Advertisement

Experimental Analysis of Different Techniques for Bounded Model Checking

  • Nina Amla
  • Robert Kurshan
  • Kenneth L. McMillan
  • Ricardo Medel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2619)

Abstract

Bounded model checking (BMC) is a procedure that searches for counterexamples to a given property through bounded executions of a non-terminating system. This paper compares the performance of SAT-based, BDD-based and explicit state based BMC on benchmarks drawn from commercial designs. Our experimental framework provides a uniform and comprehensive basis to evaluate each of these approaches. The experimental results in this paper suggest that for designs with deep counterexamples, BDD-based BMC is much faster. For designs with shallow counterexamples, we observe that indeed SAT-based BMC is more effective than BDD-based BMC, but we also observe that explicit state based BMC is comparably effective, a new observation.

References

  1. [BC00]
    P. Bjesse and K. Claessen. SAT-based verification without state space traversal. In FMCAD, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [BCCZ99]
    A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1579 of LNCS, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BCM+90]
    J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, K. L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In LICS, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [BCRZ99]
    A. Biere, E. Clarke, R. Raimi, and Y. Zhu. Verifying safety properties of a PowerPC microprocessor using symbolic model checking without BDDs. In CAV, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [BHSV+96]
    R. Brayton, G. Hachtel, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, F. Somenzi, A. Aziz, S. Cheng, S. Edwards, S. Khatri, Y. Kukimoto, A. Pardo, S. Qadeer, R. Ranjan, S. Sarwary, T. Shiple, G. Swamy, and T. Villa. VIS. In FMCAD, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [BLM01]
    P. Bjesse, T. Leonard, and A. Mokkedem. Finding bugs in an Alpha microprocessor using satisfiability solvers. In CAV, volume 2102 of LNCS, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [Bor97]
    A. Boralv. The industrial success of verification tools based on stalmarck’s method. In CAV, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [Bry86]
    R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulations. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [CCQ02]
    G. Cabodi, P. Camurati, and S. Quer. Can bdds compete with sat solvers on bounded model checking. In DAC, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. [CE81]
    E.M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In Workshop on Logics of Programs, volume 131 of LNCS, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [CFF+01]
    Fady C., L. Fix, R. Fraer, E. Giunchiglia, G. Kamhi, A. Tacchella, and M. Y. Vardi. Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In CAV, volume 2102 of LNCS, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [GN02]
    E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov. Berkmin: A fast and robust sat-solver. In DATE, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. [HK90]
    Z. Har’El and R. P. Kurshan. Software for analytical development of communications protocols. AT&T Technical Journal, 69(1), 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [KK97]
    A. Kuehlmann and F. Krohm. Equivalence checking using cuts and heaps. In DAC, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. [KS02]
    D. Kroening and O. Strichman. Efficient computation of recurrence diameters. In VMCAI, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. [Kur94]
    R. Kurshan. Computer-aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: The Automata-Theoretic Approach. Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [McM93]
    K. McMillan. Symbolic model checking: An approach to the state explosion problem. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [McM99]
    K. McMillan. Getting started with smv, 1999. URL: http://www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~kenmcmil.
  19. [MMZ+01]
    M. W. Moskewicz, C. F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Cha.: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  20. [MSS99]
    Marques-Silva and Sakallah. GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEETC: IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [QS82]
    J.P. Queille and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proc. of the 5th International Symposium on Programming, volume 137 of LNCS, 1982.Google Scholar
  22. [SS98]
    M. Sheeran and G. Stålmarck. A tutorial on Stålmarck’s proof procedure for propositional logic. In CAV, volume 1522 of LNCS, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [Str00]
    O. Strichman. Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model checking. In CAV, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. [VB01]
    M. N. Velev and R. E. Bryant. Effective use of boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and VLIW. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Design Automation Conference 2001, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. [Zha97]
    H. Zhang. SATO: An eficient propositional prover. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated deduction, volume 1249 of LNAI, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Amla
    • 1
  • Robert Kurshan
    • 1
  • Kenneth L. McMillan
    • 1
  • Ricardo Medel
    • 2
  1. 1.Cadence Design SystemsUSA
  2. 2.Stevens Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations