Skip to main content

Bounded Model Checking Using Satisfiability Solving

Formal Methods in System Design volume 19, pages 7–34 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

The phrase model checking refers to algorithms for exploring the state space of a transition system to determine if it obeys a specification of its intended behavior. These algorithms can perform exhaustive verification in a highly automatic manner, and, thus, have attracted much interest in industry. Model checking programs are now being commercially marketed. However, model checking has been held back by the state explosion problem, which is the problem that the number of states in a system grows exponentially in the number of system components. Much research has been devoted to ameliorating this problem.

In this tutorial, we first give a brief overview of the history of model checking to date, and then focus on recent techniques that combine model checking with satisfiability solving. These techniques, known as bounded model checking, do a very fast exploration of the state space, and for some types of problems seem to offer large performance improvements over previous approaches. We review experiments with bounded model checking on both public domain and industrial designs, and propose a methodology for applying the technique in industry for invariance checking. We then summarize the pros and cons of this new technology and discuss future research efforts to extend its capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. P.A. Abdulla, P. Bjesse, and N. Een, “Symbolic reachability analysis based on sat-solvers,” in TACAS'00, 6th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E.M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu, “Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs,” in Design Automation Conference, (DAC'99), June1999.

  3. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E.M. Clarke, and Y. Zhu, “Symbolic model checking without BDDs,” in TACAS'99, 1999.

  4. A. Biere, E.M. Clarke, R. Raimi, and Y. Zhu, “Verifying safety properties of a PowerPC microprocessor using symbolic model checking without BDDs,” in International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV'99), July 1999.

  5. A. Borälv, “The industrial success of verification tools based on Stålmarck's method,” in O. Grumberg (Ed.), International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV'97), number 1254 in LNCS, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R.E. Bryant, “Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 677–691, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, and D. Long, “Representing circuits more efficiently in symbolic model checking,” in Proc. Design Automation Conference, 1991.

  8. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang, “Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond,” Information and Computation, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 142–170, June 1992. Originally presented at the 1990 Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS90).

    Google Scholar 

  9. E.M. Clarke and E.A. Emerson, “Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic,” In Proceedings of the IBM Workshop on Logics of Programs, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981, Vol. 131of LNCS, pp. 52–71.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, and A.P. Sistla, “Automatic verification of finie-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifcations,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 244–263, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, H. Hiraishi, S. Jha, D.E. Long, K.L. McMillan, and L.A. Ness, “Verification of the futurebux+ cache coherence protocol,” in Proc. 11th Intl. Symp. on Computer Hdwe. Description Lang. and their Applications, April 1993.

  12. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long. “Model checking and abstraction,” in Proc. 19th Ann. ACMSymp. on Principles of Prog. Lang., Jan. 1992.

  13. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long, “Model checking and abstraction,” ACM Transactions on ProgrammingLanguages and Systems, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 1512–1542, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.A. Peled, Model Checking, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. O. Coudert, J.C. Madre, and C. Berthet, “Verifying temporal properties of sequential machines without building their state diagrams,” in Proc. 10th Int'l Computer Aided Verification Conference, 1990, pp. 23–32.

  16. M. Davis and H. Putnam, “A computing procedure for quantification theory,” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 7, pp. 201–215, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Giunchiglia and R. Sebastiani, “Building decision procedures for modal logics from propositional decision procedures—-the case study of modal K,” in Proc. of the 13th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  18. O. Grumberg and D.E. Long, “Model checking and modular verification,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 843–872, May 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Jackson, “An intermediate design language and its analysis,” in Proceedings of Foundations of Software Engineering, November 1998.

  20. D.S. Johnson and M.A. Trick (Eds.), The second DIMACS implementation challenge, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, 1993. (see http://dimacs. rutgers.edu/Challenges/).

  21. M. Kaufmann, A. Martin, and C. Pixley, “Design constraints in symbolic model checking,” in Proc. 10th Int'l Computer Aided Verification Conference, June 1998.

  22. H. Kautz and B. Selman, “Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search,” in Proc. AAAI'96, Portland, OR, 1996.

  23. R.P. Kurshan, Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994, pp. 170–172.

    Google Scholar 

  24. T. Larrabee, “Test pattern generation using Boolean satisfiability,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits, Vol. 11, pp.4–15, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A.J. Martin, The design of a self-timed circuit for distributed mutual exclusion, in H. Fuchs (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1985 Chapel Hill Conference on Very Large Scale Integration, 1985.

  26. K.L. McMillan, Symbolic Model Checking: An Approach to the State Explosion Problem, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  27. C. Pixley, “A computational theory and implementation of sequential hardware equivalence,” in CAV'90 DIMACS series, vol. 3, also DIMACS Tech. Report 90-31, pp. 293–320, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Plaisted and S. Greenbaum, “A structure-preserving clause form translation,” Journal of Symbolic Computation, Vol. 2, pp. 293–304, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J.P. Quielle and J. Sifakis, “Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR,” in Proc. 5th Int. Symp. in Programming, 1981.

  30. R. Raimi and J. Lear, “Analyzing a PowerPC 620 microprocessor silicon failure using model checking,” in Proc. Int'l Test Conference, 1997.

  31. R. Ranjan, A. Aziz, R. Brayton, B. Plessier, and C. Pixley, “Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification,” in Int'l Workshop on Logic Synthesis, 1995.

  32. O. Shtrichman, “Tuning sat checkers for bounded model-checking,” in Computer Aided Verification, 12th International Conference (CAV'00), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J.P.M. Silva, “Search algorithms for satisfiability problems in combinational switching circuits,” Ph.D. Dissertation, EECS Department,University of Michigan, May 1995.

  34. J.P.M. Silva, L.M. Siveira, and J. Marques-Silva, “Algorithms for solving Boolean satisfiability in combinational circuits,” in Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE), 1999.

  35. G.Stålmarck and M.Säflund, “Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic,” in B.K. Daniels (Ed.), Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), Pergamon Press, 1990, pp. 31–36.

  36. P.R. Stephan, R.K. Brayton, and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Combinational test generation using satisfiability,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits, Vol. 15, pp. 1167–1176, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  37. P.F. Williams, A. Biere, E.M. Clarke, and A. Gupta, “Combining decision diagrams and sat procedures for efficient symbolic model checking,” in Computer Aided Verification, 12th International Conference (CAV'00), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  38. H. Zhang. A Decision Procedure for Propositional Logic. Assoc. for Automated Reasoning Newsletter, Vol. 22, pp. 1–3, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  39. H. Zhang, “SATO: An efficient propositional prover,” in International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE'97), number 1249 in LNAI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 272–275.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, CMU, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Edmund Clarke

  2. Institute of Computer Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

    Armin Biere

  3. TriMedia Technologies, Inc., 801 Capital of Texas Hwy. So., Austin, TX, 78704

    Richard Raimi & Yunshan Zhu

Authors
  1. Edmund Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Biere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Raimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yunshan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R. et al. Bounded Model Checking Using Satisfiability Solving. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 7–34 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011276507260

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011276507260

  • model checking
  • processor verification
  • satisfiability
  • bounded model checking
  • cone of influence reduction