Approximate Symbolic Reachability of Networks of Transition Systems

  • Sudeep Juvekar
  • Ankur Taly
  • Varun Kanade
  • Supratik Chakraborty
Conference paper

Symbolic reachability analysis of networks of state transition systems present special optimization opportunities that are not always available in monolithic state transition systems. These optimizations can potentially allow scaling of reachability analysis to much larger networks than can be handled using existing techniques. In this paper, we discuss a set of techniques for efficient approximate reachability analysis of large networks of small state transition systems with local interactions, and analyse their relative precision and performance in a BDD-based tool. We use overlapping projections to represent the state space, and discuss optimizations that significantly limit the set of variables in the support set of BDDs that must be manipulated to compute the image of each projection due to a transition of the system. The ideas presented in this paper have been implemented in a BDDbased symbolic reachability analyser built using the public-domain symbolic model checking framework of NuSMV. We report experimental results on a set of benchmarks that demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach over existing techniques using overlapping projections.


Transition System Large Network Reachable State Binary Decision Diagram Reachability Analysis 
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.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 35(8):677-691, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Cabodi, P. Camurati, and S. Quer. Improving symbolic reachability analysis by means of activity profiles. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 19(9):1065-1075, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Cho, G.D. Hachtel, E. Macii, B. Plessier, and F. Somenzi. Algorithms for approximate FSM traversal based on state space decomposition. IEEE Transactions on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 15(12):1465-1478, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, E. Giunchiglia, F. Giunchiglia, M. Pistore, M. Roveri, R. Sebastiani, and A. Tacchella. NuSMV version 2: An opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In Proceedings of CAV, LNCS 2404, pages 359-364, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O. Coudert and J.C. Madre. A unified framework for the formal verification of sequential cir-cuits. In Proceedings of ICCAD, pages 126-129, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaurishankar Govindaraju. Approximate Symbolic Model Checking Using Overlapping Projec-tions. PhD thesis, Stanford University, August 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I.-H. Moon, J.H. Kukula, K. Ravi, and F. Somenzi. To split or to conjoin: The question in image computation. In Proceedings of DAC, pages 23-28, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Somenzi. CUDD: Colorado University Decision Diagram Package Release 2.3.0., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Thomas, S. Chakraborty, and P.K. Pandya. Efficient guided symbolic reachability using reachability expressions. In Proceedings of TACAS, pages 120-134, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudeep Juvekar
    • 1
  • Ankur Taly
    • 1
  • Varun Kanade
    • 2
  • Supratik Chakraborty
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of TechnologyMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Georgia Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations