LTSmin: Distributed and Symbolic Reachability

  • Stefan Blom
  • Jaco van de Pol
  • Michael Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6174)


In model checking, analysis algorithms are applied to large graphs (state spaces), which model the behavior of (computer) systems. These models are typically generated from specifications in high-level languages. The LTSmin toolset provides means to generate state spaces from high-level specifications, to check safety properties on-the-fly, to store the resulting labelled transition systems (LTSs) in compressed format, and to minimize them with respect to (branching) bisimulation.


  1. 1.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CÆSAR: An open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Lang, F., Serwe, W.: CADP 2006: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 158–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blom, S.C.C., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: Bridging the gap between enumerative and symbolic model checkers. Technical Report TR-CTIT-09-30, University of Twente, Enschede (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J.: Symbolic reachability for process algebras with recursive data types. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tretmans, G.J., Brinksma, H.: TorX: Automated model-based testing. In: Hartman, A., Dussa-Ziegler, K. (eds.) First European Conference on Model-Driven Software Engineering, Nuremberg, Germany, pp. 13–43 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber, M.: An embeddable virtual machine for state space generation. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 168–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker Spin. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blom, S.C.C., Calamé, J.R., Lisser, B., Orzan, S., Pang, J., van de Pol, J., Dashti, M.T., Wijs, A.J.: Distributed analysis with μCRL: a compendium of case studies. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 683–689. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groote, J., Keiren, J., Mathijssen, A., Ploeger, B., Stappers, F., Tankink, C., Usenko, Y., Weerdenburg, M.v., Wesselink, W., Willemse, T., Wulp, J.v.d.: mCRL2 toolset. In: Proc. of the IW on Advanced Software Development Tools and Techniques (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blom, S., Lisser, B., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: A Database Approach to Distributed State-Space Generation. J. Logic Computation (2009) (to appear in print)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blom, S., Orzan, S.: Distributed state space minimization. STTT 7(3), 280–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orzan, S.: On distributed verification and verified distribution. PhD thesis, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J.: Distributed branching bisimulation minimization by inductive signatures. In: Brim, L., van de Pol, J. (eds.) Proc. of 8th Parallel and Distributed Methods in verifiCation. ENTCS, vol. 14, pp. 32–46 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barnat, J., Brim, L., Černá, I., Moravec, P., Ročkai, P., Šimeček, P.: DiVinE – A Tool for Distributed Verification. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 278–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belinfante, A.: JTorX: A tool for on-line model-driven test derivation and execution. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 266–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Jong, H., Geiselmann, J., Hernandez, C., Page, M.: Genetic network analyzer: qualitative simulation of genetic regulatory networks. Bioinformatics 19(3), 336–344 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hansen, H.H., Ketema, J., Luttik, S.P., Mousavi, M.R., van de Pol, J.C.: Towards model checking executable UML specifications in mCRL2. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 6(1-2), 83–90 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Blom
    • 1
  • Jaco van de Pol
    • 1
  • Michael Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Formal Methods and ToolsUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations