Integrating BDD-Based and SAT-Based Symbolic Model Checking

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2309)


Symbolic model checking is a very successful formal verification technique, classically based on Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs). Recently, propositional satisfiability (SAT) techniques have been proposed as a computational basis for symbolic model checking, and proved to be an effective alternative to BDD-based techniques. In this paper we show how BDD-based and SAT-based techniques have been effectively integrated within the NuSMV symbolic model checker.


Model Check Finite State Machine Linear Temporal Logic Symbolic Model Computation Tree Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Parosh Aziz Abdulla, Per Bjesse, and Niklas Eén. Symbolic reachability analysis based on SAT-solvers. In Susanne Graf and Michael Schwartzbach, eds., Proc. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems TACAS, Berlin, Germany, volume 1785 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Berezin, S. Campos, and E. M. Clarke. Compositional reasoning in model checking. In Proc. COMPOS, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, M. Fujita, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic Model Checking Using SAT Procedures instead of BDDs. In Proc. 36th Conference on Design Automation, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, and Y. Zhu. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’ 99), 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Borälv. A Fully Automated Approach for Proving Safety Properties in Interlocking Software Using Automatic Theorem-Proving. In S. Gnesi and D. Latella, eds., Proceedings of the Second International ERCIM Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, Pisa, Italy, July 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. E. Bryant. Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(3):293–318, September 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, K. L. McMillan, D. L. Dill, and L. J. Hwang. Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond. Information and Computation, 98(2):142–170, June 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Cimatti, E.M. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. NuSMV: a new Symbolic Model Verifier. In N. Halbwachs and D. Peled, eds., Proceedings Eleventh Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’99), number 1633 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 495–499, Trento, Italy, July 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and K. Hamaguchi. Another Look at LTL Model Checking. Formal Methods in System Design, 10(1):57–71, February 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Clarke and X. Zhao. Word Level Symbolic Model Checking: A New Approach for Verifying Arithmetic Circuits. Technical Report CMU-CS-95-161, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA, May 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time tem poral logic. In Logic of Programs: Workshop. Springer Verlag, May 1981. Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 131.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fady Copty, Limor Fix, Enrico Giunchiglia, Gila Kamhi, Armando Tacchella, and Moshe Vardi. Benefits of bounded model checking at an industrial setting. In Proceedings of CAV 2001, pages 436–453, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranan Fraer, Gila Kamhi, Barukh Ziv, Moshe Y. Vardi, and Limor Fix. Prioritized traversal: Efficient reachability analysis for verification and falsification. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, pages 389–402. Springer, July 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Giunchiglia, A. Massarotto, and R. Sebastiani. Act, and the rest will follow: Exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In Proc. AAAI, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Giunchiglia and R. Sebastiani. Applying the Davis-Putnam procedure to nonclausal formulas. In Evelina Lamma and Paola Mello, eds., Proceedings of AI*IA’99: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pages 84–94. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Enrico Giunchiglia, Marco Maratea, Armando Tacchella, and Davide Zambonin. Evaluating search heuristics and optimization techniques in propositional satisfiability. In Rajeev Goré, Alexander Leitsch, and Tobias Nipkow, eds., Proceedings of IJCAR 2001, volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 347–363. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. J. Holzmann. The model checker Spin. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, May 1997. Special issue on Formal Methods in Software Practice.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K.L. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publ., 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthew W. Moskewicz, Conor F. Madigan, Ying Zhao, Lintao Zhang, and Sharad Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient sat solver. In Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, pages 530–535. ACM, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.P. Quielle and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium in Programming, 1981.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. K. Ranjan, A. Aziz, B. Plessier, C. Pixley, and R. K. Brayton. Efficient BDD algorithms for FSM synthesis and verification. In IEEE/ACM Proceedings International Workshop on Logic Synthesis, Lake Tahoe (NV), May 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Ravi and F. Somenzi. High-density reachability analysis. In International Conference on Computer Aided Design, pages 154–158, Los Alamitos, Ca., USA, November 1995. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. Shtrichman. Tuning SAT checkers for bounded model-checking. In Proc. 12th International Computer Aided Verification Conference (CAV), 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Somenzi. CUDD: CU Decision Diagram package-release 2.1.2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering-University of Colorado at Boulder, April 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITC-IRSTTrentoItaly
  2. 2.DIST — Università di GenovaGenovaItaly
  3. 3.Università di TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations