Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modular Model Checking

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Compositionality: The Significant Difference (COMPOS 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1536))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In modular verification the specification of a module consists of two parts. One part describes the guaranteed behavior of the module. The other part describes the assumed behavior of the system in which the module is interacting. This is called the assume-guarantee paradigm. In this paper we consider assume-guarantee specifications in which the guarantee is specified by branching temporal formulas. We distinguish between two approaches. In the first approach, the assumption is specified by branching temporal formulas. In the second approach, the assumption is specified by linear temporal logic. We consider guarantees in ∀CTL and ∀CTL; the universal fragments of CTL and CTL, and assumptions in LTL, ∀CTL, and ∀CTL. We describe a reduction of modular model checking to standard model checking. Using the reduction, we show that modular model checking is PSPACE-complete for ∀CTL and is EXPSPACE-complete for ∀CTL. We then show that the case of LTL assumption is a special case of the case of ∀CTL assumption, but that the EXPSPACE-hardness result apply already to assumptions in LTL.

This paper is based on “On the complexity of modular model checking”, by M.Y. Vardi, Proc. 10th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’95), June 1995, pp. 101–111, and “On the complexity of branching modular model checking”, by O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi, Proc. 6th International Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’95), August 1995, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 962, pp. 408–422.

Supported in part by ONR YIP award N00014-95-1-0520, by NSF CAREER award CCR-9501708, by NSF grant CCR-9504469, by AFOSR contract F49620-93-1-0056, by ARO MURI grant DAAH-04-96-1-0341, by ARPA grant NAG2-892, and by SRC contract 95-DC-324.036.

Supported in part by NSF grants CCR-9628400 and CCR-9700061, and by a grant from the Intel Corporation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Abadi and L. Lamport. Composing specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15(1):73–132, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. A. Aziz, T.R. Shiple, V. Singhal, and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Formula-dependent equivalence for compositional CTL model checking. In Proc. 6th Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, volume 818 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 324–337, Stanford, CA, June 1994. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In Proc. 5th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 428–439, Philadelphia, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, and A.P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8(2):244–263, January 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E.M. Clarke and O. Grumberg. Research on automatic verification of finitestate concurrent systems. In Annual Review of Computer Science, volume 2, pages 269–290, 1987.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Long. Verification tools for finitestate concurrent systems. In J.W. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Decade of Concurrency-Refections and Perspectives (Proceedings of REX School), volume 803 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 124–175. Springer-Verlag, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E.M. Clarke, D.E. Long, and K.L. McMillan. Compositional model checking. In R. Parikh, editor, Proc. 4th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 353–362. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. W. Damm, G. D.ohmen, V. Gerstner, and B. Josko. Modular verification of Petri nets: the temporal logic approach. In Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness (Proceedings of REX Workshop), volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 180–207, Mook, The Netherlands, May/June 1989. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Dams, O. Grumberg, and R. Gerth. Generation of reduced models for checking fragments of CTL. In Proc. 5th Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, volume 697 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 479–490. Springer-Verlag, June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:1–24, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151–178, 1986.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. E.A. Emerson and C. Jutla. The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In Proc. 29th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 368–377, White Plains, October 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E.A. Emerson and C.-L. Lei. Modalities for model checking: Branching time logic strikes back. In Proc. 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 84–96, New Orleans, January 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E.A. Emerson and C.-L. Lei. Temporal model checking under generalized fairness constraints. In Proc. 18th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, North Holywood, 1985. Western Periodicals Company.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E.A. Emerson and C.-L. Lei. Modalities for model checking: Branching time logic strikes back. Science of Computer Programming, 8:275–306, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. O. Grumberg and D.E. Long. Model checking and modular verification. In Proc. 2nd Conferance on Concurrency Theory, volume 527 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 250–265. Springer-Verlag, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. O. Grumberg and D.E. Long. Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):843–871, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. C.B. Jones. Specification and design of (parallel) programs. In R.E.A. Mason, editor, Information Processing 83: Proc. IFIP 9th World Congress, pages 321–332. IFIP, North-Holland, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  19. B. Josko. MCTL-an extension of CTL for modular verification of concurrent systems. In Temporal Logic in Specification, Proceedings, volume 398 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 165–187, Altrincham, UK, April 1987. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. Josko. Model checking of CTL formulae under liveness assumptions. In Proc. 14th Colloq. on Automata, Programming, and Languages (ICALP), volume 267 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 280–289. Springer-Verlag, July 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. B. Josko. Verifying the correctness of AADL modules using model chekcing. In Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness (Proceedings of REX Workshop), volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 386–400, Mook, The Netherlands, May/June 1989. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  22. B. Jonsson and Y.-K. Tsay. Assumption/guarantee specifications in lineartime temporal logic. In P.D. Mosses, M. Nielsen, and M.I. Schwartzbach, editors, TAPSOFT’ 95: Theory and Practice of Software Development, volume 915 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 262–276, Aarhus, Denmark, May 1995. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  23. O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. On the complexity of branching modular model checking. In Proc. 6th Conferance on Concurrency Theory, volume 962 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 408–422, Philadelphia, August 1995. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Lamport. Sometimes is sometimes “not never”-on the temporal logic of programs. In Proc. 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 174–185, January 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  25. L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systenms, 5:190–222, 1983.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. O. Lichtenstein and A. Pnueli. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proc. 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 97–107, New Orleans, January 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  27. B. Misra and K.M. Chandy. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 7:417–426, 1981.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In Proc. 2nd International Joint Conference onArtificial Intelligence, pages 481–489. British Computer Society, September 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  29. A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science, pages 46–57, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Pnueli. The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:45–60, 1981.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. A. Pnueli. Applications of temporal logic to the specification and verification of reactive systems: A survey of current trends. In Proc. Advanced School on Current Trends in Concurrency, pages 510–584, Berlin, 1985. Volume 224, LNCS, Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In K. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, volume F-13 of NATO Advanced Summer Institutes, pages 123–144. Springer-Verlag, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J.P. Queille and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in Cesar. In Proc. 5th International Symp. on Programming, volume 137, pages 337–351. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. Safra. Complexity of automata on infinite objects. PhD thesis, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. A.P. Sistla and E.M. Clarke. The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. Journal ACM, 32:733–749, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. M.Y. Vardi and L. Stockmeyer. Improved upper and lower bounds for modal logics of programs. In Proc 17th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 240–251, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In Proc. First Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 322–331, Cambridge, June 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  38. M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation, 115(1):1–37, November 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  39. P. Wolper. On the relation of programs and computations to models of temporal logic. In B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, and A. Pnueli, editors, Proc. Temporal Logic in Specification, volume 398, pages 75–123. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EECS Department, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1770, USA

    Orna Kupferman

  2. Department of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, TX, 77251-1892, USA

    Moshe Y. Vardi

Authors
  1. Orna Kupferman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Moshe Y. Vardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics and Applied Mathematics, Christian Albrechts University at Kiel, Preußerstr. 1-9, D-24105, Kiel, Germany

    Willem-Paul de Roever  & Hans Langmaack  & 

  2. Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, P.O. Box 26, Rehovot, 76100, Israel

    Amir Pnueli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y. (1998). Modular Model Checking. In: de Roever, WP., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds) Compositionality: The Significant Difference. COMPOS 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1536. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49213-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49213-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65493-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49213-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation