Abstract
The verification problem for a system consisting of components can be decomposed into simpler subproblems for the components using assume-guarantee reasoning. However, such compositional reasoning requires user guidance to identify appropriate assumptions for components. In this paper, we propose an automated solution for discovering assumptions based on the L * algorithm for active learning of regular languages. We present a symbolic implementation of the learning algorithm, and incorporate it in the model checker NuSMV. Our experiments demonstrate significant savings in the computational requirements of symbolic model checking.
This research was partially supported by ARO grant DAAD19-01-1-0473, and NSF grants ITR/SY 0121431 and CCR0306382.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Conjoining specifications. ACM TOPLAS 17, 507–534 (1995)
Alur, R., Cerny, P., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W.: Synthesis of interface specifications for Java classes. In: Proc. 32nd ACM POPL, pp. 98–109 (2005)
Alur, R., de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.: Automating modular verification. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, pp. 82–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15(1), 7–48 (1996); A preliminary version appears in Proc. 11th LICS (1996)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S., Tasiran, S.: MOCHA: Modularity in model checking. In: 10th CAV, pp. 516–520 (1998)
Angluin, D.: Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Information and Computation 75, 87–106 (1987)
Barringer, H., Pasareanu, C.S., Giannakopolou, D.: Proof rules for automated compositional verification through learning. In: Proc. 2nd SVCBS (2003)
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean-function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)
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: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. Computer Aided Verification, 154–169 (2000)
Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Grümberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and modular verification. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(3), 843–871 (1994)
Henzinger, T.A., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.: You assume, we guarantee: Methodology and case studies. In: Y. Vardi, M. (ed.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 521–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Kurshan, R.P.: Computer-aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: the automata-theoretic approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)
McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)
McMillan, K.L.: A compositional rule for hardware design refinement. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 24–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Namjoshi, K.S., Trefler, R.J.: On the completeness of compositional reasoning. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 139–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Yannakakis, M.: Black box checking. Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics 7(2), 225–246 (2002)
Rivest, R.L., Schapire, R.E.: Inference of finite automata using homing sequences. Information and Computation 103(2), 299–347 (1993)
Stark, E.W.: A proof technique for rely-guarantee properties. In: Maheshwari, S.N. (ed.) FSTTCS 1985. LNCS, vol. 206, pp. 369–391. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)
Vardhan, A., Sen, K., Viswanathan, M., Agha, G.: Actively learning to verify safety properties for FIFO automata. In: Lodaya, K., Mahajan, M. (eds.) FSTTCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3328, pp. 494–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alur, R., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W. (2005). Symbolic Compositional Verification by Learning Assumptions. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds) Computer Aided Verification. CAV 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3576. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11513988_52
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11513988_52
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27231-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31686-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)