References

  1. R. Alur & T. A. Henzinger (1999): Reactive Modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15(1), pp. 7–48, doi:10.1023/A:1008739929481.
  2. R. Alur, T. A. Henzinger & O. Kupferman (2002): Alternating-Time Temporal Logic. Journal of the ACM 49, pp. 672–713, doi:10.1145/585265.585270.
  3. R. Alur, S. Kannan & M. Yannakakis (1999): Communicating Hierarchical State Machines. In: Proceedings of ICALP, pp. 169–178, doi:10.1007/3-540-48523-6_14.
  4. J. Calta (2012): Synthesis of Strategies for Multi-Agent Systems. Humboldt University Berlin.
  5. D. Chaum (1988): The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability. Journal of Cryptology 1(1), pp. 65–75, doi:10.1007/BF00206326.
  6. P. Dembiński, A. Janowska, P. Janowski, W. Penczek, A. Półrola, M. Szreter, B. Wożna & A. Zbrzezny (2003): Verics: A Tool for Verifying Timed Automata and Estelle Specifications. In: Proceedings of the of the 9th Int. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS'03), LNCS 2619. Springer, pp. 278–283, doi:10.1007/3-540-36577-X_20.
  7. E. A. Emerson (1990): Temporal and Modal Logic. In: J. van Leeuwen: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science B. Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 995–1072.
  8. R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses & M. Y. Vardi (1995): Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press.
  9. J. Fisher, T. A. Henzinger, D. Nickovic, N. Piterman, A. V. Singh & M. Y. Vardi (2011): Dynamic Reactive Modules. In: Proceedings of CONCUR, pp. 404–418, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23217-6_27.
  10. F. Gecseg (1986): Products of Automata. EATCS Monographs on Theor. Comput. Sci.. Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61611-2.
  11. G. J. Holzmannn (1997): The Model Checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(5), pp. 279–295, doi:10.1109/32.588521.
  12. W. Jamroga & T. Ågotnes (2006): Modular Interpreted Systems: A Preliminary Report. Technical Report IfI-06-15. Clausthal University of Technology.
  13. W. Jamroga & T. Ågotnes (2007): Modular Interpreted Systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS'07, pp. 892–899, doi:10.1145/1329125.1329286.
  14. M. Köster & P. Lohmann (2011): Abstraction for model checking modular interpreted systems over ATL. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 1129–1130.
  15. F. Laroussinie, N. Markey & G. Oreiby (2008): On the Expressiveness and Complexity of ATL. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4, pp. 7, doi:10.2168/LMCS-4(2:7)2008.
  16. O. Lichtenstein & A. Pnueli (1985): Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In: POPL '85: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 97–107, doi:10.1145/318593.318622.
  17. A. Lomuscio & F. Raimondi (2006): MCMAS : A Model Checker for Multi-agent Systems. In: Proceedings of TACAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4314, pp. 450–454, doi:10.1007/11691372_31.
  18. A. Murano, M. Napoli & M. Parente (2008): Program Complexity in Hierarchical Module Checking. In: Proceedings of LPAR, pp. 318–332, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_23.
  19. F. Raimondi (2006): Model Checking Multi-Agent Systems. University College London.
  20. S. La Torre, M. Napoli, M. Parente & G. Parlato (2008): Verification of scope-dependent hierarchical state machines. Information and Computation 206(9-10), pp. 1161–1177, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2008.03.017.

Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org