Advertisement

On Combining Partial Order Reduction with Fairness Assumptions

  • Luboš Brim
  • Ivana Černá
  • Pavel Moravec
  • Jiří Šimša
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4346)

Abstract

We present a new approach to combine partial order reduction with fairness in the context of LTL model checking. For this purpose, we define several behaviour classes representing typical fairness assumptions and examine how various reduction techniques affect these classes. In particular, we consider both reductions preserving all behaviours and reductions preserving only some behaviours.

Keywords

Model Check Model State Space Label Transition System Visible Transition Behaviour Class 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bosnacki, D.: Partial order reduction in presence of rendez-vous communications with unless constructs and weak fairness. In: Dams, D.R., Gerth, R., Leue, S., Massink, M. (eds.) Theoretical and Practical Aspects of SPIN Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 1680, pp. 40–56. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brim, L., Černá, I., Moravec, P., Šimša, J.: Distributed Partial Order Reduction. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 128, 63–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Francez, N.: Fairness. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Godefroid, P., Pirottin, D.: Refining dependencies improves partial-order verification methods. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 438–449. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holzmann, G.J., Godefroid, P., Pirottin, D.: Coverage preserving reduction strategies for reachability analysis. In: Proc. 12th Int. Conf on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, INWG/IFIP, Orlando, Fl., June (1992), citeseer.nj.nec.com/holzmann92coverage.html
  7. 7.
    Latvala, T., Heljanko, K.: Coping with strong fairness. Fundamenta Informaticae, 175–193 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peled, D.: All from one, one from all: on model checking using representatives. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 409–423. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peled, D.: Combining partial order reductions with on-the-fly model-checking. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 377–390. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peled, D., Wilke, T.: Stutter-invariant temporal properties are expressible without the nexttime operator. Information Processing Letters (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 156–165. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luboš Brim
    • 1
  • Ivana Černá
    • 1
  • Pavel Moravec
    • 1
  • Jiří Šimša
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk UniversityCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations