Results 1  10
of
24
Compositional Model Checking
, 1999
"... We describe a method for reducing the complexity of temporal logic model checking in systems composed of many parallel processes. The goal is to check properties of the components of a system and then deduce global properties from these local properties. The main difficulty with this type of approac ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2474 (64 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a method for reducing the complexity of temporal logic model checking in systems composed of many parallel processes. The goal is to check properties of the components of a system and then deduce global properties from these local properties. The main difficulty with this type of approach is that local properties are often not preserved at the global level. We present a general framework for using additional interface processes to model the environment for a component. These interface processes are typically much simpler than the full environment of the component. By composing a component with its interface processes and then checking properties of this composition, we can guarantee that these properties will be preserved at the global level. We give two example compositional systems based on the logic CTL*.
Symbolic Model Checking: 10^20 States and Beyond
, 1992
"... Many different methods have been devised for automatically verifying finite state systems by examining stategraph models of system behavior. These methods all depend on decision procedures that explicitly represent the state space using a list or a table that grows in proportion to the number of st ..."
Abstract

Cited by 587 (32 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Many different methods have been devised for automatically verifying finite state systems by examining stategraph models of system behavior. These methods all depend on decision procedures that explicitly represent the state space using a list or a table that grows in proportion to the number of states. We describe a general method that represents the state space symbolical/y instead of explicitly. The generality of our method comes from using a dialect of the MuCalculus as the primary specification language. We describe a model checking algorithm for MuCalculus formulas that uses Bryant’s Binary Decision Diagrams (Bryant, R. E., 1986, IEEE Trans. Comput. C35) to represent relations and formulas. We then show how our new MuCalculus model checking algorithm can be used to derive efficient decision procedures for CTL model checking, satistiability of lineartime temporal logic formulas, strong and weak observational equivalence of finite transition systems, and language containment for finite wautomata. The fixed point computations for each decision procedure are sometimes complex. but can be concisely expressed in the MuCalculus. We illustrate the practicality of our approach to symbolic model checking by discussing how it can be used to verify a simple synchronous pipeline circuit.
Model Checking and Modular Verification
 ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
, 1991
"... We describe a framework for compositional verification of finite state processes. The framework is based on two ideas: a subset of the logic CTL for which satisfaction is preserved under composition; and a preorder on structures which captures the relation between a component and a system containing ..."
Abstract

Cited by 276 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a framework for compositional verification of finite state processes. The framework is based on two ideas: a subset of the logic CTL for which satisfaction is preserved under composition; and a preorder on structures which captures the relation between a component and a system containing the component. Satisfaction of a formula in the logic corresponds to being below a particular structure (a tableau for the formula) in the preorder. We show how to do assumeguarantee style reasoning within this framework. In addition, we demonstrate efficient methods for model checking in the logic and for checking the preorder in several special cases. We have implemented a system based on these methods, and we use it to give a compositional verification of a CPU controller. 1 Introduction Temporal logic model checking procedures are useful tools for the verification of finite state systems [3, 12, 20]. However, these procedures have traditionally suffered from the state explosion proble...
Verification Tools for FiniteState Concurrent Systems
"... Temporal logic model checking is an automatic technique for verifying finitestate concurrent systems. Specifications are expressed in a propositional temporal logic, and the concurrent system is modeled as a statetransition graph. An efficient search procedure is used to determine whether or not t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 122 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Temporal logic model checking is an automatic technique for verifying finitestate concurrent systems. Specifications are expressed in a propositional temporal logic, and the concurrent system is modeled as a statetransition graph. An efficient search procedure is used to determine whether or not the statetransition graph satisfies the specification. When the technique was first developed ten years ago, it was only possible to handle concurrent systems with a few thousand states. In the last few years, however, the size of the concurrent systems that can be handled has increased dramatically. By representing transition relations and sets of states implicitly using binary decision diagrams, it is now possible to check concurrent systems with more than 10 120 states. In this paper we describe in detail how the new implementation works and
Another Look at LTL Model Checking
 FORMAL METHODS IN SYSTEM DESIGN
, 1994
"... We show how LTL model checking can be reduced to CTL model checking with fairness constraints. Using this reduction, we also describe how to construct a symbolic LTL model checker that appears to be quite efficient in practice. In particular, we show how the SMV model checking system developed by Mc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 111 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show how LTL model checking can be reduced to CTL model checking with fairness constraints. Using this reduction, we also describe how to construct a symbolic LTL model checker that appears to be quite efficient in practice. In particular, we show how the SMV model checking system developed by McMillan [16] can be extended to permit LTL specifications. The results that we have obtained are quite surprising. For the examples we considered, the LTL model checker required at most twice as much time and space as the CTL model checker. Although additional examples still need to be tried, it appears that efficient LTL model checking is possible when the specifications are not excessively complicated.
Formal Verification in Hardware Design: A Survey
 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON DESIGN AUTOMATION OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
, 1999
"... ..."
Weak alternating automata are not that weak
 ACM Trans. on Computational Logic
"... Automata on infinite words are used for specification and verification of nonterminating programs. Different types of automata induce different levels of expressive power, of succinctness, and of complexity. Alternating automata have both existential and universal branching modes and are particularl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 76 (25 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Automata on infinite words are used for specification and verification of nonterminating programs. Different types of automata induce different levels of expressive power, of succinctness, and of complexity. Alternating automata have both existential and universal branching modes and are particularly suitable for specification of programs. In a weak alternating automaton, the state space is partitioned into partially ordered sets, and the automaton can proceed from a certain set only to smaller sets. Reasoning about weak alternating automata is easier than reasoning about alternating automata with no restricted structure. Known translations of alternating automata to weak alternating automata involve determinization, and therefore involve a doubleexponential blowup. In this paper we describe a quadratic translation, which circumvents the need for determinization, of Büchi and coBüchi alternating automata to weak alternating automata. Beyond the independent interest of such a translation, it gives rise to a simple complementation algorithm for nondeterministic Büchi automata. 1
An Improved Algorithm for the Evaluation of Fixpoint Expressions
, 1996
"... Many automated finitestate verification procedures can be viewed as fixpoint computations over a finite lattice (typically the powerset of the set of system states). For this reason, fixpoint calculi such as those proposed by Kozen and Park have proven useful, both as ways to describe verification ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Many automated finitestate verification procedures can be viewed as fixpoint computations over a finite lattice (typically the powerset of the set of system states). For this reason, fixpoint calculi such as those proposed by Kozen and Park have proven useful, both as ways to describe verification algorithms and as specification formalisms in their own right. We consider the problem of evaluating expressions in these calculi over a given model. A naive algorithm for this task may require time n q , where n is the maximum length of a chain in the lattice and q is the depth of fixpoint nesting. In 1986, Emerson and Lei presented a method requiring about n d steps, where d is the This research was sponsored in part by the Wright Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Center, Air Force Material Command,USAF, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) under grant number F336159311330. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be ...
Efficient Generation of Counterexamples and Witnesses in Symbolic Model Checking
, 1994
"... Model checking is an automatic technique for verifying sequential circuit designs and protocols. An efficient search procedure is used to determine whether or not the specification is satisfied. If it is not satisfied, our technique will produce a counterexample execution trace that shows the cause ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Model checking is an automatic technique for verifying sequential circuit designs and protocols. An efficient search procedure is used to determine whether or not the specification is satisfied. If it is not satisfied, our technique will produce a counterexample execution trace that shows the cause of the problem. Although finding counterexamples is extremely important, there is no description of how to do this in the literature on model checking. We describe an efficient algorithm to produce counterexamples and witnesses for symbolic model checking algorithms. This algorithm is used in the SMV model checker and works quite well in practice. We also discuss how to extend our technique to more complicated specifications. This extension makes it possible to find counterexamples for verification procedures based on showing language containment between various types of omegaautomata.
Reasoning about edits to feature models
 In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering
"... Features express the variabilities and commonalities among programs in a software product line (SPL). A feature model defines the valid combinations of features, where each combination corresponds to a program in an SPL. SPLs and their feature models evolve over time. We classify the evolution of a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Features express the variabilities and commonalities among programs in a software product line (SPL). A feature model defines the valid combinations of features, where each combination corresponds to a program in an SPL. SPLs and their feature models evolve over time. We classify the evolution of a feature model via modifications as refactorings, specializations, generalizations, or arbitrary edits. We present an algorithm to reason about feature model edits to help designers determine how the program membership of an SPL has changed. Our algorithm takes two feature models as input (before and after edit versions), where the set of features in both models are not necessarily the same, and it automatically computes the change classification. Our algorithm is able to give examples of added or deleted products and efficiently classifies edits to even large models that have thousands of features. 1