Optimality in abstractions of model checking

  • Rance Cleaveland
  • Purush Iyer
  • Daniel Yankelevich
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 983)


This paper investigates the use of abstract-interpretationinspired techniques for improving the performance of procedures for determining when systems satisfy formulas in branching-time temporal logic. A framework for abstracting system descriptions is developed, and a particular method for generating abstract systems from given abstractions on system states is defined and shown to be both safe and optimal, in the sense that concrete systems satisfy all the temporal formulas enjoyed by their abstracted counterparts. One may then use a model checker on an abstracted (and hence smaller) system in order to infer properties of a concrete system.


Model Check Temporal Logic Transition Relation Abstract Interpretation Atomic Proposition 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Bensalem, A. Bouajjani, C. Loiseaux and J. Sifakis. Property prerving simulations. In CAV 92, LNCS 663, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke and D. E. Long. Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In VLSI 91, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg and D. Long. Model checking and abstraction. In Proc of XIX POPL, Jan 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cleaveland, S. P. Iyer, D. Yankalevich. Abstractions for preserving all CTL* formulae Tech Report 94–03, NCSU Computer Science Department, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. M. Clarke, E. A. Emerson and A. P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM TOPLAS, 8(2):244–263, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic Design of Program Analysis Frameworks. In VI POPL, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Comparing the Galois connection and the widening/narrowing approaches to abstract interpretation. In Proc of Conference on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, LNCS 631, August, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Dams, O. Grumberg and R. Gerth. Abstract Interpretation of Reactive Systems: Abstractions Preserving ∀CTL*, ∃CTL* and CTL*. In IEEE PRO-COMONET. Nov, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. A. Emerson and J. Y. Halpern. “Sometimes” and “not never” revisited: on branching time versus linear time temporal logic. JACM, 33(1):151–178, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Jones and P. Nielsen. Abstract Interpretation: a Semantic-Based Tool for Program Analysis. To appear in Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, (ed) S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay and T. S. E. Maibaum.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Kelb. Model Checking and Abstraction: A framework approximating both truth and failure information. University of Oldenburg, March 30, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Larsen. Modal Specifications. In Proc. of CAV '89, (ed) J. Sifakis, LNCS Vol. 407, pp: 232–246, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. P. Quielle and J. Sifakis. Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems in Cesar. In Proc of V International Symposium on Programming, LNCS Vol 137, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rance Cleaveland
    • 1
  • Purush Iyer
    • 1
  • Daniel Yankelevich
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.University of Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations