SPIN 2001: Model Checking Software pp 37-56 | Cite as
Implementing LTL model checking with net unfoldings
Conference paper
First Online:
Abstract
We report on an implementation of the unfolding approach to model-checking LTL-X recently presented by the authors. Contrary to that work, we consider an state-based version of LTL-X, which is more used in practice. We improve on the checking algorithm; the new version allows to reuse code much more efficiently. We present results on a set of case studies.
Keywords
Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Visible Transition Reachability Graph Stable Model Semantic
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.
References
- 1.J. C. Corbett. Evaluating deadlock detection methods for concurrent software. Technical report, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1995.Google Scholar
- 2.C. Courcoubetis, M. Y. Vardi, P. Wolper, and M. Yannakakis. Memory-efficient algorithms for the verification of temporal properties. Formal Methods in System Design, 1:275–288, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.J. Esparza and K. Heljanko. A new unfolding approach to LTL model checking. In Proceedings of 27th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’2000), pages 475–486, July 2000. LNCS 1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.J. Esparza and K. Heljanko. Implementing LTL model checking with net unfoldings. Research Report A68, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science, Espoo, Finland, March 2001. Available at 〈http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Publications/reports/A68abstract.htm〉.Google Scholar
- 5.J. Esparza and S. Römer. An unfolding algorithm for synchronous products of transition systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (Concur’99), pages 2–20, 1999. LNCS 1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.J. Esparza, S. Römer, and W. Vogler. An improvement of McMillan’s unfolding algorithm. In Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’96), pages 87–106, 1996. LNCS 1055.Google Scholar
- 7.J. Esparza and C. Schröter. Reachability analysis using net unfoldings. In Proceeding of the Workshop Concurrency, Specification & Programming 2000, volume II of Informatik-Bericht 140, pages 255–270. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
- 8.R. Gerth, D. Peled, M. Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In Proceedings of 15th Workshop Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, pages 3–18, 1995.Google Scholar
- 9.M. Heiner and P. Deussen. Petri net based qualitative analysis-A case study. Technical Report Technical Report I-08/1995, Brandenburg Technische Universität Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany, December 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.K. Heljanko. Deadlock and reachability checking with finite complete prexes. Research Report A56, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science, Espoo, Finland, December 1999. Licentiate’s Thesis. Available at 〈http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Publications/reports/A56abstract.htm〉.Google Scholar
- 11.K. Heljanko. Using logic programs with stable model semantics to solve deadlock and reachability problems for 1-safe Petri nets. Fundamenta Informaticae, 37(3):247–268, 1999.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 12.G. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 13.C. Lewerentz and T. Lindner. Formal Development of Reactive Systems: Case Study Production Cell. Springer-Verlag, 1995. LNCS 891.MATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.K. L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
- 15.S. Melzer and S. Römer. Deadlock checking using net unfoldings. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’ 97), pages 352–363, 1997. LNCS 1254.Google Scholar
- 16.S. Merkel. Verification of fault tolerant algorithms using PEP. Technical Report TUM-19734, SFB-Bericht Nr. 342/23/97 A, Technische Universität München, München, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
- 17.W. Reisig. Petri Nets, An Introduction. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
- 18.P. Simons. Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science, April 2000. Also available on the Internet at 〈http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Publications/reports/A58abstract.htm〉.Google Scholar
- 19.A. Valmari. On-the-fly verification with stubborn sets. In Proceeding of 5th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’93), pages 397–408, 1993. LNCS 697.Google Scholar
- 20.M. Y. Vardi. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In Logics for Concurrency: Structure versus Automata, pages 238–265, 1996. LNCS 1043.Google Scholar
- 21.K. Varpaaniemi, K. Heljanko, and J. Lilius. PROD 3.2-An advanced tool for efficient reachability analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’97), pages 472–475, 1997. LNCS 1254.Google Scholar
- 22.F. Wallner. Model checking LTL using net unfoldings. In Proceeding of 10th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’98), pages 207–218, 1998. LNCS 1427.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001