2014•Unpublished venueRequires access

On module checking and strategies

Wojciech Jamroga, Aniello Murano

Open publisher page 34 citations

Abstract

Two decision problems are very close in spirit: module checking of CTL/CTL* and model checking of ATL/ATL*. The latter appears to be a natural multi-agent extension of the former, and it is commonly believed that model checking of ATL(*) subsumes module checking of CTL(*) in a straightforward way. Perhaps because of that, the exact relationship between the two has never been formally established.A more careful look at the known complexity results, however, makes one realize that the relationship is somewhat suspicious. In particular, module checking of CTL is Exptime-complete, while model checking of ATL is only time-complete. Thus, the (seemingly) less expressive framework yields significantly higher computational complexity than the (seemingly) more expressive one. This suggests that the relationship may not be as simple as believed. In this paper, we show that the difference is indeed fundamental. The way in which behavior of the environment is understood in module checking cannot be equivalently characterized in ATL(*). Conversely, if one wants to embed module checking in ATL(*) then its semantics must be extended with two essential features, namely nondeterministic strategies and long-term commitment to strategies.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Two decision problems are very close in spirit: module checking of CTL/CTL* and model checking of ATL/ATL*. The latter appears to be a natural multi-agent extension of the former, and it is commonly believed that model checking of ATL(*) subsumes module checking of CTL(*) in a straightforward way. Perhaps because of that, the exact relationship between the two has never been formally established.A more careful look at the known complexity results, however, makes one realize that the relationship is somewhat suspicious. In particular, module checking of CTL is Exptime-complete, while model checking of ATL is only time-complete. Thus, the (seemingly) less expressive framework yields significantly higher computational complexity than the (seemingly) more expressive one. This suggests that the relationship may not be as simple as believed. In this paper, we show that the difference is indeed fundamental. The way in which behavior of the environment is understood in module checking cannot be equivalently characterized in ATL(*). Conversely, if one wants to embed module checking in ATL(*) then its semantics must be extended with two essential features, namely nondeterministic strategies and long-term commitment to strategies.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Two decision problems are very close in spirit: module checking of CTL/CTL* and model checking of ATL/ATL*. The latter appears to be a natural multi-agent extension of the former, and it is commonly believed that model checking of ATL(*) subsumes module checking of CTL(*) in a straightforward way. Perhaps because of that, the exact relationship between the two has never been formally established.A more careful look at the known complexity results, however, makes one realize that the relationship is somewhat suspicious. In particular, module checking of CTL is Exptime-complete, while model checking of ATL is only time-complete. Thus, the (seemingly) less expressive framework yields significantly higher computational complexity than the (seemingly) more expressive one. This suggests that the relationship may not be as simple as believed. In this paper, we show that the difference is indeed fundamental. The way in which behavior of the environment is understood in module checking cannot be equivalently characterized in ATL(*). Conversely, if one wants to embed module checking in ATL(*) then its semantics must be extended with two essential features, namely nondeterministic strategies and long-term commitment to strategies.

Key concepts: Nondeterministic algorithm, Model checking, CTL*, Computer science, Extension (predicate logic), Theoretical computer science, Semantics (computer science), Abstraction model checking

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
On module checking and strategies — Research Paper | ScholarLens