Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partially-shared zero-suppressed multi-terminal BDDs: concept, algorithms and applications

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-Terminal Binary Decision Diagrams (MTBDDs) are a well accepted technique for the state graph (SG) based quantitative analysis of large and complex systems specified by means of high-level model description techniques. However, this type of Decision Diagram (DD) is not always the best choice, since finite functions with small satisfaction sets, and where the fulfilling assignments possess many 0-assigned positions, may yield relatively large MTBDD based representations. Therefore, this article introduces zero-suppressed MTBDDs and proves that they are canonical representations of multi-valued functions on finite input sets. For manipulating DDs of this new type, possibly defined over different sets of function variables, the concept of partially-shared zero-suppressed MTBDDs and respective algorithms are developed. The efficiency of this new approach is demonstrated by comparing it to the well-known standard type of MTBDDs, where both types of DDs have been implemented by us within the C++-based DD-package JINC. The benchmarking takes place in the context of Markovian analysis and probabilistic model checking of systems. In total, the presented work extends existing approaches, since it not only allows one to directly employ (multi-terminal) zero-suppressed DDs in the field of quantitative verification, but also clearly demonstrates their efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Formal Methods in System Design (1997) 10(2–3). Special Issue on Multi-Terminal Binary Decision Diagrams

    Google Scholar 

  2. Akers SB (1978) Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Trans Comput C-27(6):509–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balbo G, Conte G, Donatelli S, Franceschinis G, Ajmone Marsan M, Ajmone Marsan M (1995) Modelling with generalized stochastic Petri nets. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bryant RE (1986) Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans Comput C-35(8):677–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ciardo G, Lüttgen G, Miner AS (2007) Exploiting interleaving semantics in symbolic state-space generation. Form Methods Syst Des 31(1):63–100

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. de Alfaro L, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D, Segala R (2000) Symbolic model checking for probabilistic processes using MTBDDs and the Kronecker representation. In: Graf S, Schwartzbach M (eds) Proc. of the 6th int. conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’00). LNCS, vol 1785. Springer, Berlin, pp 395–410

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Hermanns H, Herzog U, Mertsiotakis V (1998) Stochastic process algebras—between LOTOS and Markov chains. Comput Netw ISDN Syst 30(9–10):901–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hermanns H, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D, Siegle M (2003) On the use of MTBDDs for performability analysis and verification of stochastic systems. J Log Algebr Program 56(1–2):23–67

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. JINC BDD package. www.jossowski.de

  10. Kam T, Villa T, Brayton R, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A (1998) Multi-valued decision diagrams: theory and applications. Mult Valued Log 4(1–2):9–62

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuntz M, Siegle M, Werner E (2004) Symbolic performance and dependability evaluation with the tool CASPA. In: Proc. of EPEW. LNCS, vol 3236. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–307

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lampka K, Siegle M (2006) Activity-local state graph generation for high-level stochastic models. In: Meassuring, modeling, and evaluation of systems 2006, April 2006, pp 245–264

  13. Lampka K, Siegle M (2006) Analysis of Markov reward models using zero-supressed multi-terminal decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of VALUETOOLS 2006 (CD-edition), October 2006

  14. Lee CY (1959) Representation of switching circuits by binary-decision programs. Bell Syst Tech J 38:985–999

    Google Scholar 

  15. Minato S (1993) Zero-suppressed BDDs for set manipulation in combinatorial problems. In: Proc. of the 30th ACM/IEEE design automation conference (DAC), Dallas (Texas), USA, June 1993, pp 272–277

  16. Minato S (2001) Zero-suppressed BDDs and their applications. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 3(2):156–170

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Miner A, Parker D (2004) Symbolic representations and analysis of large state spaces. In: Baier Ch, Haverkort B, Hermanns H, Katoen J-P, Siegle M (eds) Validation of stochastic systems, Dagstuhl (Germany), 2004. LNCS, vol 2925. Springer, Berlin, pp 296–338

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Möbius web page. www.moebius.crhc.uiuc.edu

  19. Ossowski J, Baier C (2008) A uniform framework for weighted decision diagrams and its implementation. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 10(5):425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. PRISM. www.prismmodelchecker.org

  21. PROMOC modeling tool. www.jossowski.de

  22. Sasao T, Fujita M (eds) (1996) Representations of discrete functions, vol 1. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Shannon CS (2000) Eine symbolische Analyse von Relaisschaltkreisen. In: Ein/Aus. Brinkmann und Bose, Berlin. The article originally appeared with the title: A symbolic analysis of switching circuits in Trans. AIEE 57 (1938), 713

    Google Scholar 

  24. Siegle M (2001) Advances in model representation. In: de Alfaro L, Gilmore S (eds) Proc. of the joint int. workshop, PAPM-PROBMIV 2001, Aachen (Germany). LNCS, vol 2165. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  25. SMART. www.cs.ucr.edu/~ciardo/SMART

  26. Somenzi F (1998) CUDD: Colorado University decision diagram package release

  27. Wegener I (2000) Branching programs and binary decision diagrams. SIAM, Philadelphia

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Engineering and Communication Networks Lab., ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Kai Lampka

  2. Inst. for Comp. Eng., Univ. of the German Federal Armed Forces Munich, Munich, Germany

    Markus Siegle

  3. Inst. for Theoretical Comp. Sc., Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Joern Ossowski & Christel Baier

Authors
  1. Kai Lampka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Siegle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joern Ossowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christel Baier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Lampka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lampka, K., Siegle, M., Ossowski, J. et al. Partially-shared zero-suppressed multi-terminal BDDs: concept, algorithms and applications. Form Methods Syst Des 36, 198–222 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-010-0095-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-010-0095-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation