Advertisement

Introductory Paper

  • Enrico Tronci
Special section on Recent Advances in Hardware Verification
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In today’s competitive market designing of digital systems (hardware as well as software) faces tremendous challenges. In fact, notwithstanding an ever decreasing project budget, time to market and product lifetime, designers are faced with an ever increasing system complexity and customer expected quality. The above situation calls for better and better formal verification techniques at all steps of the design flow. This special issue is devoted to publishing revised versions of contributions first presented at the 12th Advanced Research Working Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods (CHARME) held 21–24 October 2003 in L’Aquila, Italy. Authors of well regarded papers from CHARME’03 were invited to submit to this special issue. All papers included here have been suitably extended and have undergone an independent round of reviewing.

Keywords

Formal verification Model checking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology: The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. Planning Report 02–3. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fitzpatrick, T., Schutten, R.: Design for verification: Blueprint for productivity and product quality. Technical report, Synopsy Inc., 2003. http://www.synopsys.com/products/simulation/dfv_wp.html
  3. 3.
    Collett International Research Inc. IC/ASIC functional verification study. Technical report, Collett International Research Inc. (2002) http://www.collett.com/reports.htm
  4. 4.
    Geist, D., Tronci, E. (eds.): Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods (CHARME), vol. 2860 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, L’Aquila, Italy. 12th IFIP WG 10.5 Advanced Research Working Conference. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Logic of Programs: Workshop, vol. 131 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Yorktown Heights, NY (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Languages Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dill, D.L., Drexler, A.J., Hu, A.J., Yang, C.H.: Protocol verification as a hardware design aid. In: Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design on VLSI in Computer and Processors, pp. 522–525. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker, Primer and Reference manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98(2), 142–170 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, Dordretch (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without bdds. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS’99, vol. 1579 of LNCS. Springer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: The quest for efficient boolean satisfiability solvers. In: Proceedings of 14th Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Copenhagen, Denmark (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, A.J., York, G., Dill, D.L.: New techniques for efficient verification with implicitly conjoined BDDs. In: 31st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, CA (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Della Penna, G., Intrigila, B., Melatti, I., Minichino, M., Ciancamerla, E., Parisse, A., Tronci, E., Zilli, M.V.: Automatic verification of a turbogas control system with the murφ verifier. In: Maler, O., Pnueli, A. (eds.) Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 6th International Workshop, HSCC 2003 Prague, Czech Republic, April 3–5, 2003, Proceedings, vol. 2623 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 141–155. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spin web page: http://spinroot.com
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Corbett, J., Dwyer, M., Hatcliff, J., Pasareanu, R.C., Laubach, S., Zheng, H.: Bandera: Extracting finite-state models from java source code. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Havelund, K., Pressburger, T.: Model checking java programs using java pathfinder. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer 2 (4), April (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Holzmann, G., Smith, M.: A practical method for verifying event driven software. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM/IEEE, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Della Penna, G., Intrigila, B., Melatti, I., tronci, E., Zilli, M.: Exploiting transition locality in automatic verification of concurrent systems. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 6 (4) (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV Version 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2002), vol. 2404 of LNCS. Springer, Copenhagen, Denmark (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nusmv web page: http://nusmv.irst.itc.it
  30. 30.
    Brayton, R.K., Hachtel, G.D., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Somenzi, F., Aziz, A., Cheng, S.-T., Edwards, S., Khatri, S., Kukimoto, Y., Pardo, A., Qadeer, S., Ranjan, R.K., Sarwary, S., Shiple, T.R., Swamy, G., Villa, T.: Vis: A system for verification and synthesis. In: Proceedings of Computer Aided Verification (CAV), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL: Status and developments. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) Proc. of Computer 9th Intern. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), vol. 1254 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 456–459. Springer, Haifa, Israel (1997)0Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uppaal web page: http://www.uppaal.com/
  34. 34.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking Software, vol. 2057 of LNCS, pp 103–122, Springer, Toronto, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Baier, C., Clarke, E.M., Hartonas-Garmhausen, V., Kwiatkowska, M., Ryan, M.: Symbolic model checking for probabilistic processes. In: Degano, P., Gorrieri, R., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A. (eds.) Automata, Languages and Programming, 24th International Colloquium, ICALP’97, Bologna, Italy, Proceedings, vol. 1256 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 430–440. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Probabilistic symbolic model checking with PRISM: A hybrid approach. In: Katoen, J.P., Stevens, P. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 8th International Conference, TACAS 2002, Held as Part of the Joint European Conference on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2002, Grenoble, France, Proceedings, vol. 2280 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 52–66. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Moore, J.S.: Inductive assertions and operational semantics. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Beyer, S., Jacobi, C., Kröning, D., Leinenbach1, D., Paul, W.J.: Putting it all together–-formal verification of the vamp. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chockler, H., Kupfermann, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Coverage metrics for formal verification. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ganay, M.K., Gupta, A., Yang, Z., Ashar, P.: Efficient distributed sat and sat based distributed bounded model checking. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Della Penna, G., Intrigila, B., Melatti, I., Tronci, E., Zilli, M.V.: Finite horizon analysis of markov chains with the murφ verifier. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fisler, K.: Towards diagrammability and efficiency in event sequence languages. Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer XX, XX (XXXX)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations