Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
article

Alternating-time temporal logic

Published: 01 September 2002 Publication History

Abstract

Temporal logic comes in two varieties: linear-time temporal logic assumes implicit universal quantification over all paths that are generated by the execution of a system; branching-time temporal logic allows explicit existential and universal quantification over all paths. We introduce a third, more general variety of temporal logic: alternating-time 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 linear-time and branching-time logics are natural specification languages for closed systems, alternating-time 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. The problems of receptiveness, realizability, and controllability can be formulated as model-checking problems for alternating-time formulas. Depending on whether or not we admit arbitrary nesting of selective path quantifiers and temporal operators, we obtain the two alternating-time temporal logics ATL and ATL*.ATL and ATL* are interpreted over concurrent game structures. Every state transition of a concurrent game structure results from a choice of moves, one for each player. The players represent individual components and the environment of an open system. Concurrent game structures can capture various forms of synchronous composition for open systems, and if augmented with fairness constraints, also asynchronous composition. Over structures without fairness constraints, the model-checking complexity of ATL is linear in the size of the game structure and length of the formula, and the symbolic model-checking algorithm for CTL extends with few modifications to ATL. Over structures with weak-fairness constraints, ATL model checking requires the solution of 1-pair Rabin games, and can be done in polynomial time. Over structures with strong-fairness constraints, ATL model checking requires the solution of games with Boolean combinations of Büchi conditions, and can be done in PSPACE. In the case of ATL*, the model-checking problem is closely related to the synthesis problem for linear-time formulas, and requires doubly exponential time.

References

[1]
Abadi, M., and Lamport, L. 1995. Conjoining specifications. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst. 17, 3, 507--534.]]
[2]
Abadi, M., Lamport, L., and Wolper, P. 1989. Realizable and unrealizable concurrent program specifications. In Proc. 16th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 372. Springer-Verlag, 1--17.]]
[3]
Alur, R., de Alfaro, L., Grosu, R., Henzinger, T. A., Kang, M., Kirsch, C. M., Majumdar, R., Mang, F. Y. C., and Wang, B. Y. 2001. jMocha: A model-checking tool that exploits design structure. In Proc. 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, 835--836.]]
[4]
Alur, R., and Henzinger, T. A. 1999. Reactive modules. In Formal Methods in System Design 15, 1, 7--48.]]
[5]
Alur, R., Henzinger, T. A., Mang, F. Y. C., Qadeer, S. K., Rajamani, S. K., and Tasiran, S. 1998. Mocha: Modularity in model checking. In Proc. 10th International Conference, Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1427. Springer-Verlag, 521--525.]]
[6]
Alur, R., La Torre, S., and Madhusudan, P. 2002. Playing games with boxes and diamonds. Tech. Rep., Univ. Pennsylvania.]]
[7]
Beeri, C. 1980. On the membership problem for functional and multivalued dependencies in relational databases. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 5, 241--259.]]
[8]
Bryant, R. E. 1992. Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Comput. Surv. 24, 3, 293--318.]]
[9]
Büchi, J. R. and Landweber, L. H. 1969. Solving sequential conditions by finite-state strategies. Trans. AMS 138, 295--311.]]
[10]
Burch, J. R., Clarke, E. M., McMillan, K. L., Dill, D. L., and Hwang, L. J. 1992. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In Inf. Comput. 98, 2, 142--170.]]
[11]
Chandra, A. K., Kozen, D. C., and Stockmeyer, L. J. 1981. Alternation. J. ACM 28, 1, 114--133.]]
[12]
Clarke, E. M., and Emerson, E. A. 1981. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In Proc. Workshop on Logic of Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 131. Springer-Verlag, 52--71.]]
[13]
Clarke, E. M., Emerson, E. A., and Sistla, A. P. 1986. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. 8, 2, 244--263.]]
[14]
Cleaveland, R., and Steffen, B. 1991. A linear-time model-checking algorithm for the alternation-free modal μ-calculus. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 575. Springer-Verlag, 48--58.]]
[15]
Dam, M. 1994. CTL* and ECTL* as fragments of the modal μ-calculus. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 126, 77--96.]]
[16]
de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T. A., and Majumdar, R. 2001a. From verification to control: Dynamic programs for omega-regular objectives. In Proc. 16th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 279--299.]]
[17]
de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T. A., and Mang, F. Y. C. 2000. The control of synchronous systems. In Proc. 11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1877. Springer-Verlag, 458--473.]]
[18]
de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T. A., and Mang, F. Y. C. 2001b. The control of synchronous systems, Part II. In Proc. 12th International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2154. Springer-Verlag, 566--580.]]
[19]
Dill, D. L. 1989. Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-Independent Circuits. MIT Press.]]
[20]
Emerson, E. A. 1990. Temporal and modal logic. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B. J. van Leeuwen, Ed. Elsevier, 997--1072.]]
[21]
Emerson, E. A., and Halpern, J. Y. 1986. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. J. ACM 33, 1, 151--178.]]
[22]
Emerson, E. A., and Jutla, C. 1988. The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In Proc. 29th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 328--337.]]
[23]
Emerson, E. A., and Lei, C.-L. 1985. Modalities for model checking: Branching-time logic strikes back. In Proc. 20th Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, 84--96.]]
[24]
Emerson, E. A., and Lei, C.-L. 1986. Efficient model checking in fragments of the propositional μ-calculus. In Proc. 1st Symp. on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 267--278.]]
[25]
Emerson, E. A., and Sistla, A. P. 1984. Deciding branching-time logic. In Proc. 16th Symp. on Theory of Computing. ACM Press, 14--24.]]
[26]
Etessami, K., Wilke, T., and Schuller, R. A. 2001. Fair simulation relations, parity games, and state space reduction for Büchi automata. In Proc. 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2076. Springer-Verlag, 694--707.]]
[27]
Fischer, M. J., and Ladner, R. E. 1979. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18, 194--211.]]
[28]
Gawlick, R., Segala, R., Sogaard-Andersen, J., and Lynch, N. A. 1994. Liveness in timed and untimed systems. In Proc. 21st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 820. Springer-Verlag, 166--177.]]
[29]
Gurevich, Y., and Harrington, L. 1982. Trees, automata, and games. In Proc. 14th Symp. on Theory of Computing. ACM Press, 60--65.]]
[30]
Halpern, J. Y. and Fagin, R. 1989. Modeling knowledge and action in distributed systems. Distrib. Comput. 3, 4, 159--179.]]
[31]
Hoare, C. A. R. 1985. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall.]]
[32]
Holzmann, G. J. 1997. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23, 5, 279--295.]]
[33]
Immerman, N. 1981. Number of quantifiers is better than number of tape cells. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 22, 3, 384--406.]]
[34]
Jurdzinski, M. 2000. Small progress measures for solving parity games. In Proc. 17th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1770. Springer-Verlag, 290--301.]]
[35]
Kozen, D. 1983. Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 27, 333--354.]]
[36]
Kupferman, O., and Vardi, M. Y. 1995. On the complexity of branching modular model checking. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 962. Springer-Verlag, 408--422.]]
[37]
Kupferman, O. and Vardi, M. Y. 1998. Verification of fair transition systems. Chicago J. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 1998, 2.]]
[38]
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M. Y., and Wolper, P. 2000. An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J. ACM 47, 2, 312--360.]]
[39]
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M. Y., and Wolper, P. 2001. Module checking. Inf. Comput. 164, 322--344.]]
[40]
Lichtenstein, O., and Pnueli, A. 1985. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proc. 12th Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, 97--107.]]
[41]
Lynch, N. A. 1996. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan-Kaufmann.]]
[42]
McMillan, K. L. 1993. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers.]]
[43]
Parikh, R. 1983. Propositional game logic. In Proc. 24th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 195--200.]]
[44]
Peterson, G. L., and Reif, J. H. 1979. Multiple-person alternation. In Proc. 20st Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 348--363.]]
[45]
Pnueli, A. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. 18th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 46--57.]]
[46]
Pnueli, A., and Rosner, R. 1989a. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Proc. 16th Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, 179--190.]]
[47]
Pnueli, A., and Rosner, R. 1989b. On the synthesis of an asynchronous reactive module. In Proc. 16th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 372. Springer-Verlag, 652--671.]]
[48]
Pnueli, A., and Rosner, R. 1990. Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In Proc. 31st Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 746--757.]]
[49]
Queille, J. P., and Sifakis, J. 1981. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in Cesar. In Proc. 5th International Symp. on Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 137. Springer-Verlag, 337--351.]]
[50]
Rabin, M. O. 1972. Automata on Infinite Objects and Church's Problem. Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 13., AMS.]]
[51]
Ramadge, P., and Wonham, W. 1989. The control of discrete event systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Theory 77, 81--98.]]
[52]
Reif, J. H. 1984. The complexity of two-player games of incomplete information. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 29, 274--301.]]
[53]
Rosner, R. 1992. Modular synthesis of reactive systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.]]
[54]
Shapley, L. S. 1953. Stochastic games. In Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 39, 1095--1100.]]
[55]
Thomas, W. 1990. Automata on infinite objects. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, J. van Leeuwen, Ed. Elsevier, 165--191.]]
[56]
Thomas, W. 1995. On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In Proc. 12th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 900. Springer-Verlag, 1--13.]]

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Priority Promotion with Parysian flairJournal of Computer and System Sciences10.1016/j.jcss.2024.103580147(103580)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2025)Reasoning about group responsibility for exceeding risk threshold in one-shot gamesInformation and Computation10.1016/j.ic.2024.105257303(105257)Online publication date: Mar-2025
  • (2025)Formal verification and synthesis of mechanisms for social choiceArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2024.104272339(104272)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Alternating-time temporal logic

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Journal of the ACM
      Journal of the ACM  Volume 49, Issue 5
      September 2002
      137 pages
      ISSN:0004-5411
      EISSN:1557-735X
      DOI:10.1145/585265
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 01 September 2002
      Published in JACM Volume 49, Issue 5

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Alternation
      2. games
      3. model checking
      4. temporaxl logic

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)182
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28
      Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2025)Priority Promotion with Parysian flairJournal of Computer and System Sciences10.1016/j.jcss.2024.103580147(103580)Online publication date: Feb-2025
      • (2025)Reasoning about group responsibility for exceeding risk threshold in one-shot gamesInformation and Computation10.1016/j.ic.2024.105257303(105257)Online publication date: Mar-2025
      • (2025)Formal verification and synthesis of mechanisms for social choiceArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2024.104272339(104272)Online publication date: Feb-2025
      • (2025)Ability and knowledge: from epistemic transition systems to labelled stit modelsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-024-09661-w39:1Online publication date: 1-Jun-2025
      • (2024)SMT4SMTL: A Tool for SMT-Based Satisfiability Checking of SMTLProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663297(2815-2817)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • (2024)STV+KH: Towards Practical Verification of Strategic Ability for Knowledge and Information FlowProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663296(2812-2814)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • (2024)Synthesizing Social Laws with ATL ConditionsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663130(2270-2272)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • (2024)Actual Trust in Multiagent SystemsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663078(2114-2116)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • (2024)Playing Quantitative Games Against an Authority: On the Module Checking ProblemProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662947(926-934)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • (2024)Dynamic Epistemic Logic of Resource Bounded Information Mining AgentsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662898(481-489)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      Full Access

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media