Agent-Alternation-Free Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past: Model Checking and Complexity

Benedikt Bollig; Matthias F\"ugger; Paul Zeinaty; Thomas Nowak

Agent-Alternation-Free Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past: Model Checking and Complexity

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that model checking KMTL1, the agent-alternation-free fragment of epistemic metric temporal logic with past, is EXPSPACE-complete—lower bound with one agent and one knowledge operator, upper bound via temporal test aut

desk verdict Closes a natural open complexity question with a well-engineered EXPSPACE-completeness proof; the hard part is the upper bound, which looks sound, though the lower bound's model encoding should be stated explicitly. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13981 v1 pith:VWVPKMAX submitted 2026-07-15 cs.LO cs.FL

Benedikt Bollig , Matthias Függer , Thomas Nowak , Paul Zeinaty This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LOcs.FL MSC 03B4403B7068Q1768Q60

keywords epistemictemporallogicmetricpastoperatorssynchronousperfectrecallmodelcheckingBüchiautomataEXPSPACE-completediagnosabilityandopacity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies KMTL1, the fragment of epistemic metric temporal logic with past in which nested knowledge operators always refer to the same agent. Its central claim is that model checking KMTL1 over Büchi automata under synchronous perfect recall is EXPSPACE-complete. This matters because the intended applications—centralized diagnosis, decentralized diagnosis, and opacity—are stated naturally in this fragment. The lower bound is sharp: EXPSPACE-hardness already appears with one agent, one occurrence of the knowledge operator, and no nontrivial metric bounds. The matching upper bound combines exponential-size pointed automata for knowledge-free formulas with perfect-recall observers that record pairs of system state and automaton state, because past formulas can disagree on indistinguishable histories ending in the same state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the pointed Büchi tester A_θ: for every knowledge-free θ it is an exponential-size automaton whose states are temporal types storing one counter per metric scheme, and whose marked states C_θ satisfy w,i |= θ exactly when some accepting run is marked at position i. Past-scheme counters are computed forward from the initial position; future-scheme counters are guessed backward from a witness, and a generalized Büchi condition rejects runs that keep a lower-bound obligation active forever without ever reaching its witness. Around this tester, the model-checking algorithm builds perfect-recall observers: for each knowledge block K_a ψ it maintains the set of pai

What would settle it

Build A_θ for θ = (p U^1_{≥2} q) and run it on the infinite word p p p r r r ... where q never occurs. Strict-first-time semantics makes θ false at every position, so no accepting run may ever enter a marked state. If the constructed round-robin Büchi automaton admits an accepting run with a marked state, the generalized Büchi set G_γ has failed to rule out a saturated lower-bound counter that never reaches a witness, and Lemma 34 (hence the EXPSPACE upper bound) is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the exact complexity: KMTL1 model checking over Büchi automata is EXPSPACE-complete. The lower-bound reduction from exponential-width corridor tiling produces a polynomial-size tagged automaton in which all states are accepting, and a formula with one agent, one knowledge operator, and only the unbounded interval N=[0,∞). The knowledge operator quantifies over hidden tag placements to check vertical tile compatibility, so metric constants are not the source of hardness. The upper bound shows that the truth of a knowledge-free formula can be captured by a Büchi automaton of exponential size whose states carry one counter per metric scheme, with past counters propagate

Load-bearing premise

The EXPSPACE upper bound rests on the tester lemma: for every knowledge-free formula θ, the constructed automaton A_θ marks exactly the positions where θ holds, with all local predicates testable in polynomial space; if the backward-guessed future counters and forward-propagated past counters can drift from strict-first-time witness distances on some word, the upper-bound construction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deciding whether all accepted words of a Büchi automaton satisfy a KMTL1 formula can be done in deterministic exponential space, and no polynomial-space decision procedure can exist unless the standard complexity classes collapse.
The EXPSPACE lower bound is achieved with one agent, one knowledge operator, and only the unbounded interval; even this minimal slice of the logic is already as hard as full exponential space.
Bounded centralized diagnosis, decentralized codiagnosability, and past-event opacity are expressible in KMTL1, so each of these observation-based verification problems inherits the EXPSPACE-complete bound when the system is given by a Büchi automaton.
For formulas with past, an information set over system states is insufficient: the observer must carry a temporal automaton state for each system state, because past formulas can have different truth values on indistinguishable histories.
The complexity boundary is tight along this axis: the metric-free epistemic fragment with future operators is PSPACE-complete at alternation depth one, while adding past operators jumps the problem to EXPSPACE-complete.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same observer construction—products of model states with tester states plus relative liveness—should transfer to other ω-automaton acceptance conditions, with only the liveness projection changing, so the EXPSPACE upper bound is a plausible template.
Beyond the paper: the lower-bound trick of using knowledge to quantify over hidden tags that select distant grid cells suggests a general way to simulate random access without metric constants; it might apply to satisfiability or synthesis questions for related shallow epistemic fragments.
Beyond the paper: the paper leaves open the exact complexity for standard metric semantics, conjecturing 2-EXPSPACE-completeness; a concrete next step is to test whether a double-exponential counter hierarchy can be simulated by nesting the present tester construction with binary metric constants.
Beyond the paper: discrete-time monitorability is stated as open; the relative-liveness graph introduced here may be adaptable to decide whether every observation prefix can be extended to a definitive verdict, possibly with the same EXPSPACE boundary.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this gives the exact model-checking complexity for the shallow epistemic metric temporal logic with past, and the result is EXPSPACE-complete. The lower bound is strong—one agent, one K, unbounded interval only—so the hardness comes from combining past with knowledge, not from metric constants. The upper bound is the real work, and it holds up on inspection.

What is actually new is the logic KMTL1 and its complexity. The lower-bound reduction adapts the forgettable-past tiling construction with a clever hidden-tag mechanism; the upper bound extends the strict-first-time test automata to past operators and adds observers over (system state, tester state) pairs. The paper is self-contained, with detailed appendix proofs, and I found no circular reasoning or suspicious citation patterns.

The delicate point is Lemma 16/34, the pointed Büchi tester for the knowledge-free fragment. I went through the recurrence for counters and the Büchi condition for lower-bound future schemes. The construction is consistent: the counters are tightly constrained, and the generalized Büchi condition does rule out runs that leave an obligation active forever. The induction establishing the pointed property handles the no-witness case by forcing the counter to bottom, which works. This is exactly the kind of lemma that should be checked by a second pair of eyes, but I did not find a concrete gap.

One soft spot worth raising in review: the lower-bound model Mtag_T is defined by a regular language, and the authors say it has polynomial size because each state only admits O(|T|) output letters. That is reasonable only if the input model is allowed to be succinctly represented, since the alphabet is 2^APT, exponential in the instance. The paper never states the input encoding for Büchi automata. If the community standard requires an explicit transition table, the reduction would need elaboration. I assume symbolic transitions are allowed, but the definition should say so.

Minor point: the diagnosis/opacity encodings are correct but standard; they serve as motivation, not as new technical content.

Who is this for: anyone working on epistemic temporal logics, metric temporal logic, or diagnosability/opacity in discrete-event systems. It deserves a serious referee and, after minor revision, acceptance. I would bring it to reading group and cite it.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines KMTL, an epistemic metric temporal logic with future and past operators, strict first-time semantics, binary-encoded metric intervals, and synchronous perfect-recall knowledge over Büchi automata, and studies the agent-alternation-free fragment KMTL1. The main result is that universal model checking for KMTL1 is EXPSPACE-complete. The lower bound is a reduction from exponential-width corridor tiling; the constructed formula uses one agent, one occurrence of the knowledge operator, and only the unbounded interval N, with all past operators inside the knowledge operator. The upper bound combines exponential-size pointed Büchi testers for the knowledge-free fragment with perfect-recall observers that track pairs of system states and tester states, and introduces a recursive 'relative liveness' predicate to handle nested same-agent knowledge under future operators. The paper also formalizes centralized diagnosis, decentralized diagnosis, and opacity in KMTL1.

Significance. If the proof is correct, the paper gives a clean complexity boundary: adding past to the PSPACE-complete future-only epistemic fragment yields EXPSPACE-completeness even with trivial metric bounds, while the knowledge-free strict-first-time metric fragment remains PSPACE. The lower bound is a careful adaptation of the forgettable-past tiling reduction, and the upper-bound observer construction—using product states (system state, temporal tester state) rather than bare information sets—is a substantive technical contribution. The appendix is detailed and self-contained; the reduction is from a known EXPSPACE-complete problem, and the upper bound provides constructive automata with polynomial-space testable local predicates. The delicate pointed-tester lemma (Lemma 34 / Appendix B.1) withstands scrutiny: the recurrence for future counters and the Büchi conditions rule out cheating runs, while past counters are anchored by the initial position. The diagnosis/opacity encodings are a useful sanity check and fit the fragment.

minor comments (5)

[Lemma 34 / Appendix B.1] The soundness proof compresses the 'no witness' case. It would aid the reader to spell out explicitly why an accepting run cannot carry non-truthful finite future counters: an upper-bound counter would have to decrease indefinitely, and a saturated lower-bound counter would violate the generalized Büchi condition Gγ. This is implicit in the current text but central to the pointed-tester property.
[Definition 36 / Appendix B.2] The relative-liveness update post(I,o) is described as updating components 'from the deepest blocks outward.' Since correctness of an outer tester depends on this update order, a recursive formal definition or pseudocode would remove ambiguity.
[Table 1 / Section 1] The table attributes the PSPACE model-checking upper bound for the knowledge-free metric fragment to [1], but the cited paper is primarily about satisfiability. Please state explicitly that the model-checking bound follows by the standard product construction, or cite a source that proves it.
[Lemma 8] The proof uses monotonicity of Ka♢−f (the alarm persists once true). A one-line justification under perfect recall—extending an observation prefix preserves the existence of a fault in every compatible prefix—would make the argument fully self-contained.
[Section 2, Definition 28] When presenting the normal-form splitting of intervals, it may help to note explicitly that the two conjuncts refer to the same first-witness distance; this is exactly why the equivalence holds under strict first-time semantics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EXPSPACE-completeness proof is self-contained and reduces to external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, EXPSPACE-completeness of model checking for KMTL1, is established by two independent, non-circular components. The lower bound (Theorem 14) reduces from the standard EXPSPACE-complete exponential-width corridor tiling problem; the hidden-tag construction is proved directly in Lemmas 12, 23-27 and Theorem 13, with no dependence on the target result inside the assumptions. The upper bound (Theorem 20) rests on Lemma 16/34, which constructs pointed Buchi automata for knowledge-free formulas and proves the pointed property by structural induction using the explicit counter recurrences of Definition 32. The observer construction (Definitions 36, Lemma 38) is proved by induction on knowledge nesting depth, and the global correctness lemma (Lemma 39) follows from the previously established lemmas. There are no fitted parameters presented as predictions, no definitional equivalences smuggled in as derivations, and no load-bearing self-citations: references to prior work such as [1], [5], and [15] are external and used only as baselines or inspiration. The strict first-time semantics is adopted as a definition and all technical results are reproved in the appendix. Thus the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is self-contained apart from standard complexity and automata-theoretic facts. No free parameters or new ontological entities are introduced; the hidden tag propositions L and U are part of the reduction gadget, not independent postulates.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Exponential-width corridor tiling is EXPSPACE-complete
Used as the source problem for the lower bound (Section 4, Theorem 14); cited to [15].
standard math Savitch's theorem (NSPACE(s) ⊆ DSPACE(s^2))
Used in Theorem 20 to conclude the nondeterministic exponential-space procedure lies in EXPSPACE.
standard math Standard Büchi automata constructions (product, round-robin conversion of generalized Büchi conditions)
Used throughout the upper-bound construction (Appendix B).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agent-Alternation-Free Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past: Model Checking and Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWVPKMAX

@misc{pith2026260713981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agent-Alternation-Free Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past: Model Checking and Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWVPKMAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13981}
}

read the original abstract

We study model checking for an epistemic metric temporal logic with past, interpreted over finite B\"uchi automata under synchronous perfect recall. The logic is motivated by observation-based verification problems such as diagnosis and opacity, where an observer sees only a projection of an execution and reasons about events that may have occurred earlier. These requirements use no alternation between different agents' knowledge. We therefore consider the agent-alternation-free fragment, in which nested knowledge operators must refer to the same agent. We show that model checking for this fragment is EXPSPACE-complete. The lower bound already holds with one agent, one occurrence of the knowledge operator, and no non-trivial metric bounds. For the upper bound, we combine temporal test automata with perfect-recall observers. Because past formulas may have different truth values on indistinguishable histories ending in the same system state, the observer must track temporal automaton states in addition to system states.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Metric linear-time temporal logic with strict first-time semantics

1 Eric Alsmann and Martin Lange. Metric linear-time temporal logic with strict first-time semantics. In Thierry Vidal and Przemyslaw Andrzej Walega, editors,32nd International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, TIME 2025, Queen Mary University of London, UK, August 27-29, 2025, volume 355 ofLIPIcs, pages 3:1–3:14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibn...

2025
[5]

Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9\_26

Proceedings, volume 5799 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 352–367. Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9\_26. 9 Mika Cohen and Alessio Lomuscio. Non-elementary speed up for model checking synchronous perfect recall. In Helder Coelho, Rudi Studer, and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors,ECAI 2010 - 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelli...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9 2009
[7]

13 Thomas Møller Grosen, Sean Kauffman, Kim G

URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-025-00507-w, doi: 10.1007/S00236-025-00507-W. 13 Thomas Møller Grosen, Sean Kauffman, Kim G. Larsen, and Martin Zimmermann. Time for timed monitorability. In Patricia Bouyer and Jaco van de Pol, editors,36th In- ternational Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2025, Aarhus, Denmark, Au- gust 26-29, 2025, volume 348 ...

work page doi:10.1007/s00236-025-00507-w 2025
[8]

14 Stéphane Lafortune, Feng Lin, and Christoforos N

URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2025.19, doi:10.4230/LIPICS.CONCUR.2025.19. 14 Stéphane Lafortune, Feng Lin, and Christoforos N. Hadjicostis. On the history of diagnosability and opacity in discrete event systems.Annu. Rev. Control., 45:257–266,

work page doi:10.4230/lipics.concur.2025.19 2025
[12]

2008.08.004,doi:10.1016/J.JLAP.2008.08.004

URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap. 2008.08.004,doi:10.1016/J.JLAP.2008.08.004. 18 Alessio Lomuscio, Wojciech Penczek, and Bozena Wozna. Bounded model checking for knowledge and real time.Artif. Intell., 171(16-17):1011–1038,

doi:10.1016/j.jlap 2008
[15]

doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005. 853503. 22 Meera Sampath, Raja Sengupta, Stéphane Lafortune, Kasim Sinnamohideen, and Demosthenis Teneketzis. Diagnosability of discrete-event systems.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., 40(9):1555– 1575, 1995.doi:10.1109/9.412626. 23 Walter J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. J. Comput....

work page doi:10.1109/tsmca.2005 2005
[1995]

12 Bernd Finkbeiner and Julian Siber

URL: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001, doi:10.7551/MITPRESS/5803.001.0001. 12 Bernd Finkbeiner and Julian Siber. Explainability requirements as hyperproperties.Acta Informatica, 62(4):38,

doi:10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001
[2002]

16 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen

doi:10.1109/LICS.2002.1029846. 16 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen. Efficient timed model checking for discrete-time systems.Theor. Comput. Sci., 353(1-3):249–271,

arXiv 2002

Show all 16 references

[2006]

17 Martin Leucker and Christian Schallhart

URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.11.020,doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2005.11.020. 17 Martin Leucker and Christian Schallhart. A brief account of runtime verification.J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program., 78(5):293–303,

2005 doi
[2007]

19 Bastien Maubert, Sophie Pinchinat, and Laura Bozzelli

URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.005,doi:10.1016/J.ARTINT.2007.05.005. 19 Bastien Maubert, Sophie Pinchinat, and Laura Bozzelli. Opacity issues in games with imperfect information. In Giovanna D’Agostino and Salvatore La Torre, editors,Proceedings of Second Intern...

2007 doi
[2008]

7 Franck Cassez

URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10207-008-0058-x,doi:10.1007/S10207-008-0058-X. 7 Franck Cassez. The dark side of timed opacity. InAdvances in Information Security and Assurance, Third International Conference and Workshops, ISA 2009, Seoul, Korea, June 25-27,

2009 doi
[2009]

8 Franck Cassez, Jérémy Dubreil, and Hervé Marchand

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02617-1\_3. 8 Franck Cassez, Jérémy Dubreil, and Hervé Marchand. Dynamic observers for the synthesis of opaque systems. In Zhiming Liu and Anders P. Ravn, editors,Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, 7th International Symposium, ATVA 2009, ...

2009 doi
[2011]

20 Amir Pnueli and Aleksandr Zaks

doi:10.4204/EPTCS.54.7. 20 Amir Pnueli and Aleksandr Zaks. PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In Jayadev Misra, Tobias Nipkow, and Emil Sekerinski, editors,FM 2006: Formal Methods, 14th International Symposium on Formal Methods, Hamilton, Canada, August ...

2006 doi
[2016]

18 Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past A Lower-Bound Details We give the formulas used in Section 4 and prove the properties claimed there

URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-015-9637-9,doi:10.1007/S11225-015-9637-9. 18 Epistemic Metric Temporal Logic with Past A Lower-Bound Details We give the formulas used in Section 4 and prove the properties claimed there. Fix a tiling instance T= (C,T,m,d init,d final), wher...

doi
[2018]

15 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen

URL:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2018.04.002,doi:10.1016/J.ARCONTROL.2018.04.002. 15 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen. Temporal logic with for- gettable past. In17th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2002), 22-25 July 2002,...

2018 doi
[2025]

3,doi:10.4230/LIPICS.TIME.2025.3

URL:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2025. 3,doi:10.4230/LIPICS.TIME.2025.3. 2 Rajeev Alur and David L. Dill. A theory of timed automata.Theor. Comput. Sci., 126(2):183– 235, 1994.doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)90010-8. 3 Andreas Bauer, Martin Leucker, and Christian Schallhart. R...

2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Metric linear-time temporal logic with strict first-time semantics

1 Eric Alsmann and Martin Lange. Metric linear-time temporal logic with strict first-time semantics. In Thierry Vidal and Przemyslaw Andrzej Walega, editors,32nd International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, TIME 2025, Queen Mary University of London, UK, August 27-29, 2025, volume 355 ofLIPIcs, pages 3:1–3:14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibn...

2025

[2] [5]

Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9\_26

Proceedings, volume 5799 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 352–367. Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9\_26. 9 Mika Cohen and Alessio Lomuscio. Non-elementary speed up for model checking synchronous perfect recall. In Helder Coelho, Rudi Studer, and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors,ECAI 2010 - 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelli...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9 2009

[3] [7]

13 Thomas Møller Grosen, Sean Kauffman, Kim G

URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-025-00507-w, doi: 10.1007/S00236-025-00507-W. 13 Thomas Møller Grosen, Sean Kauffman, Kim G. Larsen, and Martin Zimmermann. Time for timed monitorability. In Patricia Bouyer and Jaco van de Pol, editors,36th In- ternational Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2025, Aarhus, Denmark, Au- gust 26-29, 2025, volume 348 ...

work page doi:10.1007/s00236-025-00507-w 2025

[4] [8]

14 Stéphane Lafortune, Feng Lin, and Christoforos N

URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2025.19, doi:10.4230/LIPICS.CONCUR.2025.19. 14 Stéphane Lafortune, Feng Lin, and Christoforos N. Hadjicostis. On the history of diagnosability and opacity in discrete event systems.Annu. Rev. Control., 45:257–266,

work page doi:10.4230/lipics.concur.2025.19 2025

[5] [12]

2008.08.004,doi:10.1016/J.JLAP.2008.08.004

URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap. 2008.08.004,doi:10.1016/J.JLAP.2008.08.004. 18 Alessio Lomuscio, Wojciech Penczek, and Bozena Wozna. Bounded model checking for knowledge and real time.Artif. Intell., 171(16-17):1011–1038,

doi:10.1016/j.jlap 2008

[6] [15]

doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005. 853503. 22 Meera Sampath, Raja Sengupta, Stéphane Lafortune, Kasim Sinnamohideen, and Demosthenis Teneketzis. Diagnosability of discrete-event systems.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., 40(9):1555– 1575, 1995.doi:10.1109/9.412626. 23 Walter J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. J. Comput....

work page doi:10.1109/tsmca.2005 2005

[7] [1995]

12 Bernd Finkbeiner and Julian Siber

URL: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001, doi:10.7551/MITPRESS/5803.001.0001. 12 Bernd Finkbeiner and Julian Siber. Explainability requirements as hyperproperties.Acta Informatica, 62(4):38,

doi:10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001

[8] [2002]

16 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen

doi:10.1109/LICS.2002.1029846. 16 François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Philippe Schnoebelen. Efficient timed model checking for discrete-time systems.Theor. Comput. Sci., 353(1-3):249–271,

arXiv 2002