Advertisement

Model checking of real-time reachability properties using abstractions

  • Conrado Daws
  • Stavros Tripakis
Regular Sessions Verification of Real-Time Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1384)

Abstract

Practical real-time model checking suffers from the stateexplosion problem: the size of the state space grows exponentially with many system parameters: number of clocks, size of constants, number of system components. To cope with state explosion, we propose to use abstractions reducing the state-space while preserving reachability properties. Four exact, plus one safe abstractions are defined. In the main abstraction (simulation) a concrete state is mapped to a symbolic abstract state (a set of concrete states). The other four abstractions are defined on top of the simulation one. They can be computed on-the-fly in a completely orthogonal manner and thus can be combined to yield better reductions. A prototype implementation in the tool Kronos has permitted to verify two benchmark examples with a significant scale-up in size.

Keywords

Model Check Binary Decision Diagram Symbolic State Concrete State Time Automaton 
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.
    P. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Verifying networks of timed processes. 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Alur. Techniques for automatic verification of real-time systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Balarin. Approximate reachability analysis of timed automata. In Proc. 17th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Bouajjani, S. Tripakis, and S. Yovine. On-the-fly symbolic model checking for real-time systems. In Proc. of the 18th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Bozga, O. Maler, A. Pnueli, and S. Yovine. Some progress in the symbolic verification of timed automata. In Proc. of the 8th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In 4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Daws, A. Olivero, S. Tripakis, and S. Yovine. The tool Kronos. In Hybrid Systems III. LNCS 1066, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Daws, A. Olivero, and S. Yovine. Verification automática de sistemas temporizados utilizando Kronos. In Proc. Jornadas de Informática y Telecomunicaciones de la IEEE (seccion Uruguay), 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Daws and S. Tripakis. Model checking of real-time reachability properties using abstractions (full version). Technical Report 97-08, Verimag, October 1997. http://www.imag.fr/VERIMAG/PEOPLE/Conrado.Daws.
  10. 10.
    C. Daws and S. Yovine. Reducing the number of clock variables of timed automata. In Proc. 17th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, RTSS'96, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Dill. Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. In Proc. 1st Intl. Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Halbwachs. Delay analysis in synchronous programs. In 5th Conference on Computer-Aided Verification. LNCS 697, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Henzinger, P. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. Hytech: The next generation. In Proc. 16th IEEE Real-time Systems Symposium, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T.A. Henzinger, X. Nicollin, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. Information and Computation, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Jain. FDDI handbook: high-speed networking using fiber and other media. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kristoffersen, F. Laroussinie, K. Larsen, P. Petterson, and W. Yi. A compositional proof of a real time mutual exclusion protocol. In Proc. of the 7th Intl. Conf. on the Theory and Practice of Software Development, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Larsen, F. Larsson, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. Efficient verification of real-time systems: Compact data structures and state-space reduction. In Proc. of the 18th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Larsen, P. Petterson, and W. Yi. Compositional and symbolic model-checking of real-time systems. In Proc. 16th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Loiseaux, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, A. Bouajjani, and S. Bensalem. Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods in System Design, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Tripakis and C. Courcoubetis. Extending promela and spin for real time. In TACAS'96. LNCS 1055, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Wong-Toi. Symbolic Approximations for Verifying Real-Time Systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conrado Daws
    • 1
  • Stavros Tripakis
    • 1
  1. 1.VerimagCentre équationGièresFrance

Personalised recommendations