Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 96–109 | Cite as

Improved Bounded Model Checking for the Universal Fragment of CTL

Regular Paper


SAT-based bounded model checking (BMC) has been introduced as a complementary technique to BDD-based symbolic model checking in recent years, and a lot of successful work has been done in this direction. The approach was first introduced by A. Biere et al. in checking linear temporal logic (LTL) formulae and then also adapted to check formulae of the universal fragment of computation tree logic (ACTL) by W. Penczek et al. As the efficiency of model checking is still an important issue, we present an improved BMC approach for ACTL based on Penczek’s method. We consider two aspects of the approach. One is reduction of the number of variables and transitions in the k-model by distinguishing the temporal operator EX from the others. The other is simplification of the transformation of formulae by using uniform path encoding instead of a disjunction of all paths needed in the k-model. With these improvements, for an ACTL formula, the length of the final encoding of the formula in the worst case is reduced. The improved approach is implemented in the tool BMV and is compared with the original one by applying both to two well known examples, mutual exclusion and dining philosophers. The comparison shows the advantages of the improved approach with respect to the efficiency of model checking.


software verification model checking algorithm bounded model checking ACTL SAT 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2009_9208_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (89 kb)
(PDF 88.8 kb)


  1. [1]
    Biere A, Cimatti A, Clarke E, Fujita M, Zhu Y. Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In Proc. DAC, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 21–25, 1999, pp.317–320.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Biere A, Cimatti A, Clarke E, Zhu Y. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proc. TACAS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 22–28, 1999, pp.193–207.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Penczek W, WoŸna B, Zbrzezny A. Bounded model checking for the universal fragment of CTL. Fundamenta Informaticae, 2002, 51(1/2): 135–156.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Biere A, Clarke E, Raimi R, Zhu Y. Verifying safety properties of a Power PC microprocessor using symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proc. CAV, Trento, Italy, July 6–10, 1999, pp.60–71.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Copty F, Fix L, Fraer R, Giunchiglia E, Kamhi G, Tacchella A, Vardi M Y. Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In Proc. CAV, Paris, France, July 18–22, 2001, pp.436–453.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Strichman O. Accelerating bounded model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design, 2004, 24(1): 5–24.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Jain H, Bartzis C, Clarke E M. Satisfiability checking of non-clausal formulas using general matings. In Proc. SAT, Seattle, WA, USA, August 12–15, 2006, pp.75–89.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Emerson E A, Clarke E M. Using branching-time temporal logics to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Science of Computer Programming, 1982, 2(3): 241–266.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Clarke E M, Grunberg O, Peled D A. Model Checking. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Buccafurri F, Eiter T, Gottlob G, Leone N. On ACTL formulae having linear counterexamples. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 2001, 62(3): 463–515.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Pieprzyk J, Cheng Xin Qu. Rotation-symmetric functions and fast hashing. In Proc. ACISP, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, July 1998, pp.169–180.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Eén N, Sörensson N. An extensible SAT-solver. In Proc. SAT, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, May 5–8, 2003, pp.502–518.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Eén N, Sörensson N. Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In Proc. SAT, St. Andrews, UK, June 19–23, 2005, pp.61–75.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Eén N, Sörensson N. Temporal induction by incremental SAT solving. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2003, 89(4): 543–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Xu Y, Chen W, Xu L, Zhang W. Evaluation of SAT-based bounded model checking of ACTL properties. In Proc. TASE, Shanghai, China, June 5–8, 2007, pp.339–348.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Zhang W. Verification of ACTL properties by bounded model checking. In Proc. EUROCAST, Gran Canaria, Spain, February 12–16, 2007, pp.199–202.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Peled D A. Software Reliability Methods. New York: Springer, USA, 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Zhou C, Ding D. Improved SAT based bounded model checking. In Proc. TAMC, Beijing, China, May 15–20, 2006, pp.611–620.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Penczek W, WoŸna B, Zbrzezny A. Towards bounded model checking for the universal fragment of TCTL. In Proc. FTRTFT, Oldenburg, Germany, September 9–12, 2002, pp.265–290.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Audemard G, Cimatti A, Kornilowicz A, Sebastiani R. Bounded model checking for timed systems. In Proc. FORTE, Houston, Texas, USA, November 11–14, 2002, pp.243–259.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Markey N, Schnoebelen P. Symbolic model checking for simply-timed systems. In Proc. FTRTFT, Grenoble, France, September 22–24, 2004, pp.102–117.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Sheini H M, Sakallah K A. From propositional satisfiability to satisfiability modulo theories. In Proc. SAT, Seattle, WA, USA, August 12–15, 2006, pp.1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yan-Yan Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wen-Hui Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Graduate University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations