Results 1 
6 of
6
Algebraic Process Verification
 Handbook of Process Algebra, chapter 17
"... This chapter addresses the question how to verify distributed and communicating systems in an e#ective way from an explicit process algebraic standpoint. This means that all calculations are based on the axioms and principles of the process algebras. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 62 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This chapter addresses the question how to verify distributed and communicating systems in an e#ective way from an explicit process algebraic standpoint. This means that all calculations are based on the axioms and principles of the process algebras.
Symbolic Bisimulation Minimisation
 In Computer Aided Verification
"... We adapt the Coarsest Partition Refinement algorithm to its computation using the specific data structures of Binary Decision Diagrams. This allows to generate symbolically the set of equivalence classes of a finite automaton with respect to bisimulation, without constructing the automaton itself ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We adapt the Coarsest Partition Refinement algorithm to its computation using the specific data structures of Binary Decision Diagrams. This allows to generate symbolically the set of equivalence classes of a finite automaton with respect to bisimulation, without constructing the automaton itself. These equivalence classes represent of course the (new) states of the canonical minimal automaton bisimilar to the early one. The method works from labeled synchronised vectors of automata as the distributed system description. We report on performances of Hoggar, a tool implementing our method. 1 Introduction Bisimulation is a central notion in the domain of verification of concurrent systems [18]. It was introduced as the major behavioural equivalence in the setting of process algebras [18, 2], but works at the interpretation level of labeled transition systems. Algorithmic properties of bisimulation in the finite state case have been widely studied [16, 20, 11], leading to a lar...
Onthefly Verification of Finite Transition Systems
, 1993
"... The analysis of programs by the exhaustive inspection of reachable states in a finite state graph is a wellunderstood procedure. It is straightforwardly applicable to many description languages and is actually implemented in several industrial tools. But one of the main limitations of today's v ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The analysis of programs by the exhaustive inspection of reachable states in a finite state graph is a wellunderstood procedure. It is straightforwardly applicable to many description languages and is actually implemented in several industrial tools. But one of the main limitations of today's verification tools is the size of the memory needed to exhaustively build the state graphs of the programs. For numerous properties, it is not necessary to explicitly build this graph and an exhaustive depthfirst traversal is often sufficient. This leads to an online algorithms for computing Buchi acceptance (in the deterministic case) and behavioral equivalences: they are presented in detail. In order to avoid retraversing states, it is however important to store some of the already visited states in memory. To keep the memory size bounded (and avoid a performance falling down), visited states are randomly replaced. In most cases this depthfirst traversal with replacement ca...
Verification of Parallel Systems via Decomposition
 In Proc. of CONCUR 1992, LNCS 630
, 1992
"... Recently, Milner and Moller have presented several decomposition results for processes. Inspired by these, we investigate decomposition techniques for the verification of parallel systems. In particular, we consider those of the form q j (I) where p i and q j are (finite) state systems. We pro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Recently, Milner and Moller have presented several decomposition results for processes. Inspired by these, we investigate decomposition techniques for the verification of parallel systems. In particular, we consider those of the form q j (I) where p i and q j are (finite) state systems. We provide a decomposition procedure for all p i and q j and give criteria that must be checked on the decomposed processes to see whether (I) does or does not hold. We analyse the complexity of our procedure and show that it is polynomial in n, m and the sizes of p i and q j if there is no communication. We also show that with communication the verification of (I) is coNP hard, which makes it very unlikely that a polynomial complexity bound exists. But by applying our decomposition technique to Milner's cyclic scheduler we show that verification can become polynomial in space and time for practical examples, where standard techniques are exponential. Note: The authors are supported by the European Communities under ESPRIT Basic Research Action 3006 (CONCUR).
OnTheFly Verification Of Finite Transition Systems
 FORMAL METHODS IN SYSTEM DESIGN
, 1993
"... The analysis of programs by the exhaustive inspection of reachable states in a finite state graph is a wellunderstood procedure It is actually implemented in several industrial tools but one of their main limitations is the size of the memory needed to exhaustively build the state graphs of the pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The analysis of programs by the exhaustive inspection of reachable states in a finite state graph is a wellunderstood procedure It is actually implemented in several industrial tools but one of their main limitations is the size of the memory needed to exhaustively build the state graphs of the programs. For numerous properties such as Buchi acceptance (in the deterministic case) and behavioral equivalence, it is not necessary to explicitly build this graph and an exhaustive depthfirst traversal is often sufficient. In order to avoid retraversing states, it is however important to store in memory some of the already visited states and randomly replace them (to keep the memory size bounded and avoid a performance falling down) In most cases this depthfirst traversal with replacement can push back significantly the limits of verification tools.