coupling and page or mode sequences.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table C-1. Assumptions used in probability forecast model.

### Table 6 contrasts the cost of model checking with that of symbolic model checking. It provides one more argument against the view that model check- ing is easier for CTL than for LTL.

"... In PAGE 39: ...39 model checking symbolic model checking LTL PSPACE-complete PSPACE-complete CTL P-complete PSPACE-complete CTL PSPACE-complete PSPACE-complete Table6 . Contrasting symbolic and non-symbolic model checking algorithms (e.... ..."

### Table 6.6: Performance of model-checking in CTL (in an asynchronous system)

2001

Cited by 5

### Table 1. Model-checking complexity results

"... In PAGE 36: ... In the case of closed systems, ATL degenerates to CTL, Fair-ATL to Fair- CTL [CES86], and ATL? to CTL?. Our model-checking complexity results are summarized in Table1 . All complexities in the table denote tight bounds, where m is the size of the system and ` is the length of the formula.... ..."

### Table 1 An overview of complexity results for the model-checking problem

"... In PAGE 2: ... In the presence of the X-operator, the expected duality occurs: The fragment with F, X plus and and the one with G, X plus or are both NP-hard. Table1 gives an overview of our results. The top row refers to the sets of Boolean operators given in Definition 2.... In PAGE 15: ... Further work should find a way to handle the open xor cases from this paper as well as from [1,3]. In addition, the precise complexity of all hard fragments not in bold-face type in Table1 could be determined. Furthermore, we find it a promising perspective to use our approach for obtaining a fine-grained analysis of the model-checking problem for more expressive logics, such as CTL, CTL*, and hybrid temporal logics.... ..."

### Table 3. Model checking results

"... In PAGE 9: ... By this method, all the properties were verified in VIS with a reasonable CPU time. Table3 summarizes the experimental results including the number of CTL formulas involved, CPU time in seconds, memory usage and number of BDD nodes generated. It is to be noted that before performing the model checking, we carried out an extensive sim- ulation of the RCMP-800 Input FIFO, but we still have found a number errors.... ..."

### Table 1. Assumptions (Concluded)

1999

"... In PAGE 8: ... In particular, the assumptions shown in Table 1 were reviewed for validity along with the cost model output. Table1 . Assumptions Assumption Item Year Value 1.... ..."