All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives

  • Doron Peled
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 697)


Checking that a given finite state program satisfies a linear temporal logic property is suffering in many cases from a severe space and time explosion. One way to cope with this is to reduce the state graph used for model checking. We define an equivalence relation between infinite sequences, based on infinite traces such that for each equivalence class, either all or none of the sequences satisfy the checked formula. We present an algorithm for constructing a state graph that contains at least one representative sequence for each equivalence class. This allows applying existing model checking algorithms to the reduced state graph rather than on the larger full state graph of the program. It also allows model checking under fairness assumptions, and exploits these assumptions to obtain smaller state graphs. A formula rewriting technique is presented to allow coarser equivalence relation among sequences, such that less representatives are needed.


Model Check State Graph Dependency Relation Linear Temporal Logic Admissible Sequence 
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.


  1. [1]
    B. Alpern, F.B. Schneider, Defining liveness, Information Processing Letters 21 (1985), 181–185.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. Apt, N. Francez, S. Katz, Appraising fairness in languages for distributed programming, Distributed Computing, Vol 2 (1988), 226–241.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Godefroid, Using partial orders to improve automatic verification methods, CAV'90, DIMACS Series, Vol 3, 1991, 321–339.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Godefroid, P. Wolper, Using partial orders for the efficient verification of dead-lock freedom and safety properties, CAV'91, Aalborg, Denmark, 1991, LNCS 575, Springer-Verlag, 332–342.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Katz, D. Peled, Verification of distributed programs using representative interleaving sequences, Distributed Computing 6 (1992), 107–120, A preliminary version, titled An efficient verification method for parallel and distributed programs, appeared in: Workshop on Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, The Netherlands, 1988, LNCS 354, Springer-Verlag, 489–507.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Katz, D. Peled, Defining conditional independence using collapses, Theoretical Computer Science 101 (1992), 337–359, a preliminary version appeared in BCS-FACS Workshop on Semantics for Concurrency, Leicester, England, July 1990, Springer-Verlag, 262–280.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Z. Kwiatkowska, Fairness for non-interleaving concurrency, Phd. Thesis, Faculty of Science, University of Leicester, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    O. Lichtenstein, A. Pnueli, Checking that finite-state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification, 11th ACM POPL, 1984, 97–107.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Z. Manna, A. Pnueli, How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet language. 9th ACM POPL, Texas, 1983, 141–151.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Mazurkiewicz, Trace semantics, in: W. Brauer, W. Reisig, G. Rozenberg (eds.) Advances in Petri Nets 1968, Bad Honnef, LNCS 255, Springer-Verlag, 1987, 279–324.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    W.T. Overman, Verification of concurrent systems: function and timing, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles 1981, 174p.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Peled, 'sometimes’ sometimes is as good as ‘always', CONCUR'92, Stony Brook, NY, USA, August 1992, LNCS 630, Springer-Verlag 1992, 192–206.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Peled, A. Pnueli, Proving partial order liveness properties, 17th ICA7P, LNCS 443, Springer-Verlag, 1990, 553–71.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Reisig, Petri Nets: An Introduction, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Springer-Verlag 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Valmari, Stubborn sets for reduced state space generation, 10th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Vol. 2, 1–22, Bonn, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Valmari, A Stubborn attack on state explosion, CAV'90, DIMACS Series, Vol 3, 1991, 25–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doron Peled
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesMurray HillUSA

Personalised recommendations