E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronous skeleton. Science of Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....temporal logic can be translated to the rst order theory of one successor and hence to in nite word automata. From a logician s point of view, this could be seen as settling the question, but an interest in using temporal logic for computer science applications, in particular program synthesis [MW84,EC82] triggered a second look at the problem. Indeed, it was rather obvious that a nonelementary construction was not necessary to build an automaton from a temporal logic formula; it could be done within a single exponential by a direct construction [WVS83,VW94] As originally presented, this This ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241-266, 1982.

....[37] In linear temporal logic (LTL) introduced to the veri cation setting by Pnueli [50] any given point in time has only one future, while branching time logics [37] allows several possible futures. The perhaps most known branching time logic is computation tree logic (CTL) introduced in [15]. There has been a two decade long debate, albeit currently not so intense, among researchers in the concurrency community which paradigm, the branching or the linear, is superior in reasoning about concurrency. To the author s knowledge, the most recent contribution to this debate is [64] In ....

A.E. Emerson and Clarke E.M. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241-266, 1982.

....temporal logic is a good candidate for expressing specifications to verify execution trace data, since it can specify properties of event and state sequences. However, traditional linear time temporal logic, such as PTL [Gabbay 1980] and ITL [Moszkowski 1986] or branching time logic, such as CTL [Emerson 1982], cannot specify the quantitative aspect of time. These logics deal with concepts of eventuality, fairness, etc. which are basically qualitative treatments of time. While we can use such logics for specifications such as Every stimulus p is followed by a reaction q ( p 0q) it is not ....

A. E. Emerson and E. M. Clarke, Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization

....Introduction In system synthesis, we transform a speci cation into a system that is guaranteed to satisfy the speci cation. Early work on synthesis consider closed systems. There, a system that meets the speci cation can be extracted from a constructive proof that the speci cation is satis able [MW80, EC82]. As argued in [ALW89, Dil89, PR89a] such synthesis paradigms are not of much interest when applied to open systems, which interact with an environment. While synthesis that is based on satis ability assumes no environment or a cooperative one, synthesis of open systems should assume a hostile ....

....dining philosophers that refers to a single process is not of much interest. There are two possible ways to approach the synthesis problem for distributed systems. One approach is to use a synthesis procedure for a single process, and then decompose the process according to the given architecture [EC82, MW84]. While this approach has a computational advantage, known decomposition algorithms are not complete in the sense that a speci cation may be realizable with respect to a given architecture yet the decomposition algorithm would fail [PR90] Thus, one can view decomposition as a heuristic for the ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241-266, 1982.

....of the system from the perspective of another part. But, their application presupposes such a decomposition. Thus, the global logics seem more appropriate do define a system. Given a temporal logic specification one can use tableau method to derive the corresponding synchronization skeleton, cf. [6,9], i.e. a transition system that realizes the specification. Thus, we can safely assume that the reactive system is already given in the form of a transition system S = #S, s, #, T #. Now, the task is to find as concurrent a realization as possible. Luckily, there is a way to turn S into ....

E. A. Emerson and E. M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronizations skeletons. Science of Computer Programming , vol. 2: pp. 241-- 266, 1982.

....checking for CTL is PSPACE complete. 2 The main reason that CTL is not broadly applied is the high complexity of checking satisfiability and performing model checking. There are, however, many logics between CTL and CTL (which were not mentioned here) like CTL [11] ECTL and ECTL [10], 7] and FCTL [14] which extend expressiveness of CTL, but have still less complicated algorithms of testing satisfiablity and of model checking than CTL . It should also be mentioned that there are branching time logics with syntax like CTL or CTL , the formulas of which are interpreted over ....

E. A. Emerson, E. M. Clarke (1982): Using Branching Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronization Skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, vol. 2, pp. 241-266.

....of such techniques are synthesis methods which produce, in a systematic, algorithmic way, a program ###(S) for every specification S in such a way that ###(S) sat S. Well known examples are the synthesis of communicating processes and synchronisation skeletons from temporal logic specifications (Emerson and Clarke, 1982, Manna and Wolper, 1984) To have serious impact in today s software development environment, the methods addressing the calculation synthesis of individual program units must be extended or supplemented to encompass multicomponent (and even hybrid) systems. Our aim in this paper is to ....

....the ability to synthesise any specification is itself, in intuitive terms, a very strong property. In the literature, examples of synthesis from temporal logic specifications can be found, both from propositional linear temporal logic as above (Manna and Wolper, 1984) and from branching time logic (Emerson and Clarke, 1982). These approaches synthesise finite state automata, which are easily implemented as COMMUNITY programs as illustrated in section 3.1. Difficulties are certain to arise in attempting to generalise these methods to the systems view. On the one hand, the functor #### as defined in section 2.3 does ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Emerson, E. and Clarke, E. (1982), Using Branching Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronisation Skeletons. Science of Computer Programming 2, 241-266.

....logic can be translated to the first order theory of one successor and hence to infinite word automata. From a logician s point of view, this could be seen as settling the question, but an interest in using temporal logic for computer science applications, in particular program synthesis [MW84, EC82] triggered a second look at the problem. Indeed, it was quite obvious that a nonelementary construction was not necessary to build an automaton from a temporal logic formula; it could be done within a single exponential by a direct construction [WVS83, VW94] As originally presented, this ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

....In system synthesis, we transform a specification into a system that is guaranteed to satisfy the specification. Earlier work on synthesis considers closed systems. There, a system that meets the specification can be extracted from a constructive proof that the specification is satisfiable [MW80, EC82] As argued in [Dil89, PR89, ALW89] such synthesis paradigms are not of much interest when applied to open systems. For open systems, we should distinguish between output signals (generated by the synthesized system) over which we have control, and input signals (generated by the environment) ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

....of such techniques are synthesis methods which produce, in a systematic, algorithmic way, a program Syn(S) for every specification S in such a way that Syn(S) sat S. Well known examples are the synthesis of communicating processes and synchronisation skeletons from temporal logic specifications (Emerson and Clarke, 1982, Manna and Wolper, 1984) To have serious impact in today s software development environment, the methods addressing the calculation synthesis of individual program units must be extended or supplemented to encompass multicomponent (and even hybrid) systems. Our aim in this paper is to ....

....the ability to synthesise any specification is itself, in intuitive terms, a very strong property. In the literature, examples of synthesis from temporal logic specifications can be found, both from propositional linear temporal logic as above (Manna and Wolper, 1984) and from branching time logic (Emerson and Clarke, 1982). These approaches synthesise finite state automata, which are easily implemented as COMMUNITY programs as illustrated in section 3.1. Difficulties are certain to arise in attempting to generalise these methods to the systems view. On the one hand, the functor Spec as defined in section 2.3 does ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Emerson, E. and Clarke, E. (1982), Using Branching Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronisation Skeletons. Science of Computer Programming 2, 241-266.

....Instead, a temporal logic specification describes the global properties of the system as it evolves in time. However, given a temporal logic specification one can use tableau method to derive the corresponding synchronization skeleton, i.e. a transition system that realizes the specification, cf. [6, 9]. 1 This paper accepts this as a starting point that a reactive system is faithfully represented as a transition system, and that any two such strongly bisimilar representations are indistinguishable. Then, several new ideas are put forward. Firstly, the concurrent realization of a given ....

....of the system from the perspective of another part. But, their application presupposes such a decomposition. Thus, the global logics seem more appropriate do define a system. Given a temporal logic specification one can use tableau method to derive the corresponding synchronization skeleton, cf. [6, 9], i.e. a transition system that realizes the specification. Thus, we can safely assume that the reactive system is already given in the form of a transition system S = #S, s, #, T #. Now, the task is to find as concurrent a realization as possible. Luckily, there is a way to turn S into ....

E. A. Emerson and E. M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronizations skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, vol. 2: pp. 241--266, 1982.

....p 3 Figure 3: A cycle 5. 3 Verification of Liveness Properties The process of checking the control requirements g for the DES G when g includes safety and liveness properties is comparable to techniques for synthesizing process synchronizers from temporal logic formulas without time constraints [9], 27] In addition to the MTL formula, each node is labeled with a set of unbounded time eventualities to be achieved. This label is denoted as n.eventualities. Thus, not only the formula of a current node is progressed, but also its set of eventualities is propagated to the successor nodes. If ....

E. A. Emerson and E. M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2(3):241--266, 1982.

....conflicts in multiple agent plans by generating safety constraints in a propositional temporal logic and then adding synchronisation primitives to the plan. These ensure that execution sequences disallowed by the safety constraints are not possible. This is based on the work of Wolper (1982) and Emerson and Clarke (1982) who have developed synchronisers for parallel programs. This approach can be taken further by expressing the original plan in a temporal logic as well as the safety constraints. The generality of this technique depends on the expressiveness of the logic, and Stuart has investigated temporal ....

Emerson, E. A. and Clarke, E. M. (1982), "Using Branching Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronization Skeletons", Science of Computer Programming 2, pp. 241--266.

....can be extracted from a constructive proof that the formula is satisfiable [MW80] For reactive programs, the specification is typically a temporal formula describing the allowable behaviors of the program. Emerson Part of this work was done at the IBM Almaden Research Center and Clarke [EC82] and Manna and Wolper [MW84] showed how to extract programs from (finite representations) of models of the formula. In the late 1980s, several researchers realized that the classical approach is well suited to closed systems, but not to open systems [Dil89, PR89a, ALW89] In open systems the ....

....realized that the classical approach is well suited to closed systems, but not to open systems [Dil89, PR89a, ALW89] In open systems the program interacts with the environment. A correct program should be able to handle arbitrary actions of the environment. If one applies the techniques of [EC82, MW84] to open systems, one obtains programs that can handle only certain actions of the environment. Pnueli and Rosner [PR89a] Abadi et al. ALW89] and Dill [Dil89] argued that the right way to approach synthesis of reactive programs is to consider the situation as a (possibly infinite) game between ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

....is called program synthesis. The classical approach to program synthesis is to extract a program from a proof that the specification is satisfiable. For reactive programs, the specification is typically a temporal formula describing the allowable behaviors of the program [22] Emerson and Clarke [8] and Manna and Wolper [23] showed how to extract programs from (finite representations of) models of the formula. In the late 1980s, several researchers realized that the classical approach is well suited to closed systems, but not to open systems [7, 29, 1] In open systems the program interacts ....

....researchers realized that the classical approach is well suited to closed systems, but not to open systems [7, 29, 1] In open systems the program interacts with the environment. A correct program should be able to handle arbitrary actions of the environment. If one applies the techniques of [8, 23] to open systems, one obtains programs that can handle only some actions of the environment. Pnueli and Rosner [29] Abadi, Lamport and Wolper [1] and Dill [7] argued that the right way to approach synthesis of open systems is to consider the situation as a (possibly infinite) game between the ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

....gives priority to splitting with respect to untimed transitions, rather than ones. However, it suffices to put the two outermost if then blocks the other way around, in order to change the priority. 5 Logical specifications for timed systems The first so called temporal logics , such as CTL [EC82] have been introduced to express properties of untimed transition systems. The term temporal has been used because these logics take into account the transitions of a system from a state to another, as well as the ordering of events, thus giving a relatively good abstraction of time ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

....successor [19, 20] layering of a program [6, 17] snapshots or the concurrency of program segments [17, 21] The ability to require that certain actions be implemented concurrently is very important for system synthesis. For some of the attempts to synthesize programs from their specifications ([1, 11, 18]) we observe that in spite of the intention of synthesizing concurrent programs, the direct result of the given procedures is a sequential (often non deterministic) program. To derive a concurrent program from this result, additional decomposition steps are called for. Peled and Pnueli write in ....

....) w a v and v j= S4. w j= H iff (8v 2 W ) v w implies v j= w j= Y a iff (9v 2 W ) v a w and v j= A POL formula is said to be valid in an M (written M j= POL ) iff M; v 0 j= 3. 2 Interleaving Set Temporal Logic (ISTL) The syntax of ISTL is the same as that of CTL [1], i.e. one single linear time operator (X or U) can follow a path quantifier (A or E) In our case we define the labelled next step operators X a . Syntax of ISTL The set of ISTL formulas is the maximal one generated by the rules: S1. S2. like for POL, S3. if ; are formulas, then so are ....

Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M., Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons, Science of Computer Programming, vol. 2 (1982) 241-266.

....can be solved in time that is exponential in the number of pairs but polynomial in the transition size. As we will see, this distinction is quite significant. Realizability The classical approach to program synthesis is to extract a program from a proof that the specification is satisfiable. In [EC82, MW84], it is shown how to extract programs from (finite representations of) models of the specification. In the late 1980s, several researchers realized that the classical approach is well suited to closed systems, but not to open systems [Dil89, PR89, ALW89] In open systems the program interacts with ....

....to closed systems, but not to open systems [Dil89, PR89, ALW89] In open systems the program interacts with the environment; such programs are called reactive programs [HP85] A correct reactive program should be able to handle arbitrary actions of the environment. If one applies the techniques of [EC82, MW84] to reactive programs, one obtains programs that can handle only certain actions of the environment. In [PR89, ALW89, Dil89] it is argued that the right way to approach synthesis of reactive programs is to consider the situation as an infinite game between the environment and the program. We are ....

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

No context found.

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronous skeleton. Science of Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

No context found.

E.A. Emerson and E.M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronous skeleton. Science of Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

No context found.

E. A. Emerson and E. M. Clarke, Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons, Science of Computer Programming, vol. 2 (1982), pp. 241--266.

No context found.

E. A. Emerson, E. M. Clarke (1982): Using Branching Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronization Skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, vol. 2, pp. 241-266.

No context found.

Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M., Using Branching-Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronization Skeletons, Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

No context found.

E. A. Emerson and E. M. Clarke. Using branching time logic to synthesize synchronizations skeletons. Science of Computer Programming , vol. 2: pp. 241-- 266, 1982.

No context found.

Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M., Using Branching-Time Logic to Synthesize Synchronization Skeletons, Science of Computer Programming, 2:241--266, 1982.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC