Exploring the Scope for Partial Order Reduction

  • Jaco Geldenhuys
  • Henri Hansen
  • Antti Valmari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5799)

Abstract

Partial order reduction methods combat state explosion by exploring only a part of the full state space. In each state a subset of enabled transitions is selected using well-established criteria. Typically such criteria are based on an upper approximation of dependencies between transitions. An additional heuristic is needed to ensure that currently disabled transitions stay disabled in the discarded execution paths. Usually rather coarse approximations and heuristics have been used, together with fast, simple algorithms that do not fully exploit the information available. More powerful approximations, heuristics, and algorithms had been suggested early on, but little is known whether their use pays off. We approach this question, not by trying alternative methods, but by investigating how much room the popular methods leave for better reduction. We do this via a series of experiments that mimic the ultimate reduction obtainable under certain conditions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Minea, M., Peled, D.: State space reduction using partial order techniques. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 2(3), 279–287 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: Palsberg, J., Abadi, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, January 2005, pp. 110–121 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Godefroid, P.: Partial-order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems: an Approach to the State-explosion Problem. LNCS, vol. 1032. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Godefroid, P., Pirottin, D.: Refining dependencies improves partial-order verification methods (extended abstract). In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 438–449. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holzmann, G.J., Peled, D.: An improvement in formal verification. In: Hogrefe, D., Leue, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th IFIP TC6/WG6.1 International Conference on Formal Description Techniques (FORTE 1994), June 1994, pp. 197–211 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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), http://anna.fi.muni.cz/models/ CrossRefGoogle 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., Valmari, A., Kokkarinen, I.: Relaxed visibility enhances partial order reduction. Formal Methods in System Design 19(3), 275–289 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peled, D.A.: All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 409–423. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. Formal Methods in System Design 1(1), 297–322 (1992)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varpaaniemi, K.: On the Stubborn Set Method in Reduced State Space Generation. PhD thesis, Digital Systems Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology (May 1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaco Geldenhuys
    • 1
  • Henri Hansen
    • 2
  • Antti Valmari
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science Division, Department of Mathematical SciencesStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Software SystemsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations