Advertisement

Interaction Abstraction for Compositional Finite State Systems

  • Wayne Liu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1885)

Abstract

A new algorithm for reducing the state space of compositional finite state systems is introduced. Its goal is similar to compositional minimization algorithms as it tries to preserve only the relevant information for checking properties. It works better than compositional minimization because it reduces components individually and does not need to compose components. Hence it does not suffer from state explosion. Instead, it uses information about interactions with other components, and merges interactions that do not lead to different relevant behaviour. Experiments show that it reduces state spaces dramatically in the cases when only a part of the system’s behaviour is of interest

Keywords

Label Transition System Generate Test Case State Explosion Reduce State Space Busy Tone 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Yannakakis, M.: Model checking of hierarchical state machines. In: Sixth ACM Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 175–188 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.-C., Graf, S., Rodriguez, C., Sifakis, J.: Safety for Branching Time Semantics. 18th ICALP, July 1991. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.C., Halbwachs, N., Ratel, C., Raymond, P.: Minimal state graph generation. Science of Computer Programming 18(3) (June 1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, J.: Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 states and beyond. Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Context Constraints for Compositional Reachability Analysis. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology ( October 1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Garavel, H., Kerbrat, A., Mateescu, R., Mounier, L., Sighireanu, M.: CADP: A Protocol Validation and Verification Toolbox. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, August 1996, pp. 437–440 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandez, J.-C.: An Implementation of an Efficient Algorithm for Bisimulation Equivalence. Science of Computer Programming 13(2-3), 219–236 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grégoire, J.-C.: State space compression in SPIN with GETSs”, Second SPIN Workshop (August 1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godefroid, P., Wolper, P.: A partial approach to model checking. In: Proc. 6th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, July 1991, pp. 406–415 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The engineering of a model checker: the Gnu i-protocol case study revisited. In: Dams, D.R., Gerth, R., Leue, S., Massink, M. (eds.) SPIN 1999. LNCS, vol. 1680, p. 232. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Designing executable abstractions. In: Proc. Formal Methods in Software Practice, March 1998. ACM Press, Clearwater Beach (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science 575. Analysis Methods, vol. 2, pp. 192–202. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, W., Dasiewicz, P.: Selecting System Test Cases for Object-oriented Programs Using Event-Flow. Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE 1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lyons, A.: UML for Real-Time Overview. RATIONAL Software Corporation Whitepaper (April 1998), Available at http://www.rational.com/
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steffen, B., Graf, S., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional Minimization of Finite State Systems. International Journal on Formal Aspects of Computing 8, 607–616 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valmari, A.: The State Explosion Problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varpaaniemi, K., Halme, J., Hiekkanen, K., Pyssysalo, T.: PROD reference manual. Technical Report B13, Helsinki University of Technology, Digital Systems Laboratory, Espoo, Finland (August. 1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of Waterloo 

Personalised recommendations