Results 11  20
of
190
Model Checking for a Probabilistic Branching Time Logic with Fairness
 Distributed Computing
, 1998
"... We consider concurrent probabilistic systems, based on probabilistic automata of Segala & Lynch [55], which allow nondeterministic choice between probability distributions. These systems can be decomposed into a collection of "computation trees" which arise by resolving the nondeterministic, but n ..."
Abstract

Cited by 116 (37 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider concurrent probabilistic systems, based on probabilistic automata of Segala & Lynch [55], which allow nondeterministic choice between probability distributions. These systems can be decomposed into a collection of "computation trees" which arise by resolving the nondeterministic, but not probabilistic, choices. The presence of nondeterminism means that certain liveness properties cannot be established unless fairness is assumed. We introduce a probabilistic branching time logic PBTL, based on the logic TPCTL of Hansson [30] and the logic PCTL of [55], resp. pCTL of [14]. The formulas of the logic express properties such as "every request is eventually granted with probability at least p". We give three interpretations for PBTL on concurrent probabilistic processes: the first is standard, while in the remaining two interpretations the branching time quantifiers are taken to range over a certain kind of fair computation trees. We then present a model checking algorithm for...
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. This research was sponsored in part by the Avionics Laboratory, Wright Research and Development Center, Aeronautical Systems Division (AFSC), U.S. Air Force, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio 454336543 under Contract F3361590C1465, ARPA Order No. 7597 and in part by the National Science foundat...
Automatic Abstraction without Counterexamples
, 2002
"... A method of automatic abstraction is presented that uses proofs of unsatisfiability derived from SATbased bounded model checking as a guide to choosing an abstraction for unbounded model checking. Unlike earlier methods, this approach is not based on analysis of abstract counterexamples. The perfo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 108 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A method of automatic abstraction is presented that uses proofs of unsatisfiability derived from SATbased bounded model checking as a guide to choosing an abstraction for unbounded model checking. Unlike earlier methods, this approach is not based on analysis of abstract counterexamples. The performance of this approach on benchmarks derived from microprocessor verification indicates that SAT solvers are quite effective in eliminating logic that is not relevant to a given property. Moreover, benchmark results suggest that when bounded model checking successfully terminates, and the problem is unsatisfiable, the number of state variables in the proof of unsatisfiability tends to be small. In all cases tested, when bounded model checking succeeded, unbounded model checking of the resulting abstraction also succeeded.
NUSMV: a new symbolic model checker
 International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer
, 2000
"... This paper describes a new symbolic model checker, called NUSMV, developed as part of a joint project between CMU and IRST. NUSMV is the result of the reengineering, reimplementation, and, to a limited extent, extension of the CMU SMV model checker. The core of this paper consists of a detailed de ..."
Abstract

Cited by 108 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper describes a new symbolic model checker, called NUSMV, developed as part of a joint project between CMU and IRST. NUSMV is the result of the reengineering, reimplementation, and, to a limited extent, extension of the CMU SMV model checker. The core of this paper consists of a detailed description of the NUSMV functionalities, architecture, and implementation.
Efficient Büchi Automata from LTL Formulae
 CAV 2000, LNCS 1855:247–263
, 2000
"... We present an algorithm to generate small Büchi automata for LTL formulae. We describe a heuristic approach consisting of three phases: rewriting of the formula, an optimized translation procedure, and simplification of the resulting automaton. We present a translation procedure that is optimal w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 103 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an algorithm to generate small Büchi automata for LTL formulae. We describe a heuristic approach consisting of three phases: rewriting of the formula, an optimized translation procedure, and simplification of the resulting automaton. We present a translation procedure that is optimal within a certain class of translation procedures. The simplification algorithm can be used for Buchi automata in general. It reduces the number of states and transitions, as well as the number and size of the accepting setspossibly reducing the strength of the resulting automaton. This leads to more efficient model checking of lineartime logic formulae. We compare our method to previous work, and show that it is significantly more efficient for both random formulae, and formulae in common use and from the literature.
Model Checking of Safety Properties
, 1999
"... Of special interest in formal verification are safety properties, which assert that the system always stays within some allowed region. Proof rules for the verification of safety properties have been developed in the proofbased approach to verification, making verification of safety properties simp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 101 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Of special interest in formal verification are safety properties, which assert that the system always stays within some allowed region. Proof rules for the verification of safety properties have been developed in the proofbased approach to verification, making verification of safety properties simpler than verification of general properties. In this paper we consider model checking of safety properties. A computation that violates a general linear property reaches a bad cycle, which witnesses the violation of the property. Accordingly, current methods and tools for model checking of linear properties are based on a search for bad cycles. A symbolic implementation of such a search involves the calculation of a nested fixedpoint expression over the system's state space, and is often impossible. Every computation that violates a safety property has a finite prefix along which the property is violated. We use this fact in order to base model checking of safety properties on a search for ...
Powerful Techniques for the Automatic Generation of Invariants
 In CAV
, 1996
"... . When proving invariance properties of programs one is faced with two problems. The first problem is related to the necessity of proving tautologies of the considered assertion language, whereas the second manifests in the need of finding sufficiently strong invariants. This paper focuses on the se ..."
Abstract

Cited by 89 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. When proving invariance properties of programs one is faced with two problems. The first problem is related to the necessity of proving tautologies of the considered assertion language, whereas the second manifests in the need of finding sufficiently strong invariants. This paper focuses on the second problem and describes techniques for the automatic generation of invariants. The first set of these techniques is applicable on sequential transition systems and allows to derive socalled local invariants, i.e. predicates which are invariant at some control location. The second is applicable on networks of transition systems and allows to combine local invariants of the sequential components to obtain local invariants of the global systems. Furthermore, a refined strengthening technique is presented that allows to avoid the problem of sizeincrease of the considered predicates which is the main drawback of the usual strengthening technique. The proposed techniques are illustrated by ex...
METATEM: A Framework for Programming in Temporal Logic
 In REX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness (LNCS Volume 430
, 1989
"... In this paper we further develop the methodology of temporal logic as an executable imperative language, presented by Moszkowski [Mos86] and Gabbay [Gab87, Gab89] and present a concrete framework, called METATEM for executing (modal and) temporal logics. Our approach is illustrated by the developmen ..."
Abstract

Cited by 88 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we further develop the methodology of temporal logic as an executable imperative language, presented by Moszkowski [Mos86] and Gabbay [Gab87, Gab89] and present a concrete framework, called METATEM for executing (modal and) temporal logics. Our approach is illustrated by the development of an execution mechanism for a propositional temporal logic and for a restricted first order temporal logic.
Symbolic Verification of Communication Protocols with Infinite State Spaces using QDDs (Extended Abstract)
 In CAV'96. LNCS 1102
"... ) Bernard Boigelot Universit'e de Li`ege Institut Montefiore, B28 4000 Li`ege SartTilman, Belgium Email: boigelot@montefiore.ulg.ac.be Patrice Godefroid Lucent Technologies  Bell Laboratories 1000 E. Warrenville Road Naperville, IL 60566, U.S.A. Email: god@belllabs.com Abstract We study the v ..."
Abstract

Cited by 83 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
) Bernard Boigelot Universit'e de Li`ege Institut Montefiore, B28 4000 Li`ege SartTilman, Belgium Email: boigelot@montefiore.ulg.ac.be Patrice Godefroid Lucent Technologies  Bell Laboratories 1000 E. Warrenville Road Naperville, IL 60566, U.S.A. Email: god@belllabs.com Abstract We study the verification of properties of communication protocols modeled by a finite set of finitestate machines that communicate by exchanging messages via unbounded FIFO queues. It is wellknown that most interesting verification problems, such as deadlock detection, are undecidable for this class of systems. However, in practice, these verification problems may very well turn out to be decidable for a subclass containing most "real" protocols. Motivated by this optimistic (and, we claim, realistic) observation, we present an algorithm that may construct a finite and exact representation of the state space of a communication protocol, even if this state space is infinite. Our algorithm performs a loo...
Module Checking
, 1996
"... . In computer system design, we distinguish between closed and open systems. A closed system is a system whose behavior is completely determined by the state of the system. An open system is a system that interacts with its environment and whose behavior depends on this interaction. The ability of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. In computer system design, we distinguish between closed and open systems. A closed system is a system whose behavior is completely determined by the state of the system. An open system is a system that interacts with its environment and whose behavior depends on this interaction. The ability of temporal logics to describe an ongoing interaction of a reactive program with its environment makes them particularly appropriate for the specification of open systems. Nevertheless, modelchecking algorithms used for the verification of closed systems are not appropriate for the verification of open systems. Correct model checking of open systems should check the system with respect to arbitrary environments and should take into account uncertainty regarding the environment. This is not the case with current modelchecking algorithms and tools. In this paper we introduce and examine the problem of model checking of open systems (mod ule checking, for short). We show that while module che...