Advertisement

Assumption-based distribution of CTL model checking

  • Luboš BrimEmail author
  • Karen Yorav
  • Jitka Žídková
Special section on parallel and distributed model checking

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the problem of performing distributed CTL model checking by splitting the given state space into several “partial state spaces.” The partial state space is modelled as a Kripke structure with border states. Each computer involved in the distributed computation owns a partial state space and performs a model-checking algorithm on this incomplete structure. To be able to proceed, the border states are augmented by assumptions about truth values of formulas and the computers exchange assumptions about relevant states to compute more precise information.

Keywords

Model checking Branching time logics Distributed algorithms Many-valuated logics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnat J, Brim L, Chaloupka J (2003) Parallel breadth-first search LTL model-checking. In: 18th IEEE International conference on automated software engineering (ASE’03), pp 106–115Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnat J, Brim L, Stříbrná J (2001) Distributed LTL model-checking in SPIN. In: Dwyer MB (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international SPIN workshop on model checking of software (SPIN’01). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2057. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 217–234Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnat J, Brim L, Černá I (2002) Property driven distribution of nested DFS. In: 3rd international workshop on verification and computational logic (VCL’02) (held at the PLI 2002 Symposium), October 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berezin S, Campos S, Clarke EM (1997) Compositional reasoning in model checking. In: International symposium compositionality – the significant difference (COMPOS’97). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1536. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruns G, Godefroid P (1999) Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Procedings of the 11th international conference on computer-aided verification (CAV’99), pp 274–287Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell A, Haverkort BR (2002) Sequential and distributed model checking of Petri Net specifications. In: Brim L, Grumberg O (eds) Electronic notes in theoretical computer science, vol 68Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell A, Haverkort BR (2004) Sequential and distributed model checking of Petri Net specifications. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollig B, Leucker M, Weber M (2002) Local parallel model checking for the alternation-free mu-calculus. In: 9th international SPIN workshop on model checking of software (SPIN’02). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2318. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 128–147Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Černá I, Pelánek R (2003) Distributed explicit fair cycle detection. In: Ball T, Rajamani SK (eds) 10th international SPIN workshop on model checking software. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2648. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 49–73Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grumberg O, Heyman T, Schuster A (2001) Distributed model checking for mu-calculus. In: 13th conference on computer-aided verification (CAV’01). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2102. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 350–362Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel H, Mateescu R, Smarandache IM (2001) Parallel state space construction for model-checking. In: 8th international SPIN workshop on model checking of software (SPIN’01). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2057. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 200–216Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heyman T, Geist D, Grumberg O, Schuster A (2000) Achieving scalability in parallel reachability analysis of very large circuits. In: 10th conference on computer-aided verification (CAV’00). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1855. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 20–35Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones MD, Sorber J (2002) Parallel random walk search for ltl violations. In: 1st international workshop on parallel and distributed model checking (PDMC’02), pp 156–161Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knottenbelt WJ, Mestern MA, Harrison PG, Kritzinger PS (1998) Probability, parallelism and the state space exploration problem. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on modelling, techniques and tools (TOOLS ’98). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1469. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 165–179Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kupferman O, Vardi MY (1997) Modular model checking. In: International symposium on compositionality – the significant difference (COMPOS’97). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1536. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 381–401Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kupferman O, Vardi M (2000) An automata-theoretic approach to modular model checking. ACM Trans Programm Lang Syst 22(1):87–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laster K, Grumberg O (1998) Modular model checking of software. In: Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’98). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1384. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 20–35Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lerda F, Sisto R (1999) Distributed-memory model checking with SPIN. In: Proceedings of the 6th international SPIN workshop on model checking of software (SPIN’99). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1680. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 22–39Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masson P-A, Mountassir H, Julliand J (2000) Modular verification for a class of PLTL properties. In: International conference on integrated formal methods (IFM’00). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1945. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 398–419Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicol D, Ciardo G (1997) Automated parallelization of discrete state-space generation. J Parallel Distrib Comput 47(2):153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steffen B, Burkart O (1994) Pushdown processes: parallel composition and model checking. In: International conference on concurrency theory (CONCUR’94). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 836. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 98–113Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stern U, Dill DL (1997) Parallelizing the murϕ verifier. In: Grumberg O (ed) Proceedings of the conference on computer-aided verification (CAV ’97). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1254. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 256–267Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsay Y-K (2000) Compositional verification in linear-time temporal logic. In: Foundations of software science and computation structure (FoSSaCS’00). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2030. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 344–358Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walukiewicz I (2000) Model checking CTL properties of pushdown systems. In: Foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science (FSTTCS’00), pp 127–138Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yorav K (2000) Exploiting syntactic structure for automatic verification. PhD thesis, Technion, Haifa, Israel, June 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.TechnionHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations