Advertisement

Linear Completeness Thresholds for Bounded Model Checking

  • Daniel Kroening
  • Joël Ouaknine
  • Ofer Strichman
  • Thomas Wahl
  • James Worrell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6806)

Abstract

Bounded model checking is a symbolic bug-finding method that examines paths of bounded length for violations of a given LTL formula. Its rapid adoption in industry owes much to advances in SAT technology over the past 10–15 years. More recently, there have been increasing efforts to apply SAT-based methods to unbounded model checking. One such approach is based on computing a completeness threshold: a bound k such that, if no counterexample of length k or less to a given LTL formula is found, then the formula in fact holds over all infinite paths in the model. The key challenge lies in determining sufficiently small completeness thresholds. In this paper, we show that if the Büchi automaton associated with an LTL formula is cliquey, i.e., can be decomposed into clique-shaped strongly connected components, then the associated completeness threshold is linear in the recurrence diameter of the Kripke model under consideration. We moreover establish that all unary temporal logic formulas give rise to cliquey automata, and observe that this group includes a vast range of specifications used in practice, considerably strengthening earlier results, which report manageable thresholds only for elementary formulas of the form F p and G q .

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Atomic Proposition Kripke Model 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Awedh, M., Somenzi, F.: Proving more properties with bounded model checking. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 96–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner, J., Kuehlmann, A., Abraham, J.A.: Property checking via structural analysis. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, p. 151. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, p. 193. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E., Kröning, D., Ouaknine, J., Strichman, O.: Completeness and complexity of bounded model checking. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 85–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Allen Emerson, E., Sifakis, J.: Model checking: Algorithmic verification and debugging. CACM 52(11), 75–84 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganai, M., Gupta, A., Ashar, P.: Efficient SAT-based unbounded symbolic model checking using circuit cofactoring. In: ICCAD, pp. 510–517 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: PSTV, pp. 3–18 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamp, H.: Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order. PhD thesis, University of California (1968)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L.: What good is temporal logic. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 657–668 (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems—Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT methods in unbounded symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, p. 250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schützenberger, M.-P.: On finite monoids having only trivial subgroups. Information and Control 8(2), 190–194 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Johnson, S.D., Hunt Jr., W.A. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thérien, D., Wilke, T.: Over words, two variables are as powerful as one quantifier alternation. In: STOC, pp. 234–240 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Kroening
    • 1
  • Joël Ouaknine
    • 1
  • Ofer Strichman
    • 2
  • Thomas Wahl
    • 1
  • James Worrell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceOxford UniversityUK
  2. 2.TechnionIsrael

Personalised recommendations