Science in China Series F: Information Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 793–810 | Cite as

Combining search space partition and abstraction for LTL model checking

Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The state space explosion problem is still the key obstacle for applying model checking to systems of industrial size. Abstraction-based methods have been particularly successful in this regard. This paper presents an approach based on refinement of search space partition and abstraction which combines these two techniques for reducing the complexity of model checking. The refinement depends on the representation of each portion of search space. Especially, search space can be refined stepwise to get a better reduction. As reported in the case study, the integration of search space partition and abstraction improves the efficiency of verification with respect to the requirement of memory and obtains significant advantage over the use of each of them in isolation.

Keywords

search space partition refinement abstraction LTL model checking 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clark E M, Grumberg O, Peled D et al. Model Checking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke E M, Grumberg O, Jha S, et al. Counterexamples-guided abstraction refinement. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 1855. Berlin: Springer, 2000. 154–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallardo M M, Merino P, Pimentel E. Refinement of LTL formulas for abstract model checking. In: Proceedings of 9th International Static Analysis Symposium, LNCS 2477. Berlin: Springer, 2002. 395–410Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallardo M M, Merino P, Pimentel E. Comparing under-and over-approximations of LTL properties for model checking. In: Proceedings of 11th International Workshop on Functional and Logic Programming, ENTCS-76. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallardo M M, Merino P, Pimentel E. A tool for abstraction in model checking. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industral Critical Systems, ENTCS-76. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke E M, Grumberg O, Long D. Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 1994, 16(5): 1512–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallardo M M, Merino P. A framework for automatic construction of abstract promela methods. In: Proceedings of 6th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, LNCS 1680. Berlin: Springer, 1999. 184–199Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dams D, Gerth R, Grumberg O. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 1997, 19(2): 253–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ranzato, Scozzari F. Making abstract domains condensing. ACM Trans Comput Logic, 2005, 6(1): 33–60CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giacobazzi R, Ranzato F, Scozzari F. Making abstract interpretations complete. J ACM, 2000, 47(2): 361–416CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ranzato F, Tapparo F. An abstract interpretation-based refinement algorithm for strong preservation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, LNCS 3440, Berlin: Springer, 2005. 140–156Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loiseaux C, Graf S, Sifakis J, et al. Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods in System Design, 1995, 23(5): 1–35Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallardo M M, Martinez J, Merino P, et al. αSPIN: Extending SPIN with Abstraction. In: Proceedings of 9th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, LNCS 2318. Berlin: Springer, 2002. 254–258Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holzmann G J. The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. New York: Addison-Wesley, 2004Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berezin S, Campos S, Clarke E M. Compositional reasoning in model checking. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Compositionality, LNCS 1536. Berlin: Springer, 1997. 81–102Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillan K L. Verification of infinite state systems by compositional model checking. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods, LNCS 1703. Berlin: Springer, 1999. 219–234Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su B, Zhang W. Search space partition and case basis exploration for reducing model checking complexity. In: Proceedings of 2th International Symposium on Automated Technology on Verification and Analysis (ATVA’04), LNCS 3299. Berlin: Springer, 2004. 34–48Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang W. Combining static analysis and case-based search space partition for reducing peek memory in model checking. J Comput Sci Tech, 2003, 18(6): 762–770MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pu F, Zhang W, Wang S. An improved cased-based approach to LTL model checking. In: Proceedings of 2th International Workshop on Rapid Intergration of Software Engineering Techniques, LNCS 3943. Berlin: Springer, 2005. 190–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang W. Model checking operator procedures. In: Proceedings of 6th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, LNCS 1680. Berlin: Springer, 1999, 200–215Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Milett L I, Teitelbaum T. Issues in slicing PROMELA and its applications to model checking, protocol understanding, and simulation. Int J Software Tools for Tech Trans, 2002, 2(4): 343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu Q, Hsiao M S. A new simulation-based property checking algorithm based on partitioned alternative search space traversal. IEEE Trans Comput, 2006, 55(11): 1325–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huth M. Model checking modal transition systems using Kripke structures. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation, LNCS 2294. Berlin: Springer, 2002, 302–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huth M, Jagadeesan R, Schmit D. Modal transition syatems: A foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: Proceedings of European Symposium On Programming, LNCS 2028. Berlin: Springer, 2001. 155–169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science in China Press 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of Western SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations