Abstract
In addition to rigorously checking whether a system conforms to a specification, model checking can provide valuable feedback in the form of succinct and understandable counterexamples. In the context of probabilistic systems, path- and subsystem-based counterexamples at the state-space level can be of limited use in debugging. As many probabilistic systems are described in a guarded command language like the one used by the popular model checker Prism, a technique identifying a subset of critical commands has recently been proposed. Based on repeatedly solving MaxSat instances, our novel approach to computing a minimal critical command set achieves a speed-up of up to five orders of magnitude over the previously existing technique.
This work is partly supported by the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments, the EU-FP7 projects CARP and SENSATION, the EU FP7-IRSES project MEALS, and by the German Research Council (DFG) as part of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center AVACS (SFB/TR 14).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aljazzar, H., Leue, S.: Directed explicit state-space search in the generation of counterexamples for stochastic model checking. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 36(1), 37–60 (2010)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15(1), 7–48 (1999)
Aspnes, J., Herlihy, M.: Fast randomized consensus using shared memory. Journal of Algorithms 11(3), 441–461 (1990)
Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)
Bellman, R.: Dynamic Programming, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1957)
Gheorghiu Bobaru, M., Păsăreanu, C.S., Giannakopoulou, D.: Automated assume-guarantee reasoning by abstraction refinement. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 135–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Bulychev, P., David, A., Guldstrand Larsen, K., Legay, A., Mikučionis, M., Bøgsted Poulsen, D.: Checking and distributing statistical model checking. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds.) NFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7226, pp. 449–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Canetti, R., Cheung, L., Kaynar, D.K., Liskov, M., Lynch, N.A., Pereira, O., Segala, R.: Analyzing security protocols using time-bounded task-PIOAs. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 18(1), 111–159 (2008)
Chatterjee, K., Chmelík, M., Daca, P.: CEGAR for qualitative analysis of probabilistic systems. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 473–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Clarke, E.M., Veith, H.: Counterexamples revisited: Principles, algorithms, applications. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 208–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Fu, Z., Malik, S.: On solving the partial MAX-SAT problem. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Gastin, P., Moro, P.: Minimal counterexample generation for SPIN. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Gurobi optimization, inc.: Gurobi optimizer reference manual version 5.6 (2014), http://www.gurobi.com/resources/documentation
Han, T., Katoen, J.-P., Damman, B.: Counterexample generation in probabilistic model checking. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 35(2), 241–257 (2009)
Hansen, H., Geldenhuys, J.: Cheap and small counterexamples. In: Proc. of SEFM, pp. 53–62. IEEE Computer Society (2008)
Hermanns, H., Wachter, B., Zhang, L.: Probabilistic CEGAR. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 162–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Jansen, N., Wimmer, R., Ábrahám, E., Zajzon, B., Katoen, J.-P., Becker, B.: Symbolic counterexample generation for large discrete-time Markov chains. Science of Computer Programming 91(A), 90–114 (2014)
Katoen, J.-P., van de Pol, J., Stoelinga, M., Timmer, M.: A linear process-algebraic format with data for probabilistic automata. Theoretical Computer Science 413(1), 36–57 (2012)
Katoen, J.-P., Zapreev, I.S., Hahn, E.M., Hermanns, H., Jansen, D.N.: The ins and outs of the probabilistic model checker MRMC. Performance Evaluation 68(2), 90–104 (2011)
Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Leitner-Fischer, F., Leue, S.: Probabilistic fault tree synthesis using causality computation. IJCCBS 4(2), 119–143 (2013)
Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hankin, C.: Principles of program analysis (2. corr. print). Springer (2005)
Puterman, M.L.: Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1994)
Schuppan, V., Biere, A.: Shortest counterexamples for symbolic model checking of LTL with past. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 493–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Segala, R., Lynch, N.A.: Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processes. Nordic Journal of Computing 2(2), 250–273 (1995)
Stoelinga, M.: Fun with firewire: A comparative study of formal verification methods applied to the IEEE 1394 root contention protocol. Formal Aspects of Computing 14(3), 328–337 (2003)
Wimmer, R., Braitling, B., Becker, B.: Counterexample generation for discrete-time Markov chains using bounded model checking. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 366–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Wimmer, R., Jansen, N., Ábrahám, E., Becker, B., Katoen, J.-P.: Minimal critical subsystems for discrete-time Markov models. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 299–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Wimmer, R., Jansen, N., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, J.-P., Becker, B.: Minimal counterexamples for linear-time probabilistic verification. Theoretical Computer Science (2014), doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2014.06.020 (accepted for publication)
Wimmer, R., Jansen, N., Vorpahl, A., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, J.-P., Becker, B.: High-level counterexamples for probabilistic automata. In: Joshi, K., Siegle, M., Stoelinga, M., D’Argenio, P.R. (eds.) QEST 2013. LNCS, vol. 8054, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dehnert, C., Jansen, N., Wimmer, R., Ábrahám, E., Katoen, JP. (2014). Fast Debugging of PRISM Models. In: Cassez, F., Raskin, JF. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8837. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11936-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11936-6_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11935-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11936-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)