Typical Structural Properties of State Spaces

  • Radek Pelánek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2989)


Explicit model checking algorithms explore the full state space of a system. We have gathered a large collection of state spaces and performed an extensive study of their structural properties. The results show that state spaces have several typical properties and that they differ significantly from both random graphs and regular graphs. We point out how to exploit these typical properties in practical model checking algorithms.


State Space Model Check Random Graph Average Degree Regular Graph 
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.
  2. 2.
    Barabasi, A.L.: Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means, Plume (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnat, J., Brim, L., Chaloupka, J.: Parallel breadth-first search LTL modelchecking. In: Proc. Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2003), pp. 106–115. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrmann, G., Larsen, K.G., Pelánek, R.: To store or not to store. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 433–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Černá, I., Pelánek, R.: Distributed explicit fair cycle detection. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 49–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng, A., Christensen, S., Mortensen, K.H.: Model checking coloured petri nets exploiting strongly connected components. In: Proc. International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, pp. 169–177 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen, S., Kristensen, L.M., Mailund, T.: A Sweep-Line Method for State Space Exploration. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    David, A., Behrmann, G., Larsen, K.G., Yi, W.: Unification & sharing in timed automata verification. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 225–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dill, D.L., Drexler, A.J., Hu, A.J., Han Yang, C.: Protocol verification as a hardware design aid. In: Proc. Computer Design: VLSI in Computers and Processors, pp. 522–525. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erdős, P., Renyi, A.: On random graphs. Publ. Math. 6, 290–297 (1959)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisler, K., Fraer, R., Kamhi, G., Vardi, Y., Yang, Z.: Is there a best symbolic cycle-detection algorithm? In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 420–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Benchmarking finite-state verifiers. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 2(4), 317–320 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An overview of CADP 2001. European Association for Software Science and Technology (EASST) Newsletter 4, 13–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Godefroid, P., Holzmann, G.J., Pirottin, D.: State space caching revisited. Formal Methods in System Design 7(3), 227–241 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Groote, J.F., Ponse, A.: The syntax and semantics of μCRL. In: Algebra of Communicating Processes 1994. Workshops in Computing Series, pp. 26–62 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groote, J.F., van Ham, F.: Large state space visualization. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 585–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holzmann, G.J.: An analysis of bitstate hashing. In: Proc. Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, INWG/IFIP, pp. 301–314 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzmann, G.J.: State compression in SPIN: Recursive indexing and compression training runs. In: Proc. SPIN Workshop, Twente Univ. (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holzmann, G.J.: Algorithms for automated protocol verification. AT&T Technical Journal 69(2), 32–44 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The engineering of a model checker: the gnu i-protocol case study revisited. In: Dams, D.R., Gerth, R., Leue, S., Massink, M. (eds.) SPIN 1999. LNCS, vol. 1680, pp. 232–244. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker, Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lafuente, A.L.: Simplified distributed LTL model checking by localizing cycles. Technical Report 176, Institut für Informatik, Universität Freiburg (July 2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penna, G.D., Intrigila, B., Tronci, E., Zilli, M.V.: Exploiting transition locality in the disk based Murphi verifier. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds.) FMCAD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2517, pp. 202–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ravi, K., Bloem, R., Somenzi, F.: A comparative study of symbolic algorithms for the computation of fair cycles. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 143–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruys, T.C.: Low-fat recipes for SPIN. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) SPIN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1885, pp. 287–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Somenzi, F., Ravi, K., Bloem, R.: Analysis of symbolic SCC hull algorithms. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds.) FMCAD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2517, pp. 88–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stern, U.: Algorithmic Techniques in Verification by Explicit State Enumeration. PhD thesis, Technical University of Munich (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stern, U., Dill, D.L.: Using magnatic disk instead of main memory in the Murphi verifier. In: Y. Vardi, M. (ed.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 172–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tronci, E., Penna, G.D., Intrigila, B., Venturini, M.: A probabilistic approach to automatic verification of concurrent systems. In: Proc. Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2001), pp. 317–324. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tronci, E., Penna, G.D., Intrigila, B., Zilli, M.V.: Exploiting transition locality in automatic verification. In: Margaria, T., Melham, T.F. (eds.) CHARME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2144, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watts, D.J.: Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. W.W. Norton & Company, New York (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radek Pelánek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of InformaticsMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations