Read, Write and Copy Dependencies for Symbolic Model Checking

  • Jeroen Meijer
  • Gijs Kant
  • Stefan Blom
  • Jaco van de Pol
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8855)


This paper aims at improving symbolic model checking for explicit state modeling languages, e.g., Promela, Dve and mCRL2. The modular Pins architecture of LTSmin supports a notion of event locality, by merely indicating for each event on which variables it depends. However, one could distinguish four separate dependencies: read, may-write, must-write and copy. In this paper, we introduce these notions in a language-independent manner. In particular, models with arrays need to distinguish overwriting and copying of values.

We also adapt the symbolic model checking algorithms to exploit the refined dependency information. We have implemented refined dependency matrices for Promela, Dve and mCRL2, in order to compare our new algorithms to the original version of LTSmin. The results show that the amount of successor computations and memory footprint are greatly reduced. Finally, the optimal variable ordering is also affected by the refined dependencies: We determined experimentally that variables with a read dependency should occur at a higher BDD level than variables with a write dependency.


Transition Relation Transition Group Reachability Analysis Symbolic Model Check Dependency Matrix 
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.
    van der Berg, F.I., Laarman, A.W.: SpinS: Extending LTSmin with Promela through SpinJa. ENTCS 296(2012), 95–105 (2013); pASM/PDMC 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J.: Symbolic Reachability for Process Algebras with Recursive Data Types. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: Bridging the Gap between Enumerative and Symbolic Model Checkers. Technical Report CTIT, University of Twente, Enschede (2009),
  4. 4.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: LTSmin: Distributed and Symbolic Reachability. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 354–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., Long, D.E.: Symbolic model checking with partitioned transition relations. In: VLSI 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: LICS 1990. IEEE (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciardo, G., Marmorstein, R., Siminiceanu, R.I.: Saturation unbound. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 379–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciardo, G., Yu, A.J.: Saturation-Based Symbolic Reachability Analysis Using Conjunctive and Disjunctive Partitioning. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W. (eds.) CHARME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3725, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NuSMV: a new symbolic model checker. STTT 2(4) (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E.M.: The birth of model checking. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kordon, F., Linard, A., Beccuti, M., Buchs, D., Fronc, L., Hillah, L.M., Hulin-Hubard, F., Legond-Aubry, F., Lohmann, N., Marechal, A.: et al.: Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets, Report on the 2013 edition (2013), ArXiv:
  13. 13.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic model checking. Kluwer (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meijer, J.J.G.: Improving Reachability Analysis in LTSmin. Master’s thesis, University of Twente (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pelánek, R.: BEEM: Benchmarks for explicit model checkers. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 263–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudell, R.: Dynamic Variable Ordering for Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams. In: ICCAD 1993. IEEE (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skiena, S.S.: The Algorithm Design Manual. Springer (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen Meijer
    • 1
  • Gijs Kant
    • 1
  • Stefan Blom
    • 1
  • Jaco van de Pol
    • 1
  1. 1.Formal Methods and ToolsUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations