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 alternatingtime 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 A preliminary version of this article appeared in the 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.

Temporal logic comes in two varieties: linear-time temporal logic assumes implicit universal quantification over d l 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: 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 ''eventudly'' 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 model-checking problems for alternatingtime formulas.Depending on whether we admit arbitrary nesting of selective path quantifiers and temporal operators, we obtain the two alternating-time temporal logics ATL and ATL*. We interpret the formulas of ATL and ATL* with respect to two models of composition for open systems, synchronous and asynchronous. For synchronous systems, the expressive power of ATL beyond CTL comes at no cost: the model-checking complexity of synchronous ATL is linear in the size of the system and the length of the formula. The symbolic model-checking algorithm for CTL extends with few modifications to synchronous ATL, and with some work, also to asynchronous ATL, whose modelchecking complexity is quadratic. This makes ATL an obvious candidate for the automatic verification of open systems. 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 for both synchronous and asynchronous systems.'

Of special interest in formal verification are safety properties, which assert that the system always stays within some allowed region. A computation that violates a general linear property reaches a bad cycle, which witnesses the violation of the property. Accordingly, current methods and tools for model checking of linear properties are based on a search for bad cycles. A symbolic implementation of such a search involves the calculation of a nested fixed-point expression over the system's state space, and is often very difficult. Every computation that violates a safety property has a finite prefix along which the property is violated. We use this fact in order to base model checking of safety properties on a search for finite bad prefixes. Such a search can be performed using a simple forward or backward symbolic reachability check. A naive methodology that is based on such a search involves a construction of an automaton (or a tableau) that is doubly exponential in the property. We present an analysis of safety properties that enables us to prevent the doubly-exponential blow up and to use the same automaton used for model checking of general properties, replacing the search for bad cycles by a search for bad prefixes.

Abstract.Alternating transition systems are a general model for composite systems which allow the study of collaborative as well as adversarial relationships between individual system components. Unlike in labeled transition systems, where each transition corresponds to a possible step of the system (which may involve some or all components), in alternating transition systems, each transition corresponds to a possible move in a game between the components. In this paper, we study refinement relations between alternating transition systems, such as "Does the implementation refine the set £ of specification components without constraining the components not in £ ?" In particular, we generalize the definitions of the simulation and trace containment preorders from labeled transition systems to alternating transition systems. The generalizations are called alternating simulation and alternating trace containment. Unlike existing refinement relations, they allow the refinement of individual components within the context of a composite system description. We show that, like ordinary simulation, alternating simulation can be checked in polynomial time using a fixpoint computation algorithm. While ordinary trace containment is PSPACE-complete, we establish alternating trace containment to be EXPTIME-complete. Finally, we present logical characterizations for the two preorders in terms of ATL, a temporal logic capable of referring to games between system components.

Translating linear temporal logic formulas to automata has proven to be an effective approach for implementing linear-time model-checking, and for obtaining many extensions and improvements to this verification method. On the other hand, for branching temporal logic, automata-theoretic techniques have long been thought to introduce an exponential penalty, making them essentially useless for model-checking. Recently, Bernholtz and Grumberg [1993] have shown that this exponential penalty can be avoided, though they did not match the linear complexity of non-automata-theoretic algorithms. In this paper, we show that alternating tree automata are the key to a comprehensive automata-theoretic framework for branching temporal logics. Not only can they be used to obtain optimal decision procedures, as was shown by Muller et al., but, as we show here, they also make it possible to derive optimal model-checking algorithms. Moreover, the simple combinatorial structure that emerges from the automata-theoretic approach opens up new possibilities for the implementation of branching-time model checking and has enabled us to derive improved space complexity bounds for this long-standing problem.

Temporal logic comes in two varieties: linear-time temporal logic assumes implicit universal quantification over all paths that are generated by system moves; 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, alternative-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. Also, the problems of receptiveness, realizability, and controllability can be formulated as model-checking problems for alternating-time formulas. Depending on whether we admit arbitrary nesting of selective path quantifiers and temporal operators, we obtain the two alternating-time temporal logics ATL and ATL*. We interpret the formulas of ATL and ATL* over alternating transition systems. While in ordinary transitory systems, each transition corresponds to a possible step of the system, in alternating transition systems, each transition corresponds to a possible move in the game between the system and the environment. Fair alternating transition systems can capture both synchronous and asynchronous compositions f open systems. For synchronous systems, the expressive power of ATL beyond CTL comes at no cost: the model-checking complexity of synchronous ATL is linear in the size of the system and the length of the formula. The symbolic modelchecking algorithm for CTL extends with few modifications to synchronous ATL, and with some work, also to asynchronous to ATL, whose model-checking complexity is quadratic. This makes ATL an obvious candidate for the automatic verification of open systems. 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 for both synchronous and asynchronous systems.

No abstract

We consider concurrent two-player games with reachability objectives. In such games, at each round, player 1 and player 2 independently and simultaneously choose moves, and the two choices determine the next state of the game. The objective of player 1 is to reach a set of target states; the objective of player 2 is to prevent this. These are zero-sum games, and the reachability objective is one of the most basic objectives: determining the set of states from which player 1 can win the game is a fundamental problem in control theory and system verification. There are three types of winning states, according to the degree of certainty with which player 1 can reach the target. From type-1 states, player 1 has a deterministic strategy to always reach the target. From type-2 states, player 1 has a randomized strategy to reach the target with probability 1. From type-3 states, player 1 has for every real ε > 0 a randomized strategy to reach the target with probability greater than 1 − ε. We show that for finite state spaces, all three sets of winning states can be computed in polynomial time: type-1 states in linear time, and type-2 and type-3 states in quadratic time. The algorithms to compute the three sets of winning states also enable the construction of the winning and spoiling strategies.