Abstract
Two of the most promising approaches to fighting the state explosion problem are abstraction and compositional verification. In this work we join their forces to obtain a novel fully automatic compositional technique that can determine the truth value of the full μ-calculus with respect to a given system.
Given a system \(\ensuremath{M} = \ensuremath{M}_1 \parallel \ensuremath{M}_2\), we view each component \(\ensuremath{M}_i\) as an abstraction \({\ensuremath{M}_i}\uparrow\) of the global system. The abstract component \({\ensuremath{M}_i}\uparrow \) is defined using a 3-valued semantics so that whenever a μ-calculus formula ϕ has a definite value (true or false) on \({\ensuremath{M}_i}\uparrow \), the same value holds also for \(\ensuremath{M}\). Thus, ϕ can be checked on either \({\ensuremath{M}_1}\uparrow \) or \({\ensuremath{M}_2}\uparrow \) (or both), and if any of them returns a definite result, then this result holds also for \(\ensuremath{M}\). If both checks result in an indefinite value, the composition of the components needs to be considered. However, instead of constructing the composition of \({\ensuremath{M}_1}\uparrow \) and \({\ensuremath{M}_2}\uparrow \), our approach identifies and composes only the parts of the components in which their composition is necessary in order to conclude the truth value of ϕ. It ignores the parts which can be handled separately. The resulting model is often significantly smaller than the full system.
We explain how our compositional approach can be combined with abstraction, in order to further reduce the size of the checked components. The result is an incremental compositional abstraction-refinement framework, which resembles automatic Assume-Guarantee reasoning.
The first author would like to acknowledge the financial support of an IBM Ph.D. Fellowship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aziz, V.A., Shiple, T.R., Sangiovanni-vincentelli, A.L.: Formula-dependent equivalence for compositional CTL model checking. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Alur, R., Cerny, P., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W.: Synthesis of interface specifications for Java classes. In: POPL (2005)
Alur, R., de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C.: Automating modular verification. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. In: FOCS (1997)
Alur, R., Madhusudan, P., Nam, W.: Symbolic compositional verification by learning assumptions. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Ball, T., Kupferman, O.: An abstraction-refinement framework for multi-agent systems. In: LICS (2006)
Barringer, H., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.: Proof rules for automated compositional verification through learning. In: SAVCBS (2003)
Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Ouaknine, J., Sharygina, N., Touili, T., Veith, H.: State/event software verification for branching-time specifications. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M., Sinha, N., Thati, P.: Automated assume-guarantee reasoning for simulation conformance. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) ETAPS 2003 and TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 19(2) (1997)
de Alfaro, L., Godefroid, P., Jagadeesan, R.: Three-valued abstractions of games: Uncertainty, but with precision. In: LICS (2004)
de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C.: Detecting errors before reaching them. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S., Barringer, H.: Assumption generation for software component verification. In: ASE (2002)
Godefroid, P., Jagadeesan, R.: Automatic abstraction using generalized model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Grumberg, O., Lange, M., Leucker, M., Shoham, S.: Don’t know in the μ-calculus. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Grumberg, O., Lange, M., Leucker, M., Shoham, S.: When not losing is better than winning: Abstraction and refinement for the full μ-calculus. Information and Compuatation (2007), doi: 10.1016/j.ic.2006.10.009
Grumberg, O., Long, D.: Model checking and modular verification. TOPLAS, 16(3) (1994)
Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D.: Modal transition systems: A foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: Sands, D. (ed.) ESOP 2001 and ETAPS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2028, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Jones, C.: Specification and design of (parallel) programs. In: IFIP (1983)
Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional μ-calculus. TCS, 27 (1983)
Li, H.C., Krishnamurthi, S., Fisler, K.: Modular verification of open features using three-valued model checking. Autom. Softw. Eng., 12(3) (2005)
Pnueli, A.: In transition for global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In: Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, vol. 13 (1984)
Shoham, S., Grumberg, O.: A game-based framework for CTL counterexamples and 3-valued abstraction-refinement. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, Springer, Heidelberg (2003) (to appear in TOCL)
Shoham, S., Grumberg, O.: 3-valued abstraction: More precision at less cost. In: LICS (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Shoham, S., Grumberg, O. (2007). Compositional Verification and 3-Valued Abstractions Join Forces. In: Nielson, H.R., Filé, G. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4634. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74061-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74061-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74060-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74061-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)