Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic"

Transcription

1 Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems

2 Outline We introduce Computation Tree Logic (CTL), a branching temporal logic for specifying system properties. A comparison to LTL based on expressiveness is provided. The chapter concludes with an extension called CTL * which subsumes both CTL and LTL. 2

3 Branching Time vs. Linear Time In Linear time at each moment of time there is only one possible successor state and thus each time moment has a unique possible future We can state properties over all possible computations that start in a state, but not easily about some of such computations 3

4 Branching Time vs. Linear Time (cont.) Sometimes we can overcome these problems: To check whether there exists some computation starting in s that satisfies ϕ we may check whether s = ϕ 4

5 Branching Time vs. Linear Time (cont.) But sometimes we cannot: The property for every computation it is always possible to return to the initial state cannot be stated or checked by LTL. Although it can be checked by a stronger property We may require a computation to always return to the initial state: s = start 5

6 Branching Time vs. Linear Time (cont.) We could solve this Problem if we could write the property: start: in any state ( ) of any possible computation ( ), there is a possibility ( ) to eventually return to the start state ( start) (This is actually a CTL property) But this not a valid nesting of an LTL property 6

7 Branching Time vs. Linear Time (cont.) Branching time refers to the fact that at each moment there may be several different possible futures. Instead of a sequence of states(a path) what we have here is a Tree of states. The tree rooted at state s represents all possible infinite computations in the transition system that start in s. 7

8 Computation Tree Logic: Syntax (State formulae) CTL has a two-stage syntax: CTL state formulae are formed over the set AP of atomic proposition according to the following grammar: Φ ::= true a Φ 1 Φ 2 Φ ϕ ϕ where a AP and ϕ is a path formula Note how every path formula is preceded by a quantifier 8

9 Computation Tree Logic: Syntax (Path formulae) CTL path formulae are formed according to the following grammar: ϕ ::= Φ Φ 1 UΦ 2 where Φ, Φ 1 and Φ 2 are state formulae (From now on, capital greek letters denote state formulae, and the small ones denote path formulae) Path formulae are as in LTL built by the nextstep and until operators, but they must not be combined with Boolean connectives 9

10 Computation Tree Logic: Deriving the Temporal Modalities eventually: Φ = (true U Φ) Φ holds potentially Φ = (true U Φ) Φ is inevitable always: Φ = Φ potentially always Φ Φ = Φ invariantly Φ 10

11 Computation Tree Logic: Deriving the Temporal Modalities (Cont.) always Φ cannot be obtained from the equation Φ = Φ as in LTL, since propositional logic operators cannot be applied to path formulae. We should exploit the duality of existential and universal quantification: Φ is not defined as Φ, but rather as Φ 11

12 Computation Tree Logic: Syntax Example 6.3.: The mutual exclusion property is described in CTL by the formula: ( crit1 crit2) CTL formulae of the form Φ expresses that Φ is infinitely often true on all paths thus the CTL formula ( crit1) ( crit2) specifies the Liveness property 12

13 Computation Tree Logic: Syntax (Cont.) Example 6.3. start expresses that in every reachable system state it is possible to return to the starting state(s). 13

14 CTL Semantics: Satisfaction Relation Given a transition system TS = (S, Act,, I,AP, L), the semantics of CTL formulae is defined by two satisfaction relations (both denoted by = TS, or briefly =): one for the state formulae and one for the path formulae. 14

15 CTL Semantics: Satisfaction Relation The satisfaction relation = is defined for state formulae by: 15

16 CTL Semantics: Satisfaction Relation For path, the satisfaction relation = for path formulae is defined by: 16

17 CTL Semantics: Semantics for Transition Systems Given a transition system TS, the satisfaction set Sat TS (Φ), or briefly Sat(Φ), for CTL-state formula Φ is defined by: Sat(Φ) = {s S s Φ} The transition system TS satisfies CTL formula Φ if and only if Φ holds in all initial states of TS: TS = Φ if and only if s 0 I. s 0 = Φ. This is equivalent to I Sat(Φ) 17

18 CTL Semantics: Semantics derivation For path fragment = s 0 s 1 s 2, The semantics of the derived path operator eventually is: = Φ iff s j = Φ for some j 0 As we know, Φ = ( Φ), from which we can derive: s = ( Φ) iff ( Paths(s). = ( Φ)), so: s = Φ iff Paths(s). [j] = Φ for all j>=0 18

19 CTL Semantics: Semantics derivation (Cont.) Therefore, Φ can be understood as a CTL path formula with the semantics: = s 0 s 1 s 2 = Φ if and only if s j = Φ for all j 0 Read Example

20 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics Example 6.7.: Consider the LTS below with the set of propositions AP={a,b} TS = ( a) TS = (au( a ( aub))) (The little graphs show states where the leading formulae hold) 20

21 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics Infinitely Often: We are going to prove the following: if s = a then Paths(s). [i] = a for infinitely many i The reverse of this Property is also true, as proved in Remark 6.8. Let s be a state, such that s = a We show that every infinite path fragment starting in s passes through an a-state infinitely often 21

22 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics (Cont.) From s = a we have = a Let = s 0 s 1 s 2... Paths(s) and j 0. We demonstrate that there exists an index i j with s i = a So, for s j we have s j = a [j ] = s j s j+1 Paths(s j ) Hence for all j we have: s j s j+1 s j+2 = a Which means there exists an i for which s i = a holds We can conclude that path visits an a-state infinitely often. 22

23 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics (Weak Until) The weak-until operator in CTL cannot be defined directly starting from the LTL definition ϕwψ = (ϕuψ) ( ϕ) since it does not yield a syntactically correct CTL formula. It should be defined using the LTL equivalence law ϕwψ = ((ϕ ψ)u ( ϕ ψ)) 23

24 W Computation Tree Logic: Semantics (Weak Until Cont.) The weak-until operator can be defined in CTL by: (ΦWΨ) = ((Φ Ψ)U( Φ Ψ)) (ΦWΨ) = ((Φ Ψ)U( Φ Ψ)) So, for (ΦWΨ) we can say that: = ΦWΨ iff = ΦUΨ or = (Φ Ψ), Or = ΦWΨ iff = ΦUΨ or = Φ. Which yields: (ΦWΨ) = (ΦUΨ) Φ 24

25 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics (Negation) It is possible that the statements TS =Φ and TS = Φ both hold Because of the fact that initial states are not necessarily unique TS ϕ iff Paths(TS).( = ϕ) Thus the statement TS ϕ holds if and only if there exists an initial state s 0 I with s 0 ϕ, (i.e. s 0 = ϕ) 25

26 Computation Tree Logic: Semantics (Negation Cont.) On the other hand, TS = ϕ requires that s 0 = ϕ for all s 0 I In the above figure we have that both TS a and TS a hold 26

27 CTL Semantics: Transition Systems with Terminal States For a finite maximal path fragment = s 0 s 1 s 2 s n of length n, s n is a terminal state: s = false iff s is a terminal state. Furthermore: 27

28 Computation Tree Logic: Equivalence of CTL Formulae CTL formulae Φ and Ψ are called equivalent whenever for any state s it holds that s = Φ if and only if s = Ψ Definition: CTL formulae Φ and Ψ (over AP) are called equivalent, denoted Φ Ψ, if Sat(Φ) = Sat(Ψ) for all transition systems TS over AP. Recall that the notion of CTL Formula is used for a CTL state formula 28

29 Computation Tree Logic: Equivalence of CTL Formulae Useful equivalency Rules: Dulaity laws: 29

30 Equivalence of CTL Formulae (Cont.) Expansion Laws: ( U ) is equivalent to the fact that the current state either satisfies, or it satisfies, and for some direct successor state, ( U ) holds 30

31 Equivalence of CTL Formulae (Cont.) Distributive Laws: 31

32 Computation Tree Logic: Normal Forms The basic operators, U, and U would have been sufficient to define the syntax of CTL. Although by the following definition we could omit all the universal quantifiers as well. 32

33 CTL Normal Forms: Existential Normal Form Defintion: For a AP, the set of CTL state formulae in existential normal form (ENF, for short) is given by: Φ ::= true a Φ 1 Φ 2 Φ Φ (Φ 1 UΦ 2 ) Φ. 33

34 CTL Normal Forms: Existential Normal Form (Con.) Theorem 6.14: For each CTL formula there exists an equivalent CTL formula in ENF. Proof: The following duality laws allow elimination of the universal path quantifiers: Φ = Φ (ΦUΨ) = ( ΨU( Φ Ψ)) Ψ 34

35 CTL Normal Forms: Positive Normal Form Definition: The set of CTL state formulae in positive normal form (PNF, for short) is given by: Φ ::= true false a a Φ 1 Φ 2 Φ 1 Φ 2 ϕ ϕ where a AP and the path formulae are given by ϕ ::= Φ Φ 1 UΦ 2 Φ 1 WΦ 2. 35

36 CTL Normal Forms: Positive Normal Form (Con.) Theorem 6.16: For each CTL formula there exists an equivalent CTL formula in PNF. Proof: Any CTL formula can be transformed into PNF using the following equivalence laws: 36

37 CTL Normal Forms: Release Operator In the rules for U and U the number of occurrences of Ψ (and Φ) is doubled, the length of an equivalent CTL formula may be exponentially longer than the original CTL formula. This exponential blowup can be avoided by using the release operator, which in CTL can be defined by: (Φ R Ψ) = (( Φ)U( Ψ)) (Φ R Ψ) = (( Φ)U( Ψ)) 37

38 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL There are properties that one can express in CTL, but that cannot be expressed in LTL, and vice versa Hence, the logics CTL and LTL are incomparable according to their expressiveness. Definition: CTL formula Φ and LTL formula ϕ (both over AP) are equivalent, denoted Φ ϕ, if for any transition system TS over AP: TS = Φ if and only if TS = ϕ 38

39 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL (Cont.) Dropping all (universal and existential) quantifiers is a safe way to generate an equivalent LTL formula, provided there are equivalent LTL formulae: As an example, the LTL formula a is equivalent to the CTL formula a However, a and a are not equivalent. 39

40 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL (Cont.) Theorem 6.18: Let Φ be a CTL formula, and ϕ the LTL formula that is obtained by eliminating all path quantifiers in Φ. Then: Φ ϕ or There does not exist any LTL formula that is equivalent to Φ. 40

41 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL (Cont.) Lemma (Persistence): The CTL formula a and the LTL formula a are not equivalent. By theorem 6.18 it can be asserted that there is no LTL expression whatsoever which can describe the property a 41

42 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL (Cont.) Lemma (Eventually an a-state with only direct a-successors): The CTL formula (a a) and the LTL formula (a a) are not equivalent. In addition to CTL formulas inexpressible in LTL, there are also LTL formulas which cannot be expressed in CTL. 42

43 Expressiveness of CTL vs. LTL (Cont.) Theorem (Incomparable Expressiveness of CTL and LTL): a) There exist LTL formulae for which no equivalent CTL formula exists. This holds for, for instance: a and (a a). b) There exist CTL formulae for which no equivalent LTL formula exists. This holds for, for instance: a and (a a) and a. 43

44 CTL Model Checking CTL model checker: A decision algorithm that Checks whether TS = Φ for a given transition system TS and a CTL formula Φ Throughout this section, it is assumed that TS is finite, and has no terminal states CTL model checking can be performed by a recursive procedure that calculates the satisfaction set for all subformulae of Φ 44

45 CTL Model Checking (Cont.) We consider CTL formulae in ENF (CTL formulae built by the basic modalities, U, and.) This requires algorithms that generate Sat( Φ), Sat( (ΦUΨ)), and Sat( Φ) when Sat(Φ) and Sat(Ψ) are given 45

46 CTL Model Checking: Global Model-checking Procedure The basic procedure for CTL model checking is: The set Sat(Φ) of all states satisfying Φ is computed recursively It follows that TS = Φ if and only if I Sat(Φ), where I is the set of initial states of TS It is called global because satisfaction of all other states is verified besides the initial states. 46

47 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) Sat(Φ) is computed in a bottom-up traversal of the parse tree of the CTL state formula Φ: The nodes of the parse tree represent the subformulae of Φ. The leaves stand for the constant true or an atomic proposition a AP. All inner nodes are labeled with an operator. For ENF formulae the labels of the inner nodes are,,, U, or. 47

48 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) The children of a node v stand for the maximal genuine subformulae of the formula Ψ v that is represented by v. The Operator labeling a node says how to combine its maximal genuine subformulae. 48

49 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) As soon as a certain subformula Ψ is computed, a Ψ is added to L(s) for every s Sat(Ψ) rather as an atomic proposition satisfied by s. 49

50 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) Example 6.22: Φ = a (b U c) 50

51 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) Once the subformulae Ψ and Ψ are treated, they can be replaced by the new atomic propositions a 1, a 2 The formula that is to be treated for the root node simply thus is: Φ = a 1 a 2. Sat(Φ) results from intersecting Sat(a 1 ) = Sat(Ψ) and Sat(a 2 ) = Sat(Ψ ) 51

52 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) Theorem 6.23: For all CTL formulae Φ, Ψ over AP it holds that: 52

53 CTL Model Checking: Global Modelchecking Procedure (Cont.) These two last characterizations are based upon equation induced by the expansion laws for (ΦUΨ) and Φ respectively 53

54 Fixpoint Representation Let TS = (S, Act,, I,AP, L) be an arbitrary finite Transition System with no terminal state. The set P(S) of all subsets of S form a lattice under the set inclusion ordering. Based on first order logic, a subset S can be viewed as a predicate which is true for every s i which is a member of S. Each element S of the lattice is a predicate on S. A function that maps P(S) to P(S) is called a Predicate Transformer. 54

55 Fixpoint theory Let τ : P(S) P(S) be a predicate transformer, then: τ is Monotonic provided that P Q implies τ(p) τ(q); τ is U-continuous provided that P 1 P 2 implies τ(u i P i ) = U i τ(p i ); τ is -continuous provided that P 1 P 2 implies τ( i P i ) = i τ(p i ). 55

56 Fixpoint Theory: Predicate Transformer Properties Lemma 1: If S is finite and τ is monotonic, then τ is also U-continuous and -continuous. Lemma 2: If τ is monotonic, then for every i, τ i (False) τ i+1 (False) and τ i (True) τ i+1 (True). Lemma 3: If τ is monotonic and S is finite, then there is an integer i 0 such that for every j i 0, τ j (False) = τ i 0(False). Similarly, there is some j 0 such that for every j j 0, τ j (True) = τ j 0(True). 56

57 Fixpoint Theory: Predicate Transformer Properties (Cont.) Lemma 4: If τ is monotonic and S is finite, then there is an integer i 0 such that μz. τ(z) = τ i 0 (False). Similarly, there is some j 0 such that νz. τ(z) = τ j 0 (True). 57

58 Fixpoint theory: Greatest and Least Fixpoints Let τ i (Z) denote i applications of τ to Z. According to Tarski, any monotonic predicate transformer τ on P(S) always has a least fixpoint μz. τ(z), and a greatest fixpoint νz. τ(z) where μz. τ(z)= {Z τ(z) Z} and νz. τ(z)= U{Z τ(z) Z}. Additionally, if τ is U-continuous μz. τ(z) = U i τ i (False) and if τ is -continuous νz. τ(z) = i τ i (True). 58

59 CTL operators as greatest or least fixpoints If we identify each CTL formula f with the predicate {s M, s = f }, then each of the basic CTL operators may be characterized as a least or greatest fixpoint of an appropriate predicate transformer as follows: f 1 = μz. f 1 Z f 1 = μz. f 1 Z f 1 = νz. f 1 Z f 1 = νz. f 1 Z [f 1 U f 2 ] = μz. f 2 (f 1 Z) [f 1 U f 2 ] = μz. f 2 (f 1 Z) 59

60 Procedure for computing least fixpoint function Lfp(Tau : PredicateTransformer) : Predicate Q := False; Q := Tau(Q); while (Q Q ) do Q := Q ; Q := Tau(Q ); end while; return(q); end function 60

61 Procedure for computing greatest fixpoint function Gfp(Tau : PredicateTransformer) : Predicate Q := True; Q := Tau(Q); while (Q Q ) do Q := Q ; Q := Tau(Q ); end while; return(q); end function 61

62 Fixpoint Theory: Sequence of Approximations (for (puq)) p q p q s 0 p s 0 p Original Transition System τ 1 (False) p q p q s 0 p s 0 p τ 2 (False) τ 3 (False) 62

63 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint Equations Consider the case of (ΦUΨ): (ΦUΨ) Ψ (Φ (ΦUΨ)) We can describe the CTL formula (ΦUΨ) as a fixed-point of the logical equation F Ψ (Φ F) A fixed-point is simply a solution of the above equation 63

64 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint Equations (Cont.) There are other solutions too: (ΦWΨ) But (ΦUΨ) is the least solution to the former equation Whereas (ΦWΨ) is the largest solution In a similar way, Φ can be considered as the greatest fixed point of the logical equation F = Φ F 64

65 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint computation As an example, the algorithm to compute (Φ 1 UΦ 2 ) is given below: (Φ 1 UΦ 2 ) : T := Sat(Φ 2 ); (* compute the smallest fixed point *) while { s Sat(Φ 1 ) \ T Post(s) T } do let s {s Sat(Φ 1 ) \ T Post(s) T }; T := T {s}; od; return T; S \ T: all members of S which are not a member of T 65

66 Computation of the Satisfaction Sets 66

67 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint computation (Cont.) Example Checking the formula Φ with Φ = ((a = c) (a b)) in the following transition system: 67

68 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint computation (Cont.) As we know, Φ = (true U Φ) Invoking the former algorithm given, Sat(true) and Sat((a = c) (a b)) are recursively computed. The states of set T are: 68

69 CTL Model Checking: Fixedpoint computation (Cont.) In the next two steps, s 6 and s 7 are added respectively, finally yielding the satisfaction set: s 6 s 7 69

70 CTL Model Checking: Alternative Algorithms 70

71 CTL Model Checking: Alternative Algorithms 71

72 CTL Model Checking: Alternative Algorithms A possibility to compute Sat( Φ) is to only consider the Φ-states of a transition system TS and ignore all Φ-states: from the TS given in example 6.26, consider the example with Φ = b: 72

73 CTL Model Checking: Alternative Algorithms (Cont.) In the next step, all nontrivial strongly connected components (SCCs) in the state graph induced by TS[Φ] are computed: Nontrivial SCC: A SCC containing at least one transition 73

74 CTL Model Checking: Alternative Algorithms (Cont.) Finally, all states which satisfy Φ and can reach a state in the strongly connected components are added: Theorem s = Φ iff s = Φ and there is a nontrivial SCC in TS[Φ] reachable from s. 74

75 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity Let TS be a finite transition system with N states and K transitions The time complexity of Algorithm 14 (see page 348, partly described in slide 54) is in: O((N+K) Φ ) 75

76 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) Theorem For transition system TS with N states and K transitions, and CTL formula Φ, the CTL model-checking problem TS = Φ can be determined in time O ((N+K) Φ ) CTL Model-checking is Linear in contrast to the exponential time Model-checking algorithm given for LTL 76

77 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) But this should not be interpreted as CTL model checking is more efficient than LTL model checking. LTL formulae may be exponentially shorter than any of their equivalent formulation in CTL. 77

78 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) Example The Hamiltonian Path Problem (which is NP- complete): From Lemma 5.45, it follows that the Hamiltonian path problem for digraphs with n nodes can be encoded in LTL formula ϕ n whose length is polynomial in the number of nodes, n. 78

79 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) We want to find a Hamiltonian path in a directed graph G = (V,E) with V = {v 1,, v n } We want to define a Φ n such that: G contains a Hamiltonian path if and only if TS Φ n 79

80 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) Define TS = (V {b}, {τ},, V, V, L): The labels correspond to graph nodes, and the transitions are the same as edges, except that there is a transition to b added to every node. In this example, (a) is the original graph: 80

81 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) Let Φ n be defined as follows: Such that Ψ(v i1,..., v in ) is a CTL formula that is satisfied if and only if v i1, v i2,, v in is a Hamiltonian path in G. 81

82 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) The formulae Ψ(v i1,..., v in ) are inductively defined as follows: 1. Ψ(v i ) = v i 2. Ψ(v i1, v i2,, v in ) = v i1 Ψ(v i2,, v in ) if n > 1 Stated in words, Ψ(v i1, v i2,, v in ) holds if there exists a path on which v i1, v i2, successively hold. 82

83 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) According to this definition, it is easy to infer that: Sat(Ψ(v i1, v i2,, v in ) ) = {v i1 } if v i1, v i2,, v in is a Hamiltonian path in G otherwize Thus, TS Φ n iff there is an initial state s of TS for which s = Φ n, which is, there exists a v in G and a permutation i 11,, i of 1,, n such that v = v nn i and v i1,, v in is a Hamiltonian path in G. 83

84 CTL Model Checking: Time and Space Complexity (Cont.) By the enumeration of all possible permutations we obtain a formula with a length exponential in the number of vertices in the graph. And we do not expect a smaller formulae, as we know the Hamiltonian path problem is not yet solved polynomially. 84

85 Fairness in CTL Fairness assumptions can be added as premise to the LTL formula to be verified. TS = fair ϕ if and only if TS = (fair ϕ) Fairness constraints operate on the path level and replace the standard meaning for all/some paths of quantification with for all/some fair paths 85

86 Fairness in CTL (Cont.) If fair expresses the fairness condition on the path level, then CTL formulae that encode the intuitive meaning of (fair ϕ) and (fair ϕ) would be needed. However, these are not legal CTL formulas. Moreover, this approach is not possible for CTL, based on the fact that most fairness constraints cannot be encoded into a CTL formula: Persistence property a 86

87 Fairness in CTL (Cont.) Therefore, In order to deal with fairness constraints in CTL, the semantics of CTL is slightly modified such that the state formulae ϕ and ϕ are interpreted over all fair paths rather than over all possible paths. It is assumed that the given fixed fairness constraint is described by a formula as in LTL. 87

88 Fairness in CTL : CTL Fairness Assumptions Definition A strong CTL fairness constraint (over AP) is a term of the form: where Φi and Ψi are CTL formulae over AP Weak and unconditional CTL fairness constraints are defined analogously by conjunctions of terms of the form ( Φi Ψi) and Ψi, respectively. 88

89 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) A CTL Fairness Assumption is a conjunction of strong, weak, and unconditional CTL fairness constraints. Note that CTL fairness assumptions are not CTL path formulae, but they can be viewed as LTL formulae using CTL state formulae instead of atomic propositions. 89

90 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) Let TS = (S, Act,, I,AP, L) be a transition system without terminal states, π be an infinite path fragment in TS, and fair a fixed CTL fairness assumption. π = fair denotes that π satisfies the formula fair, where = should be read as the LTL semantics. 90

91 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) The semantics of CTL under fairness assumption fair is identical to the semantics given earlier, except, the path quantifications range over all fair paths rather than over all paths: FairPaths(s) = {π Paths(s) π = fair} And for the transition system TS: 91

92 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) Definition For state formulae, The satisfaction relation = fair for CTL fairness assumption fair is defined as: 92

93 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) For a path π and path formulae the satisfaction relation = fair for CTL fairness assumption fair is defined as: where for path π = s 0 s 1 s 2 and integer i 0, π[i] denotes the (i+1)-th state of π, s i 93

94 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumptions (Cont.) For CTL-state formula Φ, and CTL fairness assumption fair, the satisfaction set Sat fair (Φ) is defined by: Sat fair (Φ) = { s S s =fair Φ}. The transition system TS satisfies CTL formula Φ under fairness assumption fair if and only if Φ holds in all initial states of TS: TS = fair Φ if and only if s 0 I. s 0 = fair Φ. 94

95 CTL Model Checking with Fairness (Basic Idea) 95

96 Model Checking CTL with Fairness 96

97 Computation of Sat sfair ( a) 97

98 98

99 Time Complexity of Verifying under Fairness 99

100 Time Complexity of CTL Model Checking with Fairness 100

101 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumption (Cont.) Read Example Example Mutual Exclusion: Consider the semaphore-based solution to the two-process mutual exclusion problem. The transition system of this concurrent program is denoted TS sem. 101

102 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumption (Cont.) The CTL formula: Φ = ( crit 1 ) ( crit 2 ) Describes the liveness property that both processes infinitely often have access to the critical section. It follows that TS sem Φ (The semaphore solution does not fulfill the liveness property) 102

103 Fairness in CTL: CTL Fairness Assumption (Cont.) Again, consider the arbiter-based solution to the mutual exclusion problem. The decision as to which process will acquire access to the critical section is determined by a coin flipped by the arbiter. Consider the unconditional fairness assumption: ufair = head tail Which requires that the events heads and tails occur infinitely often with probability 1 it follows that: TS 1 Arbiter TS 2 Φ, and TS1 Arbiter TS2 ufair Φ 103

104 Syntax of CTL* CTL* state formulae over the set AP of atomic proposition, briefly called CTL* formulae, are formed according to the following grammar: Φ ::= true a Φ 1 Φ 2 Φ ϕ where a AP and ϕ is a path formula. The CTL* path formulae is given by the following grammar: ϕ ::= Φ ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ 1 Uϕ 2 where Φ is a state formula, ϕ, ϕ 1, and ϕ 2 are path formulae 104

105 Satisfaction Relation for CTL* 105

106 CTL* Semantics for Tranition Systems 106

107 Embedding of LTL in CTL* 107

108 CTL* Expressiveness 108

109 Relationship between LTL, CTL, and CTL* 109

110 Some Equivalence Laws for CTL* 110

111 Maximal Proper State Subformula 111

112 Example of CTL* Model Checking 112

113 CTL* Model Checking Algorithm 113

114 Time Complexity of CTL* 114

115 Complexity of the Model Checking and Algorithms and Satisfiability Checking 115

116 Branching Time vs. Linear Time (in a Nutshell) 116

Chapter 4: Computation tree logic

Chapter 4: Computation tree logic INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 4: Computation tree logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 CTL: a specification

More information

Computation Tree Logic

Computation Tree Logic Computation Tree Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE,

More information

Overview. overview / 357

Overview. overview / 357 Overview overview6.1 Introduction Modelling parallel systems Linear Time Properties Regular Properties Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) Computation Tree Logic syntax and semantics of CTL expressiveness of CTL

More information

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Spring 94 Outline We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.

More information

Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017

Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017 Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017 Last time LTL Syntax ϕ ::= true a ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 a AP. ϕ def = trueu ϕ ϕ def = ϕ g intuitive meaning of and is obt Limitations of LTL pay pay τ τ soda

More information

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Spring 91 Outline We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.

More information

Linear-Time Logic. Hao Zheng

Linear-Time Logic. Hao Zheng Linear-Time Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE, USF)

More information

Chapter 3: Linear temporal logic

Chapter 3: Linear temporal logic INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 3: Linear temporal logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 LTL: a specification

More information

Introduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either

Introduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Introduction to Temporal Logic The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Desired properites. Often liveness properties like In every infinite run action

More information

Model checking (III)

Model checking (III) Theory and Algorithms Model checking (III) Alternatives andextensions Rafael Ramirez rafael@iua.upf.es Trimester1, Oct2003 Slide 9.1 Logics for reactive systems The are many specification languages for

More information

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic

Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Outline n n We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.

More information

Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata

Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata Yih-Kuen Tsay Department of Information Management National Taiwan University FLOLAC 2009 Yih-Kuen Tsay (SVVRL @ IM.NTU) Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata

More information

A Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL )

A Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL ) A Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL ) Davide Bresolin Angelo Montanari Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Udine {bresolin,

More information

Model Checking Algorithms

Model Checking Algorithms Model Checking Algorithms Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan November 14, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Model Checking Algorithms November 14, 2018 1 / 56 Outline

More information

Introduction to Model Checking. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras

Introduction to Model Checking. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras Introduction to Model Checking Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras How good can you fight bugs? Comprising of three parts Formal Verification techniques consist of three parts: 1. A framework for modeling

More information

Model Checking with CTL. Presented by Jason Simas

Model Checking with CTL. Presented by Jason Simas Model Checking with CTL Presented by Jason Simas Model Checking with CTL Based Upon: Logic in Computer Science. Huth and Ryan. 2000. (148-215) Model Checking. Clarke, Grumberg and Peled. 1999. (1-26) Content

More information

Temporal & Modal Logic. Acronyms. Contents. Temporal Logic Overview Classification PLTL Syntax Semantics Identities. Concurrency Model Checking

Temporal & Modal Logic. Acronyms. Contents. Temporal Logic Overview Classification PLTL Syntax Semantics Identities. Concurrency Model Checking Temporal & Modal Logic E. Allen Emerson Presenter: Aly Farahat 2/12/2009 CS5090 1 Acronyms TL: Temporal Logic BTL: Branching-time Logic LTL: Linear-Time Logic CTL: Computation Tree Logic PLTL: Propositional

More information

A brief introduction to Logic. (slides from

A brief introduction to Logic. (slides from A brief introduction to Logic (slides from http://www.decision-procedures.org/) 1 A Brief Introduction to Logic - Outline Propositional Logic :Syntax Propositional Logic :Semantics Satisfiability and validity

More information

Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic

Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic 1 Defining Logics L, M, = L - the language of the logic M - a class of models = - satisfaction relation M M, ϕ L: M = ϕ is read as M satisfies

More information

Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège

Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking Pierre Wolper Université de Liège 1 Topics to be covered Introducing explicit-state model checking Finite automata on infinite words Temporal Logics and

More information

Model for reactive systems/software

Model for reactive systems/software Temporal Logics CS 5219 Abhik Roychoudhury National University of Singapore The big picture Software/ Sys. to be built (Dream) Properties to Satisfy (caution) Today s lecture System Model (Rough Idea)

More information

FORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL)

FORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Alessandro Artale (FM First Semester 2007/2008) p. 1/37 FORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Alessandro Artale Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bolzano artale@inf.unibz.it

More information

Computation Tree Logic

Computation Tree Logic Chapter 6 Computation Tree Logic Pnueli [88] has introduced linear temporal logic to the computer science community for the specification and verification of reactive systems. In Chapter 3 we have treated

More information

Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms

Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms Martin Fränzle Carl von Ossietzky Universität Dpt. of Computing Science Res. Grp. Hybride Systeme Oldenburg, Germany 02917: CTL & Model Checking

More information

CS357: CTL Model Checking (two lectures worth) David Dill

CS357: CTL Model Checking (two lectures worth) David Dill CS357: CTL Model Checking (two lectures worth) David Dill 1 CTL CTL = Computation Tree Logic It is a propositional temporal logic temporal logic extended to properties of events over time. CTL is a branching

More information

SMV the Symbolic Model Verifier. Example: the alternating bit protocol. LTL Linear Time temporal Logic

SMV the Symbolic Model Verifier. Example: the alternating bit protocol. LTL Linear Time temporal Logic Model Checking (I) SMV the Symbolic Model Verifier Example: the alternating bit protocol LTL Linear Time temporal Logic CTL Fixed Points Correctness Slide 1 SMV - Symbolic Model Verifier SMV - Symbolic

More information

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 20 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview PCTL for MDPs syntax, semantics, examples PCTL model checking next, bounded

More information

Algorithms for Model Checking (2IW55)

Algorithms for Model Checking (2IW55) Algorithms for Model Checking (2IW55) Lecture 2 Fairness & Basic Model Checking Algorithm for CTL and fair CTL based on strongly connected components Chapter 4.1, 4.2 + SIAM Journal of Computing 1(2),

More information

Computation Tree Logic

Computation Tree Logic Computation Tree Logic Computation tree logic (CTL) is a branching-time logic that includes the propositional connectives as well as temporal connectives AX, EX, AU, EU, AG, EG, AF, and EF. The syntax

More information

Verification. Arijit Mondal. Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Patna

Verification. Arijit Mondal. Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Patna IIT Patna 1 Verification Arijit Mondal Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Patna arijit@iitp.ac.in Introduction The goal of verification To ensure 100% correct in functionality

More information

Temporal Logic Model Checking

Temporal Logic Model Checking 18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University Temporal Logic Model Checking 1 Temporal Logic Model Checking Thomas Wahl Computing Laboratory, Oxford University 18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University

More information

Summary. Computation Tree logic Vs. LTL. CTL at a glance. KM,s =! iff for every path " starting at s KM," =! COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL)

Summary. Computation Tree logic Vs. LTL. CTL at a glance. KM,s =! iff for every path  starting at s KM, =! COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Summary COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Slides by Alessandro Artale http://www.inf.unibz.it/ artale/ Some material (text, figures) displayed in these slides is courtesy of: M. Benerecetti, A. Cimatti, M.

More information

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview Temporal logic Non-probabilistic temporal logic CTL Probabilistic temporal

More information

Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL)

Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 1 Programme for the upcoming lectures Introducing CTL Basic Algorithms for CTL CTL and Fairness; computing strongly connected components Basic Decision Diagrams

More information

From Liveness to Promptness

From Liveness to Promptness From Liveness to Promptness Orna Kupferman Hebrew University Nir Piterman EPFL Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University Abstract Liveness temporal properties state that something good eventually happens, e.g., every

More information

Comp487/587 - Boolean Formulas

Comp487/587 - Boolean Formulas Comp487/587 - Boolean Formulas 1 Logic and SAT 1.1 What is a Boolean Formula Logic is a way through which we can analyze and reason about simple or complicated events. In particular, we are interested

More information

Verification. Lecture 9. Bernd Finkbeiner Peter Faymonville Michael Gerke

Verification. Lecture 9. Bernd Finkbeiner Peter Faymonville Michael Gerke Verification Lecture 9 Bernd Finkbeiner Peter Faymonville Michael Gerke REVIEW: Overview of LTL model checking System Negation of property Model of system LTL-formula φ model checker GeneralisedBüchiautomatonG

More information

Applied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw

Applied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018

More information

Alternating-Time Temporal Logic

Alternating-Time Temporal Logic Alternating-Time Temporal Logic R.Alur, T.Henzinger, O.Kupferman Rafael H. Bordini School of Informatics PUCRS R.Bordini@pucrs.br Logic Club 5th of September, 2013 ATL All the material in this presentation

More information

MODEL CHECKING. Arie Gurfinkel

MODEL CHECKING. Arie Gurfinkel 1 MODEL CHECKING Arie Gurfinkel 2 Overview Kripke structures as models of computation CTL, LTL and property patterns CTL model-checking and counterexample generation State of the Art Model-Checkers 3 SW/HW

More information

CTL, the branching-time temporal logic

CTL, the branching-time temporal logic CTL, the branching-time temoral logic Cătălin Dima Université Paris-Est Créteil Cătălin Dima (UPEC) CTL 1 / 29 Temoral roerties CNIL Safety, termination, mutual exclusion LTL. Liveness, reactiveness, resonsiveness,

More information

Theoretical Foundations of the UML

Theoretical Foundations of the UML Theoretical Foundations of the UML Lecture 17+18: A Logic for MSCs Joost-Pieter Katoen Lehrstuhl für Informatik 2 Software Modeling and Verification Group moves.rwth-aachen.de/teaching/ws-1718/fuml/ 5.

More information

ESE601: Hybrid Systems. Introduction to verification

ESE601: Hybrid Systems. Introduction to verification ESE601: Hybrid Systems Introduction to verification Spring 2006 Suggested reading material Papers (R14) - (R16) on the website. The book Model checking by Clarke, Grumberg and Peled. What is verification?

More information

T Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL

T Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 1 T-79.186 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL Spring 2005, Lecture 4 January 31, 2005 Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 2 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most

More information

Tableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings

Tableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings Tableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings Davide Bresolin 1, Valentin Goranko 2, Angelo Montanari 3, and Pietro Sala 3 1 Department of Computer Science,

More information

Computation Tree Logic (CTL)

Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Fazle Rabbi University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway fazlr@student.matnat.uio.no, Fazle.Rabbi@hib.no May 30, 2015 Fazle Rabbi et al. (UiO,

More information

Introduction to Logic in Computer Science: Autumn 2006

Introduction to Logic in Computer Science: Autumn 2006 Introduction to Logic in Computer Science: Autumn 2006 Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss 1 Plan for Today Today s class will be an introduction

More information

3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement

3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement 3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement Sharon Shoham Academic College of Tel-Aviv Yaffo 1 Model Checking An efficient procedure that receives: A finite-state model describing a system A temporal logic formula

More information

Lecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata

Lecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata 15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata Matt Fredrikson André Platzer Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 18 1 Introduction We ve seen

More information

Abstraction for Falsification

Abstraction for Falsification Abstraction for Falsification Thomas Ball 1, Orna Kupferman 2, and Greta Yorsh 3 1 Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA. Email: tball@microsoft.com, URL: research.microsoft.com/ tball 2 Hebrew University,

More information

Model Checking for the -calculus. Paolo Zuliani , Spring 2011

Model Checking for the -calculus. Paolo Zuliani , Spring 2011 Model Checking for the -calculus Paolo Zuliani 15-817, Spring 2011 Outline What is the -calculus? Semantics Model Checking algorithms [Other fixpoint theorems] The -calculus A language for describing properties

More information

Temporal Logic. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. We have designed a system. We want to check that it is correct.

Temporal Logic. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. We have designed a system. We want to check that it is correct. EE 244: Fundamental Algorithms for System Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization Fall 2016 Temporal logic Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE 244, Fall 2016

More information

Timo Latvala. February 4, 2004

Timo Latvala. February 4, 2004 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L Timo Latvala February 4, 2004 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L 8-1 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most widely used specification formalism

More information

Example. Lemma. Proof Sketch. 1 let A be a formula that expresses that node t is reachable from s

Example. Lemma. Proof Sketch. 1 let A be a formula that expresses that node t is reachable from s Summary Summary Last Lecture Computational Logic Π 1 Γ, x : σ M : τ Γ λxm : σ τ Γ (λxm)n : τ Π 2 Γ N : τ = Π 1 [x\π 2 ] Γ M[x := N] Georg Moser Institute of Computer Science @ UIBK Winter 2012 the proof

More information

Temporal Logic. M φ. Outline. Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness. Ralf Huuck. Kripke Structure

Temporal Logic. M φ. Outline. Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness. Ralf Huuck. Kripke Structure Outline Temporal Logic Ralf Huuck Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness Model Checking Problem model, program? M φ satisfies, Implements, refines property, specification

More information

FORMAL METHODS LECTURE III: LINEAR TEMPORAL LOGIC

FORMAL METHODS LECTURE III: LINEAR TEMPORAL LOGIC Alessandro Artale (FM First Semester 2007/2008) p. 1/39 FORMAL METHODS LECTURE III: LINEAR TEMPORAL LOGIC Alessandro Artale Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bolzano artale@inf.unibz.it http://www.inf.unibz.it/

More information

First-order resolution for CTL

First-order resolution for CTL First-order resolution for Lan Zhang, Ullrich Hustadt and Clare Dixon Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK {Lan.Zhang, U.Hustadt, CLDixon}@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract

More information

Reasoning about Time and Reliability

Reasoning about Time and Reliability Reasoning about Time and Reliability Probabilistic CTL model checking Daniel Bruns Institut für theoretische Informatik Universität Karlsruhe 13. Juli 2007 Seminar Theorie und Anwendung von Model Checking

More information

Systems Verification. Alessandro Abate. Day 1 January 25, 2016

Systems Verification. Alessandro Abate. Day 1 January 25, 2016 Systems Verification Alessandro Abate Day 1 January 25, 2016 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking

More information

Double Header. Model Checking. Model Checking. Overarching Plan. Take-Home Message. Spoiler Space. Topic: (Generic) Model Checking

Double Header. Model Checking. Model Checking. Overarching Plan. Take-Home Message. Spoiler Space. Topic: (Generic) Model Checking Double Header Model Checking #1 Two Lectures Model Checking SoftwareModel Checking SLAM and BLAST Flying Boxes It is traditional to describe this stuff (especially SLAM and BLAST) with high-gloss animation

More information

Reasoning with Probabilities. Eric Pacuit Joshua Sack. Outline. Basic probability logic. Probabilistic Epistemic Logic.

Reasoning with Probabilities. Eric Pacuit Joshua Sack. Outline. Basic probability logic. Probabilistic Epistemic Logic. Reasoning with July 28, 2009 Plan for the Course Day 1: Introduction and Background Day 2: s Day 3: Dynamic s Day 4: Reasoning with Day 5: Conclusions and General Issues Probability language Let Φ be a

More information

First Order Logic (FOL) 1 znj/dm2017

First Order Logic (FOL) 1   znj/dm2017 First Order Logic (FOL) 1 http://lcs.ios.ac.cn/ znj/dm2017 Naijun Zhan March 19, 2017 1 Special thanks to Profs Hanpin Wang (PKU) and Lijun Zhang (ISCAS) for their courtesy of the slides on this course.

More information

Verification Using Temporal Logic

Verification Using Temporal Logic CMSC 630 February 25, 2015 1 Verification Using Temporal Logic Sources: E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000. E.A. Emerson. Temporal and Modal Logic. Chapter

More information

Model checking, verification of CTL. One must verify or expel... doubts, and convert them into the certainty of YES [Thomas Carlyle]

Model checking, verification of CTL. One must verify or expel... doubts, and convert them into the certainty of YES [Thomas Carlyle] Chater 5 Model checking, verification of CTL One must verify or exel... doubts, and convert them into the certainty of YES or NO. [Thomas Carlyle] 5. The verification setting Page 66 We introduce linear

More information

Automata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems

Automata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems Automata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems Radu Iosif Verimag/CNRS (Grenoble, France) Thanks to Tom Henzinger (IST, Austria), Barbara Jobstmann (CNRS, Grenoble) and Doron Peled (Bar-Ilan University,

More information

Linear Temporal Logic (LTL)

Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) Chapter 9 Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) This chapter introduces the Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) to reason about state properties of Labelled Transition Systems defined in the previous chapter. We will first

More information

CS256/Winter 2009 Lecture #6. Zohar Manna

CS256/Winter 2009 Lecture #6. Zohar Manna CS256/Winter 2009 Lecture #6 Zohar Manna Chapter 1 Invariance: Proof Methods For assertion q and SPL program P show P Õ ¼ q (i.e., q is P-invariant) 6-1 Proving Invariances Definitions Recall: the variables

More information

LTL and CTL. Lecture Notes by Dhananjay Raju

LTL and CTL. Lecture Notes by Dhananjay Raju LTL and CTL Lecture Notes by Dhananjay Raju draju@cs.utexas.edu 1 Linear Temporal Logic: LTL Temporal logics are a convenient way to formalise and verify properties of reactive systems. LTL is an infinite

More information

Model Checking: An Introduction

Model Checking: An Introduction Model Checking: An Introduction Meeting 3, CSCI 5535, Spring 2013 Announcements Homework 0 ( Preliminaries ) out, due Friday Saturday This Week Dive into research motivating CSCI 5535 Next Week Begin foundations

More information

Optimal Decision Procedures for Satisfiability in Fragments of Alternating-time Temporal Logics

Optimal Decision Procedures for Satisfiability in Fragments of Alternating-time Temporal Logics Optimal Decision Procedures for Satisfiability in Fragments of Alternating-time Temporal Logics Valentin Goranko a,b Steen Vester a 1 a Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical

More information

Model Checking. Temporal Logic. Fifth International Symposium in Programming, volume. of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proceedings of the

Model Checking. Temporal Logic. Fifth International Symposium in Programming, volume. of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proceedings of the Sérgio Campos, Edmund Why? Advantages: No proofs Fast Counter-examples No problem with partial specifications can easily express many concurrency properties Main Disadvantage: State Explosion Problem Too

More information

Efficient Model-Checking of Weighted CTL with Upper-Bound Constraints

Efficient Model-Checking of Weighted CTL with Upper-Bound Constraints Software Tools for Technology Transfer manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Efficient Model-Checking of Weighted CTL with Upper-Bound Constraints Jonas Finnemann Jensen, Kim Guldstrand Larsen,

More information

CTL Model checking. 1. finite number of processes, each having a finite number of finite-valued variables. Model-Checking

CTL Model checking. 1. finite number of processes, each having a finite number of finite-valued variables. Model-Checking CTL Model checking Assumptions:. finite number of processes, each having a finite number of finite-valued variables.. finite length of CTL formula Problem:Determine whether formula f 0 is true in a finite

More information

Automata theory. An algorithmic approach. Lecture Notes. Javier Esparza

Automata theory. An algorithmic approach. Lecture Notes. Javier Esparza Automata theory An algorithmic approach Lecture Notes Javier Esparza July 2 22 2 Chapter 9 Automata and Logic A regular expression can be seen as a set of instructions ( a recipe ) for generating the words

More information

Lecture Notes on Model Checking

Lecture Notes on Model Checking Lecture Notes on Model Checking 15-816: Modal Logic André Platzer Lecture 18 March 30, 2010 1 Introduction to This Lecture In this course, we have seen several modal logics and proof calculi to justify

More information

THEORY OF SYSTEMS MODELING AND ANALYSIS. Henny Sipma Stanford University. Master class Washington University at St Louis November 16, 2006

THEORY OF SYSTEMS MODELING AND ANALYSIS. Henny Sipma Stanford University. Master class Washington University at St Louis November 16, 2006 THEORY OF SYSTEMS MODELING AND ANALYSIS Henny Sipma Stanford University Master class Washington University at St Louis November 16, 2006 1 1 COURSE OUTLINE 8:37-10:00 Introduction -- Computational model

More information

arxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 22 Jul 2017

arxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 22 Jul 2017 Tableaux for Policy Synthesis for MDPs with PCTL* Constraints Peter Baumgartner, Sylvie Thiébaux, and Felipe Trevizan Data61/CSIRO and Research School of Computer Science, ANU, Australia Email: first.last@anu.edu.au

More information

Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs

Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs C. R. Ramakrishnan CSE 505 1 Syntax 2 Model Theory 3 Proof Theory and Resolution Compiled at 11:51 on 2016/11/02 Computing with Logic Propositional Logic CSE 505

More information

Introduction to Model Checking

Introduction to Model Checking Introduction to Model Checking Fabio Somenzi Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder July 25, 2009 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Modeling Systems and Properties

More information

A tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic

A tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic A tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic Davide Bresolin Angelo Montanari Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Udine {bresolin, montana}@dimi.uniud.it

More information

Automata-based Verification - III

Automata-based Verification - III COMP30172: Advanced Algorithms Automata-based Verification - III Howard Barringer Room KB2.20: email: howard.barringer@manchester.ac.uk March 2009 Third Topic Infinite Word Automata Motivation Büchi Automata

More information

Symmetry Reductions. A. Prasad Sistla University Of Illinois at Chicago

Symmetry Reductions. A. Prasad Sistla University Of Illinois at Chicago Symmetry Reductions. A. Prasad Sistla University Of Illinois at Chicago Model-Checking Concurrent PGM Temporal SPEC Model Checker Yes/No Counter Example Approach Build the global state graph Algorithm

More information

Chapter 3 Deterministic planning

Chapter 3 Deterministic planning Chapter 3 Deterministic planning In this chapter we describe a number of algorithms for solving the historically most important and most basic type of planning problem. Two rather strong simplifying assumptions

More information

Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science Research Reports 99

Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science Research Reports 99 Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science Research Reports 99 Teknillisen korkeakoulun tietojenkäsittelyteorian laboratorion tutkimusraportti 99 Espoo 2005 HUT-TCS-A99

More information

Notes. Corneliu Popeea. May 3, 2013

Notes. Corneliu Popeea. May 3, 2013 Notes Corneliu Popeea May 3, 2013 1 Propositional logic Syntax We rely on a set of atomic propositions, AP, containing atoms like p, q. A propositional logic formula φ Formula is then defined by the following

More information

CDS 270 (Fall 09) - Lecture Notes for Assignment 8.

CDS 270 (Fall 09) - Lecture Notes for Assignment 8. CDS 270 (Fall 09) - Lecture Notes for Assignment 8. ecause this part of the course has no slides or textbook, we will provide lecture supplements that include, hopefully, enough discussion to complete

More information

An Introduction to Temporal Logics

An Introduction to Temporal Logics An Introduction to Temporal Logics c 2001,2004 M. Lawford Outline Motivation: Dining Philosophers Safety, Liveness, Fairness & Justice Kripke structures, LTS, SELTS, and Paths Linear Temporal Logic Branching

More information

Alternating Time Temporal Logics*

Alternating Time Temporal Logics* Alternating Time Temporal Logics* Sophie Pinchinat Visiting Research Fellow at RSISE Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship * @article{alur2002, title={alternating-time Temporal Logic}, author={alur,

More information

PSPACE-completeness of LTL/CTL model checking

PSPACE-completeness of LTL/CTL model checking PSPACE-completeness of LTL/CTL model checking Peter Lohmann April 10, 2007 Abstract This paper will give a proof for the PSPACE-completeness of LTLsatisfiability and for the PSPACE-completeness of the

More information

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Probabilistic model checking System Probabilistic model e.g. Markov chain Result 0.5

More information

Reasoning about Memoryless Strategies under Partial Observability and Unconditional Fairness Constraints

Reasoning about Memoryless Strategies under Partial Observability and Unconditional Fairness Constraints Reasoning about Memoryless Strategies under Partial Observability and Unconditional Fairness Constraints Simon Busard a,1, Charles Pecheur a, Hongyang Qu b,2, Franco Raimondi c a ICTEAM Institute, Université

More information

Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations

Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations preprint Lauri Hella University of Tampere Antti Kuusisto University of Bremen Abstract This article investigates

More information

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies Valentin Stockholm University September 2016 Propositions Proposition:

More information

First-Order Logic First-Order Theories. Roopsha Samanta. Partly based on slides by Aaron Bradley and Isil Dillig

First-Order Logic First-Order Theories. Roopsha Samanta. Partly based on slides by Aaron Bradley and Isil Dillig First-Order Logic First-Order Theories Roopsha Samanta Partly based on slides by Aaron Bradley and Isil Dillig Roadmap Review: propositional logic Syntax and semantics of first-order logic (FOL) Semantic

More information

INTRODUCTION TO PREDICATE LOGIC HUTH AND RYAN 2.1, 2.2, 2.4

INTRODUCTION TO PREDICATE LOGIC HUTH AND RYAN 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 INTRODUCTION TO PREDICATE LOGIC HUTH AND RYAN 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 Neil D. Jones DIKU 2005 Some slides today new, some based on logic 2004 (Nils Andersen), some based on kernebegreber (NJ 2005) PREDICATE LOGIC:

More information

SFM-11:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 2011

SFM-11:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 2011 SFM-:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 20 EU-FP7: CONNECT LSCITS/PSS VERIWARE Part 3 Markov decision processes Overview Lectures and 2: Introduction 2 Discrete-time Markov chains 3 Markov decision

More information

Model Checking in the Propositional µ-calculus

Model Checking in the Propositional µ-calculus Model Checking in the Propositional µ-calculus Ka I Violet Pun INF 9140 - Specification and Verification of Parallel Systems 13 th May, 2011 Overview Model Checking is a useful means to automatically ascertain

More information

Finite-State Model Checking

Finite-State Model Checking EECS 219C: Computer-Aided Verification Intro. to Model Checking: Models and Properties Sanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley Finite-State Model Checking G(p X q) Temporal logic q p FSM Model Checker Yes,

More information

PSL Model Checking and Run-time Verification via Testers

PSL Model Checking and Run-time Verification via Testers PSL Model Checking and Run-time Verification via Testers Formal Methods 2006 Aleksandr Zaks and Amir Pnueli New York University Introduction Motivation (Why PSL?) A new property specification language,

More information