Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 607–616 | Cite as

Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications

  • Susanne Graf
  • Bernhard Steffen
  • Gerald Lüttgen


We present a method for thecompositional construction of theminimal transition system that represents the semantics of a given distributed system. Our aim is to control thestate explosion caused by the interleavings of actions of communicating parallel components byreduction steps that exploitglobal communication constraints given in terms ofinterface specifications. Theeffect of the method, which is developed forbisimulation semantics here, depends on the structure of the distributed system under consideration, and theaccuracy of the interface specifications. However, itscorrectness is independent of the correctness of the interface specifications provided by the program designer.


Bisimulation Distributed system Interface specification Minimisation State explosion problem 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

165_2005_BF01211911_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (599 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 614 KB.


  1. [BFH90]
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.-C. and Halbwachs, N.: Minimal model generation. InWorkshop on Automatic Verification '90, volume 531 ofLNCS, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [CGL92]
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O. and Long, D.: Model checking and abstraction. InSymp. Principles of Programming Languages '92, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [CLM89]
    Clarke, E., Long, D. and McMillan, K.: Compositional model checking.Proc. IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science, pages 353–362, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [ClS90]
    Cleaveland, R. and Steffen, B.: A preorder for partial process specifications. InProceedings of CONCUR'90, Amsterdam (Netherlands), volume 458 ofLNCS, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [DGG93]
    Dams, D., Grumberg, O. and Gerth, R.: Generation of reduced models for checking fragments of CTL. InProceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV'93), volume 697of LNCS, pages 479–490, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [Fer88]
    Fernandez, J.-C.:Aldébaran: Un Système de Vérification par Réduction de Processus Communicants. PhD thesis, Université de Grenoble, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [GoW91]
    Godefroid, P. and Wolper, P.: Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. InProceedings of the International Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV'91), volume 575of LNCS, pages 332–342, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [GSL96]
    Graf, S., Steffen, B. and Lüttgen, G.: Compositional Minimisation of Finite State Systems Using Interface Specifications,Formal Aspects of Computing 8(E):xxx–xxx.Google Scholar
  9. [Jos87]
    Josko, B.: MCTL — an extension of CTL for modular verification of concurrent systems. InWorkshop on Temporal Logic in Specification, volume 398 ofLNCS, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [LGS95]
    Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A. and Bensalem, S.: Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems.Formal Methods in System Design,Vol 6, Iss 1, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [LSW94]
    Larsen, K. G., Steffen, B. and Weise, C.: A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [LaT88]
    Larsen, K. G. and Thomsen, B.: Compositional proofs by partial specification of processes.Proc. IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [Mil89]
    Milner, R.:Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [Pel93]
    Peled, D.: All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. InProceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'93), volume 697 ofLNCS, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [Pnu90]
    Pnueli, A.: In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. InLogics and Models for Concurrent Systems, volume 13 ofNATO ASI Series F. Springer Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [ShG90]
    Shurek, G. and Grumberg, O.: The modular framework of computer-aided verification. InWorkshop on Automatic Verification '90, volume 531 ofLNCS, pages 214–223, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [SMC96]
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T. and Claßen, A.: Heterogeneous analysis and verification for distributed systems.Software—Concepts and Tools, 17:13–25, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [Vaa90]
    Vaandrager, F. W.: Some observations on redundancy in a context. In J.C.M. Baeten, editor,Applications of Process Algebra, volume 17 ofCambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 237–260. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [Val93]
    Valmari, A.: On-the-fly verification with stubborn sets. InProceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'93), volume 697of LNCS, pages 397–408, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. [Wal88]
    Walker, D. J.: Bisimulation and divergence in CCS.Proc. IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. [Win90]
    Winskel, G.: Compositional checking of validity on finite state processes. InWorkshop on Theories of Communication, CONCUR, volume 458 ofLNCS, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© BCS 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Graf
    • 1
  • Bernhard Steffen
    • 2
  • Gerald Lüttgen
    • 2
  1. 1.VERIMAGMonbonnotFrance
  2. 2.Fakultät für Mathematik und InformatikUniversität PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations