Skip to main content

Automated Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking Large State Spaces Using SAT Based Conflict Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2517))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We introduce a SAT based automatic abstraction refinement framework for model checking systems with several thousand state variables in the cone of influence of the specification. The abstract model is constructed by designating a large number of state variables as invisible. In contrast to previous work where invisible variables were treated as free inputs we describe a computationally more advantageous approach in which the abstract transition relation is approximated by pre-quantifying invisible variables during image computation. The abstract counterexamples obtained from model-checking the abstract model are symbolically simulated on the concrete system using a state-of-the-art SAT checker. If no concrete counterexample is found, a subset of the invisible variables is reintroduced into the system and the process is repeated. The main contribution of this paper are two new algorithms for identifying the relevant variables to be reintroduced. These algorithms monitor the SAT checking phase in order to analyze the impact of individual variables. Our method is complete for safety properties (AG p) in the sense that-performance permitting - a property is either verified or disproved by a concrete counterexample. Experimental results are given to demonstrate the power of our method on real-world designs.

This research is sponsored by the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) under contract no. 99-TJ-684, the Gigascale Silicon Research Center (GSRC), the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. CCR-9803774, and the Max Kade Foundation. One of the authors is also supported by Austrian Science Fund Project N Z29-INF. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of SRC, GSRC, NSF, or the United States Government.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Felice Balarin and Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. An iterative approach to language containment. In Proceedings of CAV’93, pages 29–40, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armin Biere, Alexandro Cimatti, Edmund M. Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of Tools and Algorithms for the Analysis and Construction of Systems (TACAS’99), number 1579 in LNCS, 1999.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Pankaj Chauhan, Edmund M. Clarke, Somesh Jha, Jim Kukula, Tom Shiple, Helmut Veith, and Dong Wang. Non-linear quantification scheduling in image computation. In Proceedings of ICCAD’01, pages 293–298, November 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pankaj Chauhan, Edmund M. Clarke, Somesh Jha, Jim Kukula, Helmut Veith, and Dong Wang. Using combinatorial optimization methods for quantification scheduling. In Tiziana Margaria and Tom Melham, editors, Proceedings of CHARME’01, volume 2144 of LNCS, pages 293–309, September 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. NuSMV: A new Symbolic Model Verifier. In N. Halbwachs and D. Peled, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’99), number 1633 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 495–499. Springer, July 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In E. A. Emerson and A. P. Sistla, editors, Proceedings of CAV, volume 1855 of LNCS, pages 154–169, July 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Edmund Clarke, Anubhav Gupta, James Kukula, and Ofer Strichman. SAT based abstraction-refinement using ILP and machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of CAV’02, 2002. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edmund Clarke, Somesh Jha, Yuan Lu, and Helmut Veith. Tree-like counterexamples in model checking. In Proceedings of the 17 th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’02), 2002. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Satyaki Das and David Dill. Successive approximation of abstract transition relations. In Proceedings of the 16 th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’01), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shankar G. Govindaraju and David L. Dill. Counterexample-guided choice of projections in approximate symbolic model checking. In Proceedings of ICCAD’00, San Jose, CA, November 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.-H. Ho, T. Shiple, K. Harer, J. Kukula, R. Damiano, V. Bertacco, J. Taylor, and J. Long. Smart simulation using collaborative formal and simulation engines. In Proceedings of ICCAD’00, November 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Kurshan. Computer-Aided Verification of Co-ordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Lind-Nielsen and H. Andersen. Stepwise CTL model checking of state/event systems. In N. Halbwachs and D. Peled, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’99), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. David E. Long. Model checking, abstraction and compositional verification. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993. CMU-CS-93-178.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Matthew W. Moskewicz, Conor F. Madigan, Ying Zhao, Lintao Zhang, and Sharad Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference (DAC’01), pages 530–535, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abelardo Pardo and Gary D. Hachtel. Incremental CTL model checking using BDD subsetting. In Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference (DAC’98), pages 457–462, June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. P. Marques Silva and K. A. Sakallah. GRASP: A new search algorithm for satisfiability. Technical Report CSE-TR-292-96, Computer Science and Engineering Division, Department of EECS, Univ. of Michigan, April 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dong Wang, Pei-Hsin Ho, Jiang Long, James Kukula, Yunshan Zhu, Tony Ma, and Robert Damiano. Formal property verification by abstraction refinement with formal, simulation and hybrid engines. In Proceedings of the DAC, pages 35–40, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hantao Zhang. SATO: An efficient propositional prover. In Proceedings of the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE’97), pages 272–275, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lintao Zhang, Conor F. Madigan, Matthew W. Moskewicz, and Sharad Malik. Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In Proceedings ofICCAD’01, November 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chauhan, P., Clarke, E., Kukula, J., Sapra, S., Veith, H., Wang, D. (2002). Automated Abstraction Refinement for Model Checking Large State Spaces Using SAT Based Conflict Analysis. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds) Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. FMCAD 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2517. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36126-X_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36126-X_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00116-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36126-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics