Abstract
Counterexamples produced by model checkers can be hard to grasp. Often it is not even evident why a trace violates a specification. We show how to provide easy-to-check evidence for the violation of a linear temporal logic (LTL) formula on a lasso word, based on a novel sound and complete proof system for LTL on lasso words. Valid proof trees in our proof system follow the syntactic structure of the formula and provide insight on why each Boolean or temporal operator is violated or satisfied. We introduce the notion of optimal proofs with respect to a user-specified preference order and identify sufficient conditions for efficiently computing optimal proofs. We design and evaluate an algorithm that performs this computation, demonstrating that it can produce optimal proofs for complex formulas in under a second.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Explanator: Send in the Explanator–it explains satisfaction/violation of LTL formulas on lasso words (2018). https://bitbucket.org/traytel/explanator
NuSMV: a new symbolic model checker (2018). http://nusmv.fbk.eu/
Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: Localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: Aiken, A., Morrisett, G. (eds.) POPL 2003, pp. 97–105. ACM (2003)
Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Chockler, H., Orni, A., Trefler, R.J.: Explaining counterexamples using causality. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 40(1), 20–40 (2012)
Brünnler, K., Lange, M.: Cut-free sequent systems for temporal logic. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 76(2), 216–225 (2008)
Chechik, M., Gurfinkel, A.: A framework for counterexample generation and exploration. STTT 9(5–6), 429–445 (2007)
Cheney, J., Chiticariu, L., Tan, W.C.: Provenance in databases: Why, how, and where. Found. Trends Databases 1(4), 379–474 (2009)
Cini, C., Francalanza, A.: An LTL proof system for runtime verification. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 581–595. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_54
Daskalakis, C., Karp, R.M., Mossel, E., Riesenfeld, S., Verbin, E.: Sorting and selection in posets. SIAM J. Comput. 40(3), 597–622 (2011)
Filliâtre, J., Conchon, S.: Type-safe modular hash-consing. In: ACM Workshop on ML, pp. 12–19. ACM (2006)
Gastin, P., Moro, P.: Minimal counterexample generation for SPIN. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73370-6_4
Groce, A., Chaki, S., Kroening, D., Strichman, O.: Error explanation with distance metrics. STTT 8(3), 229–247 (2006)
Groce, A., Kroening, D.: Making the most of BMC counterexamples. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 119(2), 67–81 (2005)
Groce, A., Visser, W.: What went wrong: explaining counterexamples. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 121–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44829-2_8
Kuhtz, L., Finkbeiner, B.: LTL path checking is efficiently parallelizable. In: Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S., Thomas, W. (eds.) ICALP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5556, pp. 235–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02930-1_20
Kupferman, O.: Sanity checks in formal verification. In: Baier, C., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4137, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11817949_3
Lange, M., Stirling, C.: Model checking games for branching time logics. J. Log. Comput. 12(4), 623–639 (2002)
Latvala, T., Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Junttila, T.: Simple is better: efficient bounded model checking for past LTL. In: Cousot, R. (ed.) VMCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3385, pp. 380–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30579-8_25
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems - Specification. Springer, New York (1992)
Maretic, G.P., Dasthi, M.T., Basin, D.A.: Semantic vacuity. In: Grandi, F., Lange, M., Lomuscio, A. (eds.) TIME 2015, pp. 111–120. IEEE Computer Society (2015)
Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking a path. In: Amadio, R., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45187-7_17
Namjoshi, K.S.: Certifying model checkers. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 2–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44585-4_2
Peled, D., Pnueli, A., Zuck, L.: From falsification to verification. In: Hariharan, R., Vinay, V., Mukund, M. (eds.) FSTTCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2245, pp. 292–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45294-X_25
Peled, D., Zuck, L.: From model checking to a temporal proof. In: Dwyer, M. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45139-0_1
Schuppan, V., Biere, A.: Shortest counterexamples for symbolic model checking of LTL with past. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 493–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31980-1_32
Sulzmann, M., Zechner, A.: Constructive finite trace analysis with linear temporal logic. In: Brucker, A.D., Julliand, J. (eds.) TAP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7305, pp. 132–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30473-6_11
Wang, C., Yang, Z., Ivančić, F., Gupta, A.: Whodunit? causal analysis for counterexamples. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds.) ATVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4218, pp. 82–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_9
Acknowledgment
We thank Srđan Kristić, Felix Klaedtke, and Joshua Schneider for discussions on using proof trees as explanations. Srđan Kristić, Karel Kubíček, and anonymous reviewers provided useful comments on early drafts of this paper. This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant Big Data Monitoring (167162).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Basin, D., Bhatt, B.N., Traytel, D. (2018). Optimal Proofs for Linear Temporal Logic on Lasso Words. In: Lahiri, S., Wang, C. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11138. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01090-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01090-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01089-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01090-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)