World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Computation tree logic

Article Id: WHEBN0000840894
Reproduction Date:

Title: Computation tree logic  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Temporal logic, Stuttering equivalence, Alternating-time Temporal Logic, Automata theory, Linear temporal logic
Collection: Automata Theory, Logic in Computer Science, Temporal Logic
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Computation tree logic

Computation tree logic (CTL) is a branching-time logic, meaning that its model of time is a tree-like structure in which the future is not determined; there are different paths in the future, any one of which might be an actual path that is realized. It is used in formal verification of software or hardware artifacts, typically by software applications known as model checkers which determine if a given artifact possesses safety or liveness properties. For example, CTL can specify that when some initial condition is satisfied (e.g., all program variables are positive or no cars on a highway straddle two lanes), then all possible executions of a program avoid some undesirable condition (e.g., dividing a number by zero or two cars colliding on a highway). In this example, the safety property could be verified by a model checker that explores all possible transitions out of program states satisfying the initial condition and ensures that all such executions satisfy the property. Computation tree logic is in a class of temporal logics that includes linear temporal logic (LTL). Although there are properties expressible in only one of CTL and LTL, all properties expressible in either logic can also be expressed in CTL*.


  • Syntax of CTL 1
  • Operators 2
    • Logical operators 2.1
    • Temporal operators 2.2
    • Minimal set of operators 2.3
  • Semantics of CTL 3
    • Definition 3.1
    • Characterisation of CTL 3.2
    • Semantic equivalences 3.3
  • Examples 4
  • Relations with other logics 5
  • See also 6
  • References 7
  • External links 8

Syntax of CTL

The language of well formed formulas for CTL is generated by the following grammar:

\phi::=\bot |\top |p|(\neg\phi)|(\phi\and\phi)|(\phi\or\phi)| (\phi\Rightarrow\phi)|(\phi\Leftrightarrow\phi)|\mbox{AX }\phi|\mbox{EX }\phi|\mbox{AF }\phi|\mbox{EF }\phi|\mbox{AG }\phi|\mbox{EG }\phi| \mbox{A }[\phi \mbox{ U } \phi]|\mbox{E }[\phi \mbox{ U } \phi]

where p ranges over a set of atomic formulas. Not all of these connectives are needed – for example, \{\neg, \and, \mbox{AX}, \mbox{AU}, \mbox{EU}\} comprises a complete set of connectives, and the others can be defined using them.

  • \mbox{A} means 'along All paths' (Inevitably)
  • \mbox{E} means 'along at least (there Exists) one path' (possibly)

For example, the following is a well-formed CTL formula:

\mbox{EF }(\mbox{EG } p \Rightarrow \mbox{AF } r )

The following is not a well-formed CTL formula:

\mbox{EF }\big(r \mbox{ U } q\big)

The problem with this string is that U can occur only when paired with an A or an E. It uses atomic propositions as its building blocks to make statements about the states of a system. CTL then combines these propositions into formulas using logical operators and temporal logics.


Logical operators

The logical operators are the usual ones: \neg,\or,\and,\Rightarrow and \Leftrightarrow. Along with these operators CTL formulas can also make use of the boolean constants true and false.

Temporal operators

The temporal operators are the following:

  • Quantifiers over paths
    • A \phi – All: \phi has to hold on all paths starting from the current state.
    • E \phi – Exists: there exists at least one path starting from the current state where \phi holds.
  • Path-specific quantifiers
    • X \phi – Next: \phi has to hold at the next state (this operator is sometimes noted N instead of X).
    • G \phi – Globally: \phi has to hold on the entire subsequent path.
    • F \phi – Finally: \phi eventually has to hold (somewhere on the subsequent path).
    • \phi U \psi – Until: \phi has to hold at least until at some position \psi holds. This implies that \psi will be verified in the future.
    • \phi W \psi – Weak until: \phi has to hold until \psi holds. The difference with U is that there is no guarantee that \psi will ever be verified. The W operator is sometimes called "unless".

In CTL*, the temporal operators can be freely mixed. In CTL, the operator must always be grouped in two: one path operator followed by a state operator. See the examples below. CTL* is strictly more expressive than CTL.

Minimal set of operators

In CTL there is a minimal set of operators. All CTL formulas can be transformed to use only those operators. This is useful in model checking. One minimal set of operators is: {true, \or, \neg, EG, EU, EX}.

Some of the transformation used for temporal operator are:

  • EF\phi == E[trueU(\phi)] ( because F\phi == [trueU(\phi)] )
  • AX\phi == \negEX(\neg\phi)
  • AG\phi == \negEF(\neg\phi) == \neg E[trueU(\neg\phi)]
  • AF\phi == A[trueU\phi] == \negEG(\neg\phi)
  • A[\phiU\psi] == \neg( E[(\neg\psi)U\neg(\phi\or\psi)] \or EG(\neg\psi) )

Semantics of CTL


CTL formulae are interpreted over Transition Systems. A transition system is a triple \mathcal{M}=(S,\rightarrow,L), where S is a set of states, \rightarrow \subseteq S \times S is a transition relation, assumed to be serial, i.e. every state has at least one successor, and L is a labelling function, assigning propositional letters to states. Let \mathcal{M}=(S,\rightarrow,L) be such a transition model

with s \in S, \phi \in F where F is the set of wffs over the Language of \mathcal{M}.

Then the relation of semantic entailment (\mathcal{M}, s \models \phi) is defined by structural induction on \phi:

  1. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \top \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \not\models \bot \Big)
  2. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models p \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( p \in L(s) \Big)
  3. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \neg\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \not\models \phi \Big)
  4. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \land \phi_2 \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \big) \land \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_2 \big) \Big)
  5. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \lor \phi_2 \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \big) \lor \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_2 \big) \Big)
  6. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \Rightarrow \phi_2 \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \not\models \phi_1 \big) \lor \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_2 \big) \Big)
  7. \bigg( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \Leftrightarrow \phi_2 \bigg) \Leftrightarrow \bigg( \Big( \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \big) \land \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_2 \big) \Big) \lor \Big( \neg \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_1 \big) \land \neg \big((\mathcal{M}, s) \models \phi_2 \big) \Big) \bigg)
  8. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models AX\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \forall \langle s \rightarrow s_1 \rangle \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_1) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  9. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models EX\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \exists \langle s \rightarrow s_1 \rangle \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_1) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  10. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models AG\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \forall \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \forall i \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  11. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models EG\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \exists \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \forall i \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  12. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models AF\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \forall \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \exists i \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  13. \Big( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models EF\phi \Big) \Leftrightarrow \Big( \exists \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \exists i \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi \big) \Big)
  14. \bigg( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models A[\phi_1 U \phi_2] \bigg) \Leftrightarrow \bigg( \forall \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \exists i \Big( \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi_2 \big) \land \big( \forall (j < i) (\mathcal{M}, s_j) \models \phi_1 \big) \Big) \bigg)
  15. \bigg( (\mathcal{M}, s) \models E[\phi_1 U \phi_2] \bigg) \Leftrightarrow \bigg( \exists \langle s_1 \rightarrow s_2 \rightarrow \ldots \rangle (s=s_1) \exists i \Big( \big( (\mathcal{M}, s_i) \models \phi_2 \big) \land \big( \forall (j < i) (\mathcal{M}, s_j) \models \phi_1 \big) \Big) \bigg)

Characterisation of CTL

Rules 10–15 above refer to computation paths in models and are what ultimately characterise the "Computation Tree"; they are assertions about the nature of the infinitely deep computation tree rooted at the given state s.

Semantic equivalences

The formulae \phi and \psi are said to be semantically equivalent if any state in any model which satisfies one also satisfies the other. This is denoted \phi \equiv \psi

It can be seen that A and E are duals, being universal and existential computation path quantifiers respectively: \neg A\phi \equiv E \neg \phi .

Furthermore so are G and F.

Hence an instance of

  • AG.P
"I will like chocolate from now on, no matter what happens."
  • EF.P
"It's possible I may like chocolate some day, at least for one day."
  • AF.EG.P
"It's always possible (AF) that I will suddenly start liking chocolate for the rest of time." (Note: not just the rest of my life, since my life is finite, while G is infinite).
  • EG.AF.P
"This is a critical time in my life. Depending on what happens next (E), it's possible that for the rest of time (G), there will always be some time in the future (AF) when I will like chocolate. However, if the wrong thing happens next, then all bets are off and there's no guarantee about whether I'll ever like chocolate."

The two following examples show the difference between CTL and CTL*, as they allow for the until operator to not be qualified with any path operator (A or E):

  • AG(PUQ)
"From now until it's warm outside, I will like chocolate every single day. Once it's warm outside, all bets are off as to whether I'll like chocolate anymore. Oh, and it's guaranteed to be warm outside eventually, even if only for a single day."
  • EF((EX.P)U(AG.Q))
"It's possible that: there will eventually come a time when it will be warm forever (AG.Q) and that before that time there will always be some way to get me to like chocolate the next day (EX.P)."

Relations with other logics

Computation tree logic (CTL) is a subset of CTL* as well as of the modal µ calculus. CTL is also a fragment of Alur, Henzinger and Kupferman's Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL). Computation tree logic (CTL) and Linear temporal logic (LTL) are both a subset of CTL*. CTL and LTL are not equivalent and they have a common subset, which is a proper subset of both CTL and LTL.

  • FG.P exists in LTL but not in CTL.
  • AG(P\Rightarrow((EX.Q)\land(EX¬Q))) exists in CTL but not in LTL.

See also


  • Michael Huth and Mark Ryan (2004). "Logic in Computer Science (Second Edition)". Cambridge University Press. p. 207.  
  • Emerson, E. A. and Halpern, J. Y. (1985). "Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time". Journal of Computer and System Sciences 30 (1): 1–24.  
  • Clarke, E. M., Emerson, E. A., and Sistla, A. P. (1986). "Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications". ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 8 (2): 244–263.  
  • Emerson, E. A. (1990). "Temporal and modal logic". In  

External links

  • Teaching slides of CTL
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.