Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proving Consistency Assertions for Automotive Product Data Management

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a formal specification and verification approach for industrial product data bases containing Boolean logic formulae to express constraints. Within this framework, global consistency assertions about the product data are converted into propositional satisfiability problems. Today"s state-of-the-art provers turn out to be surprisingly efficient in solving the SAT-instances generated by this process. Moreover, we introduce a method for encoding special nonmonotonic constructs in traditional Boolean logic. We have successfully applied our method to industrial automotive product data management and could establish a set of commercially used interactive tools that facilitate the management of change and help raise quality standards.

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. Akers, S. B.: Binary decision diagrams, IEEE Trans. Comput. C-27(6) (1978), 509–516.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bayardo, R. J., Jr. and Schrag, R. C.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances, in Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'97), AAAI Press, 1997, pp. 203–208.

  3. Borälv, A.: The industrial success of verification tools based on Stå lmarck's method, in O. Grumberg (ed.), Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1254, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 7–10.

  4. Bowen, J. P. and Hinchey, M. G.: Seven more myths of formal methods: Dispelling industrial prejudices, in M. Naftalin, T. Denvir, and M. Bertran (eds.), FME'94: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 873, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 105–117.

  5. Bryant, R. E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation, IEEE Trans. Comput. C-35(8) (1986), 677–691.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Logemann, G., and Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving, Comm. ACM 5 (1962), 394–397.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M. and Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory, J. ACM 7 (1960), 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dershowitz, N. and Jouannaud, J.-P.: Rewrite systems, in Formal Models and Semantics, Vol. 2 of Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Chapter 6, Elsevier, 1990.

  9. Freeman, J. W.: Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geser, A. and Küchlin, W.: Structured formal verification of a fragment of the IBM 390 Clock Chip, Technical Report 97–50, RISC-Linz Report Series, Schloß Hagenberg bei Linz, Austria, Oct. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hsiang, J.: Topics in automated theorem proving and program generation, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, Dec. 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marschner, F. E.: Practical challenges for industrial formal verification tools, in O. Grumberg (ed.), Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1254, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 1–2.

  13. McMillan, K. L.: Symbolic Model Checking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Newman, M. H. A.: On theories with a combinatorial definition of “equivalence”, in Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 43, Princeton University Press, 1942, pp. 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pugliese, R. and Tronci, E.: Automatic verification of a hydroelectric power plant, in M.-C. Gaudel and J. Woodcock (eds.), FME'96: Industrial Benefit and Advances in Formal Methods, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1051, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 425–444.

  16. Robinson, J. A.: A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle, in J. ACM 12 (1965), 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saiedian, H.: An invitation to formal methods, in E. A. Parrish (ed.), Computer, Vol. 29, IEEE Computer Society, Apr. 1996, pp. 16–30.

  18. Tseitin, G. S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus, in A. O. Silenko (ed.), Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, 1970, pp. 115–125.

  19. Turk, A. L., Probst, S. T., and Powers, G. J.: Verification of a chemical process leak test procedure, in O. Grumberg (ed.), Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1254, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 84–94.

  20. Zhang, H.: SATO: A decision procedure for propositional logic, in Association for Automated Reasoning Newsletter, Vol. 22, March 1993, pp. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang, H.: SATO: An efficient propositional prover, in CADE'97: 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1249, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  22. Zhang, H. and Stickel, M.: Implementing the Davis-Putnam algorithm by tries, Technical report, Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, Aug. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Küchlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carsten Sinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Küchlin, W., Sinz, C. Proving Consistency Assertions for Automotive Product Data Management. Journal of Automated Reasoning 24, 145–163 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006370506164

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006370506164

Search

Navigation