RAT: A Tool for the Formal Analysis of Requirements

(Tool Paper)
  • Roderick Bloem
  • Roberto Cavada
  • Ingo Pill
  • Marco Roveri
  • Andrei Tchaltsev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4590)


Formal languages are increasingly used to describe the functional requirements of circuits. Although formal requirements can be hard to understand and subtle, they are seldom the object of verification. In this paper we present our requirement analysis tool, RAT. Our tool supports quality assurance of formal specifications. A designer can interactively explore the requirements’ semantics and automatically check the specification against assertions (which must be satisfied) and possibilities (which describe allowed corner-case behavior). Using RAT, a designer can also investigate the realizability of a specification. RAT was successfully examined in several industrial projects.


Formal Requirement Winning Strategy Symbolic Model Symbolic Model Check Bound Model Check 
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.


  1. 1.
    Accellera. Property specification language — reference manual, version 1.01 (April 2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auerbach, G., Benalycherif, L., Fedeli, A., Fisman, D., McIsaac, A., Winkelmann, K.: Case studies in property-based requirements specification, Prosyd Delivarable D1.4/1 (November 2006),
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloem, R., Cavada, R., Eisner, C., Pill, I., Roveri, M., Semprini, S.: Manual for property simulation and property assurance tool, Prosyd Delivarable D1.2/4-5 (November 2005),
  5. 5.
    Bloem, R., Galler, S., Jobstman, B., Weiglhofer, M., Piterman, N., Pnueli, A.: Automatic hardware synthesis from specifications: A case study. In: Proceeding of DATE 2007 (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brayton, R.K., et al.: A system for verification and synthesis. In: Henzinger, T., Alur, R. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 428–432. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NuSMV: a new Symbolic Model Verifier. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 495–499. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cimatti, A., Roveri, M., Tchaltsev, A.: Manual for property realizability tool, Prosyd Delivarable D1.2/8 (December 2006),
  9. 9.
    Kurshan, R.: Computer-Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes: the automata theoretic approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pill, I., Semprini, S., Cavada, R., Roveri, M., Bloem, R., Cimatti, A.: Formal analysis of hardware requirements. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 821–826 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y.: Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 364–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Inspecting requirements. StickyMinds Weekly Colum (July 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick Bloem
    • 1
  • Roberto Cavada
    • 2
  • Ingo Pill
    • 1
  • Marco Roveri
    • 2
  • Andrei Tchaltsev
    • 2
  1. 1.Graz University of Technology — Inffeldgasse 16b/II - 8010 GrazAustria
  2. 2.Fondazione Bruno Kessler - irst — Via Sommarive, 18 - 38050 Povo (Trento)Italy

Personalised recommendations