Citations: Sometimes and not never revisited: on branching versus linear time

53 citations found. Retrieving documents...

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151--178, 1986.

Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary ACM TOC Related Articles Check

This paper is cited in the following contexts:

First 50 documents Next 50

From Trace Sets to Modal-Transition Systems by Stepwise Abstract.. - Schmidt (2001) (1 citation) (Correct)

....that might be taken from each state in a system. The standard formulations of linear time logic (LTL [16,37] and branchingtime logic (CTL [6,16] are often presented as incomparable, because of theoretical results that assert that the two logics are incomparable in terms of expressivity [3,17,27]. Indeed, in a landmark paper, Lamport presented lineartime logic and branching time logic as competing semantical interpretations of the same temporal logic notation [27] Although these insights are valuable, they have suggested that the linear time and branching time approaches are ....

A. Emerson and J. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: on branching versus linear time. J. ACM, 33:151--178, 1986. 51

Weak Muller Acceptance Conditions for Tree Automata - Torre, Murano, Napoli (2002) (Correct)

....are intrinsically nondeterministic and nonterminating. Moreover, by using trees we can express the existential path quanti er, and thus we are able to express lower bounds on nondeterminism and concurrency. This feature turns out to be greatly helpful in applications such as program synthesis [3, 4]. In the literature, several acceptance conditions on in nite words have been fruitfully extended to in nite trees, such as B uchi, Muller, and Rabin conditions. The kind of acceptance condition we choose usually in uences both the succinctness of the model and the complexity of the decision ....

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151 - 178, 1986.

Advances in Finite Automata and Temporal Logic for System.. - Torre (1999) (Correct)

....the nondeterminism and concurrency. These lower bounds are helpful in applications such as program synthesis. Furthermore, to distinguish between the inevitability and the possibility of a predicate becomes possible, and, then, the closure under semantic negation of the logic is ensured. See also [BVW94, CE81, CVW86, EH86]. Traditional temporal logics allow to consider time only from a qualitative point of view. Therefore, we can not correctly capture the behaviour of real time systems that interact with physical processes and whose correct running crucially depends upon real time considerations. Actually, in ....

....timed tree automata while it is decidable for the deterministic ones. The aim of chapter 3 is to introduce the reader to propositional Temporal Logic. Both linear and branching propositional temporal logic will be considered. In particular, we define L L [Pnu77] C L [CE81] and C [EH86]. We will recall the main results about the study of the expressiveness of these logics. Then, we will introduce the satisfiability and the model checking problems. More details will be given on the complexity results and the tableau construction method. In chapter 4 we introduce a new ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151-178, 1986.

On Axiomatizations for Propositional Logics of Programs - Knijnenburg (1988) (1 citation) (Correct)

....basicly the logics are incomparable, that is, there exist sentences which are valid in one logic but not in the other. With an appropriate comparison condition, he proved that linear time logic is more expressive than branching time logic and concluded that we only need the former. Emerson et al. [4] later refuted his argument by showing that Lamport had used two, too restrictive kinds of logic and that his result on more expressiveness of linear time logic does not hold in more general logics. They conclude that, although linear time logic may be more suitable to verify preexisting programs, ....

Emerson, E.A. and J.Y. Halpern, "'Sometime' and 'Not Never' Revisited: On Branching versus Linear Tune Temporal Logic", J. ACM 33 1 (1986), 151-178.

On Bounded Specifications - Kupferman, Vardi (2002) (Correct)

....of length k only (We call such formalisms bounded formalisms. What would be the blow up of such a translation Also, sometime we want to verify branching temporal properties (that is, properties that describe the whole computation tree of a system, and not its individual computations) Lam80,EH86] Can we extend the results from the linear framework to the branching one So, the enhanced goal of this research has become the study of clopen regular linear and branching properties. We start with the linear framework. We first show that The definition of safety we consider here is given ....

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. JACM, 33(1):151--178, 1986.

Parametrized Evaluation Of Temporal Logic Formulae - Haddad, Vernier (1993) (Correct)

....parallel programs, model checking, parametrized state graphs. 1 INTRODUCTION In the area of parallel programs verification, temporal logic has achieved a quick success. This success is related to different factors: simple temporal formulae express the usual properties of parallel programs [EH83], the properties of finite state program are checked by efficient inspection of the reachability graph [Clarke86] Emerson89] Lichtenstein85] and a specification given by a set of formulae leads to the development of a program [Emerson90] However parallel algorithms usually involve a finite but ....

E.A. Emerson, J.Y. Halpern, 'Sometimes' and 'Not Never' Revisited: On Branching versus Linear Time, POPL83.

Efficient Detection of Vacuity in Temporal Model Checking - Beer, Ben-David, Eisner.. (2001) (5 citations) (Correct)

....witness and show how to generate interesting witnesses using a model checker. In Section 5 we provide a practical solution for a useful subset of ACTL. In Section 6 we compare our work with a previous version of our theory, and with related work. In Section 7 we conclude. 2 Preliminaries CTL [EH86] is a logic with the following syntax: 1. Every atomic proposition is a formula. 2. If f and g are formulas, then so are :f and f g. 3. If f is a formula, then Ef is also a formula. 4. If f and g are formulas, then fUg and Xf are also formulas. Additional operators can be viewed as ....

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern, "'Sometimes' and 'Not Never' Revisited: On Branching versus Linear Time Temporal Logic", Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 1986, pp. 151-178.

The Temporal Logic Sugar - Beer, Ben-David, Eisner, Fisman.. (2001) (14 citations) (Correct)

....cation of computer programs [12] Since then, the usability of temporal logic by nonlogicians has been an issue, because a dicult to use formalism is a barrier to the wide adoption of formal methods. While the discussion has usually centered on the relative merits of branching versus linear time [10, 7, 14], we believe that the the issue is more complicated. We have addressed one aspect of usability in [3, 4] in which we presented a method to provide feedback in the case of a valid formula. In this paper, we address another usability aspect, the diculty of coding complicated properties in temporal ....

E. Emerson and J. Halpern. 'sometimes' and 'not never' revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151-178, January 1986.

Synthesizing Distributed Systems - Kupferman, Vardi (2001) (6 citations) (Correct)

.... exclusion, we cannot specify deadlock freedom (every nite interaction can be extended so that a philosopher eventually eats) In order to express possibility properties, we should specify the system using branching temporal logic, which enables both universal and existential path quanti cation [EH86, Eme90]. Second, and more crucially, the algorithm in [PR90] is not applicable for architectures that are not hierarchical, and real life designs are rarely based on hierarchical architectures. We do not count the nonelementary complexity as a limitation, as it is accompanied by a matching lower bound ....

E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151{ 178, 1986.

Verification of Open Systems - Orna Kupferman Hebrew (Correct)