Advertisement

Symbolic bisimulation minimisation

  • Amar Bouali
  • Robert de Simone
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 663)

Abstract

We describe a set of algorithmic methods, based on symbolic representation of state space, for minimisation of networks of parallel processes according to bisimulation equivalence. We compute this with the Coarsest Partition Refinement algorithm, using the Binary Decision Diagram structures. The method applies to labelled synchronised vectors of finite automata as the description of systems. We report performances on a couple of examples of a tool being implemented.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Arnold and M. Nivat. Comportements de processus. In Les Mathématiques de l'Informatique, pages 35–68. Colloque AFCET, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Austry and G. Boudol. Algèbre de processus et synchronisation. Theorical Computer Sciences, 1(30), 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Bouali. Weak and branching bisimulation in fctool. Technical Report 1575, INRIA, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randal E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulaiton. Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, August 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 and beyond. In 5 th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 428–439, Philadelphia, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pages 24–37. LNCS, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Coudert, C. Berthet, and J.C. Madre. Verification of sequential machines using boolean vectors. In IFIP Internationnal Workshop, Applied Formal Methods for Correct VLSI design, Leuven, November 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. de Simone and A. Bouali. Causal models for rationnal algebraic processes. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.F. Groote, editors, 2nd internationnal Conference on Concurrency Theory, Amsterdam, August 1991. CONCUR'91, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Enders, T. Filkorn, and D. Taubner. Generating bdds for symbolic model checking. In Third Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, volume 1, pages 263–278. University of Aalborg, July 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.C. Fernandez. Aldébaran: un système de vérificatoin par réduction de processus communiquants. PhD thesis, Grenoble, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.C. Godskesen, K.G. Larsen, and M. Zeeberg. Tav, tools for automatic verification. In Automatic Verification Methods For Finite State Systems, pages 232–246, Grenoble, France, 1989. LNCS, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.F. Groote and F. Vaandrager. An efficient algorithm for branching bisimulation and stuttering equivalence. ICALP '90, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.J. Holzmann. Algorithms for automated protocol validation. In International Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, Grenoble, France, June 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Jard and T. Jéron. Bounded-memory algorithm for verification on-the-fly. In Larsen. K.G. and A. Skou, editors, Third Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, volume 1, pages 251–262, July 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.C. Kanellakis and S.A. Smolka. Ccs expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 228–240, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Lin and A.R. Newton. Efficient manipulation of equivalence relations and classes. In ACM International Workshop on Formal Methods in VLSI design, Miami, January 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robin Milner. Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laurent Mounier. Méthodes de vérification de spécifications comportementales: étude et mise en oeuvre. PhD thesis, LGI Grenoble, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Paige and R. Tarjan. Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM, 16(6), 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huajun Qin. Efficient verification of determinate processes. Technical report, Dep. of Comp. Sc., SUNY, Stony Brook, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Raynal. Algorithmes du Parallélisme: le Problème de l'Exclusion Mutuelle. Dunod Informatique, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H.J. Touati, H. Savoj, B. Lin, and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Implicit state enumeration of finite state machines using bdd's. In Internationnal Conference on Computer Aided Design, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.J. Van Glabbeek and W.P. Weijland. Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics (extended abstract). Information processing '89 (G.X. Ritter, ed.) Elsevier Science, pages 613–618, 1984.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Vergamini. Vérification de réseau d'automates finis par equivalence observationnelle: le système AUTO. PhD thesis, Université de Nice, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amar Bouali
    • 1
  • Robert de Simone
    • 2
  1. 1.ENSMP Centre de Mathématiques AppliquéesSophia-AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.I.N.R.I.A.Sophia-AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations