FME 2003: FME 2003: Formal Methods pp 503-521 | Cite as

Generating Counterexamples for Multi-valued Model-Checking

  • Arie Gurfinkel
  • Marsha Chechik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2805)

Abstract

Counterexamples explain why a desired temporal logic property fails to hold, and as such are considered to be the most useful form of output from model-checkers. Multi-valued model-checking, introduced in [4] is an extension of classical model-checking. Instead of classical logic, it operates on elements of a given De Morgan algebra, e.g. the Kleene algebra [14]. Multi-valued model-checking has been used in a number of applications, primarily when reasoning about partial [2] and inconsistent [10] systems. In this paper we show how to generate counterexamples for multi-valued model-checking. We describe the proof system for a multi-valued variant of CTL, discuss how to use it to generate counterexamples. The techniques presented in this paper have been implemented as part of our symbolic multi-valued model-checker χ Chek [3].

Keywords

model-checking De Morgan algebras counterexamples witnesses CTL 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Belnap, N.D.: A Useful Four-Valued Logic. In: Dunn, Epstein (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, pp. 30–56. Reidel, Dordrechtz (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Temporal Logic Query-Checking. In: Proceedings of 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2001), Boston, MA, USA, June 2001, pp. 409–417. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Gurfinkel, A.: χChek: A Multi-Valued Model-Checker. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 505–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Petrovykh, V.: Model-Checking Over Multi-Valued Logics. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 72–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chechik, M., Gurfinkel, A.: Exploring Counterexamples (June 2003) (in preparation)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chechik, M., Gurfinkel, A.: TLQSolver: A Temporal Logic Query Checker. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 210–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., McMillan, K.L., Zhao, X.: Efficient Generation of Counterexamples and Witnesses in Symbolic Model Checking. In: Proceedings of 32nd Design Automation Conference (DAC 1995), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 427–432 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, E.M., Lu, Y., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Tree-Like Counterexamples in Model Checking. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2002), Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2002, pp. 19–29. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001), Toronto, Canada, May 2001, pp. 411–420. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurfinkel, A.: Multi-Valued Symbolic Model-Checking: Fairness, Counterexamples, Running Time. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science (October 2002), Available from http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~chechik/pubs/gurfinkelMSThesis.ps
  12. 12.
    Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Proof-like Counterexamples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 160–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kick, A.: Tableaux and Witnesses for the μ-calculus. Technical Report iratr-1995- 44 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleene, S.C.: Introduction to Metamathematics. Van Nostrand, New York (1952)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Namjoshi, K.: Certifying Model Checkers. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, p. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owre, S., Shankar, N., Rushby, J.: User Guide for the PVS Specification and Verification System (Draft). Technical report, Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rasiowa, H.: An Algebraic Approach to Non-Classical Logics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sofronie-Stokkermans, V.: Automated Theorem Proving by Resolution for Finitely-Valued Logics Based on Distributive Lattices with Operators. An International Journal of Multiple- Valued Logic 6(3-4), 289–344 (2001)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevens, P., Stirling, C.: Practical Model-Checking using Games. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 85–101. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan, L., Cleaveland, R.: Evidence-Based Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 455–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arie Gurfinkel
    • 1
  • Marsha Chechik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations