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

Transcription

1 Summary COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Slides by Alessandro Artale artale/ Some material (text, figures) displayed in these slides is courtesy of: M. Benerecetti, A. Cimatti, M. Fisher, F. Giunchiglia, M. Pistore, M. Roveri, R.Sebastiani. p. 1/35 p. 2/35 Computation Tree logic Vs. LTL LTL implicitly quantifies universally over paths. KM,s =! iff for every path " starting at s KM," =! Properties that assert the existence of a path cannot be expressed. In particular, properties which mix existential and universal path quantifiers cannot be expressed. The Computation Tree Logic, CTL, solves these problems! CTL explicitly introduces path quantifiers! CTL is the natural temporal logic interpreted over Branching Time Structures. CTL at a glance CTL is evaluated over branching-time structures (Trees). CTL explicitly introduces path quantifiers: All Paths: A Exists a Path: E. Every temporal operator (G), (F), (X), U (U) preceded by a path quantifier (A or E). Universal modalities: AF, AG, AX, AU The temporal formula is true in all the paths starting in the current state. Existential modalities: EF, EG, EX, EU The temporal formula is true in some path starting in the current state. p. 3/35 p. 4/35

2 Summary CTL: Syntax Countable set # of atomic propositions: p, q,... the set FORM of formulas is: $,% p $ $ % $ % AX$ AG$ AF$ $AU%) Intuition: EX$ EG$ EF$ $EU%) E A F there Exists a path in All paths sometime in the Future p. 5/35 G Globally in the future p. 6/35 CTL: Semantics We interpret our CTL temporal formulas over Kripke Models linearized as trees (e.g. AFdone).!done CTL: Semantics (Cont.) Let # be a set of atomic propositions. We interpret our CTL temporal formulas over Kripke Models:!done done KM = S,I,R,#,L!done done!done done done!done done done done The semantics of a temporal formula is provided by the satisfaction relation: Universal modalities (AF, AG, AX, AU): the temporal formula is true in all the paths starting in the current state. =: (KM S FORM) {true,false} Existential modalities (EF, EG, EX, EU): the temporal formula is true in some path starting in the current state. p. 7/35 p. 8/35

3 CTL Semantics: The Propositional Aspect We start by defining when an atomic proposition is true at a state/time s i KM, s i = p iff p L(s i ) (for p #) The semantics for the classical operators is as expected: KM, s i = $ iff KM, s i = $ KM, s i = $ % iff KM, s i = $ and KM, s i = % KM, s i = $ % iff KM, s i = $ or KM, s i = % KM, s i = $ % iff if KM, s i = $ then KM, s i = % KM, s i = KM, s i = CTL Semantics: Intuitions p. 9/35 CTL Semantics: The Temporal Aspect Temporal operators have the following semantics where "=(s i,s i+1,...) is a generic path outgoing from state s i inkm. KM,s i = AX$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) KM,s i+1 = $ KM,s i = EX$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) KM,s i+1 = $ KM,s i = AG$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = $ KM,s i = EG$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = $ KM,s i = AF$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = $ KM,s i = EF$ iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = $ KM,s i =($AU%) iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = % and i k < j : M,s k = $ KM,s i = $EU%) iff " =(s i,s i+1,...) j i.km,s j = % and CTL Semantics: Intuitions (Cont.) i k < j : KM,s k = $ p. 10/35 CTL is given by the standard boolean logic enhanced with temporal operators. Necessarily Next. AX$ is true in s t iff $ is true in every successor state s t+1 Possibly Next. EX$ is true in s t iff $ is true in one successor state s t+1 Necessarily in the future (or Inevitably ). AF$ is true in s t iff $ is inevitably true in some s t with t t Possibly in the future (or Possibly ). EF$ is true in s t iff $ may be true in some s t with t t Globally (or always ). AG$ is true in s t iff $ is true in all s t with t t Possibly henceforth. EG$ is true in s t iff $ is possibly true henceforth Necessarily Until. ($AU%) is true in s t iff necessarily $ holds until % holds. Possibly Until. ($EU%) is true in s t iff possibly $ holds until % holds. p. 11/35 p. 12/35

4 CTL Semantics: Intuitions (Cont.) A Complete Set of CTL Operators finally P globally P next P P until q AFP AGP AXP A[ P U q ] All CTL operators can be expressed via: EX,EG,EU AX$ EX $ AF$ EG $ EF$ ( EU$) AG$ EF $ ( EU $) ($AU%) EG % ( %EU( $ %)) EFP EGP EXP E[ P U q ] p. 13/35 p. 14/35 Summary Safety Properties Safety: something bad will not happen Typical examples: AG (reactor_temp > 1000) AG (one_way AXother_way) AG ((x = 0) AXAXAX(y = z/x)) and so on... Usually: AG... p. 15/35 p. 16/35

5 Liveness Properties Fairness Properties Liveness: something good will happen Typical examples: AFrich AF(x > 5) AG(start AFterminate) and so on... Usually: AF... Often only really useful when scheduling processes, responding to messages, etc. Fairness: something is successful/allocated infinitely often Typical example: AG(AFenabled) Usually: AGAF... p. 17/35 p. 18/35 Summary The CTL Model Checking Problem The CTL Model Checking Problem is formulated as: KM =! Check if KM,s 0 =!, for every initial state, s 0, of the Kripke structure KM. p. 19/35 p. 20/35

6 Example 1: Mutual Exclusion (Safety) Example 1: Mutual Exclusion (Safety) KM = AG (C 1 C 2 )? KM = AG (C 1 C 2 )? YES: There is no reachable state in which (C 1 C 2 ) holds! (Same as the (C 1 C 2 ) in LTL.) p. 21/35 p. 21/35 Example 2: Liveness Example 2: Liveness KM = AG(T 1 AFC 1 )? KM = AG(T 1 AFC 1 )? YES: every path starting from each state where T 1 holds passes through a state where C 1 holds. (Same as (T 1 C 1 ) in LTL) p. 22/35 p. 22/35

7 Example 3: Fairness Example 3: Fairness KM = AGAFC 1? KM = AGAFC 1? NO: e.g., in the initial state, there is the blue cyclic path in which C 1 never holds! (Same as C 1 in LTL) p. 23/35 p. 23/35 Example 4: Non-Blocking Example 4: Non-Blocking KM = AG(N 1 EFT 1 )? KM = AG(N 1 EFT 1 )? YES: from each state where N 1 holds there is a path leading to a state where T 1 holds. (No corresponding LTL formulas) p. 24/35 p. 24/35

8 Summary LTL Vs. CTL: Expressiveness Many CTL formulas cannot be expressed in LTL (e.g., those containing paths quantified existentially) E.g., AG(N 1 EFT 1 ) Many LTL formulas cannot be expressed in CTL E.g., T 1 C 1 (Strong Fairness in LTL) i.e, formulas that select a range of paths with a property ( p q Vs. AG(p AFq)) Some formluas can be expressed both in LTL and in CTL (typically LTL formulas with operators of nesting depth 1) E.g., (C 1 C 2 ), C 1, (T 1 C 1 ), C 1 p. 25/35 p. 26/35 LTL Vs. CTL: Expressiveness (Cont.) Summary CTL and LTL have incomparable expressive power. The choice between LTL and CTL depends on the application and the personal preferences. LTL CTL p. 27/35 p. 28/35

9 The Computation Tree Logic CTL* CTL*: Syntax CTL* is a logic that combines the expressive power of LTL and CTL. Temporal operators can be applied without any constraints. A(X$ XX$). Along all paths, $ is true in the next state or the next two steps. E(GF$). There is a path along which $ is infinitely often true. Countable set # of atomic propositions: p, q,... we distinguish between States Formulas (evaluated on states): $,% p $ $ % $ % A& E& and Path Formulas (evaluated on paths): &,' $ & & ' & ' X& G& F& (&U') The set of CTL* formulas FORM is the set of state formulas. p. 29/35 p. 30/35 CTL* Semantics: State Formulas We start by defining when an atomic proposition is true at a state s 0 KM, s 0 = p iff p L(s 0 ) (for p #) The semantics for State Formulas is the following where " =(s 0,s 1,...) is a generic path outgoing from state s 0 : KM, s 0 = $ iff KM, s 0 = $ KM, s 0 = $ % iff KM, s 0 = $ and KM, s 0 = % KM, s 0 = $ % iff KM, s 0 = $ or KM, s 0 = % KM, s 0 = E& iff " =(s 0,s 1,...)such that KM," = & KM, s 0 = A& iff " =(s 0,s 1,...)then KM," = & CTL* Semantics: Path Formulas The semantics for Path Formulas is the following where " =(s 0,s 1,...) is a generic path outgoing from state s 0 and " i denotes the suffix path (s i,s i+1,...): KM, " = $ iff KM, s 0 = $ KM, " = & iff KM, " = & KM, " = & ' iff KM, " = & and KM, " = ' KM, " = & ' iff KM, " = & or KM, " = ' KM, " = F& iff i 0such that KM," i = & KM, " = G& iff i 0then KM," i = & KM, " = X& iff KM," 1 = & KM, " = &U' iff i 0such that KM," i = ' and j.(0 j i) then KM," j = & p. 31/35 p. 32/35

10 CTLs Vs LTL Vs CTL: Expressiveness CTL* subsumes both CTL and LTL $ in CTL = $ in CTL* (e.g., AG(N 1 EFT 1 )) $ in LTL = A$ in CTL* (e.g., A(GFT 1 GFC 1 )) LTL CTL CTL* (e.g., E(GFp GFq)) CTL* Vs LTL Vs CTL: Complexity The following Table shows the Computational Complexity of checking Satisbiability Logic Complexity LTL CTL* CTL LTL CTL CTL* PSpace-Complete ExpTime-Complete 2ExpTime-Complete p. 33/35 p. 34/35 CTL* Vs LTL Vs CTL: Complexity (Cont.) The following Table shows the Computational Complexity of Model Checking (M.C.) Since M.C. has 2 inputs the model, M, and the formula, $ we give two complexity measures. Logic Complexity w.r.t. $ Complexity w.r.t. M LTL PSpace-Complete P (linear) CTL P-Complete P (linear) CTL* PSpace-Complete P (linear) p. 35/35