Advertisement

Generation of reduced models for checking fragments of CTL

  • Dennis Dams
  • Orna Grumberg
  • Rob Gerth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 697)

Abstract

In the first part of the paper, we present an algorithm for the construction of a quotient model under the equivalence induced by ACTL, the universal fragment of CTL. As this equivalence coincides with simulation equivalence, the achieved reduction is better than reductions achieved by methods based on bisimulation. Simulation equivalence is also the equivalence that is induced by ACTL*, hence, the reduced model allows model checking of any ACTL* formula. Furthermore it provides diagnostic information. In the second part, we restict our attention to single ACTL formulae. An algorithm is given that constructs a model which is reduced w.r.t. a specific formula.

The reduced models are constructed directly, without intermediate need for the full models. The approach, splitting of states w.r.t. formulae, yields a sequence of successively more refined models which at any stage preserve truth of formulae.

References

  1. 1.
    S, Bensalem, A. Bouajjani, C. Loiseaux, and J. Sifakis. Property preserving simulations. In CAV'92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Bouajjani, J.-C. Fernandez, N. Halbwachs, P. Raymond, and C. Ratel. Minimal state graph generation. Science of Computer Programming, 18(3):247–271, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.C. Brown, E.M. Clarke, and O. Grumberg. Characterizing finite Kripke structures in propositional temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 59:115–131, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 LICS, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long. Model checking and abstraction. In Proc. 19th POPL, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.M. Clarke, E.A. Emerson, and A.P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finitestate concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8(2):244–263, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Coudert, J.C. Madre, and C. Berthet. Verifying temporal properties of sequential machines without building their state diagram. In CAV'90.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.R. Dams and O. Grumberg. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: Abstractions preserving ACTL*, ECTL* and CTL*. Technical report, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.L. Dill. Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed-Independent Circuits. ACM Distinguished Dissertations. MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. 'sometimes’ and ‘Not Never’ revisited: on branching time versus linear time temporal logic. J. of the ACM, 33(1):151–178, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.A. Emerson and J. Srinivasan. Branching time temporal logic. In Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, LNCS 354, Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Enders, F. Filkorn, and D. Taubner. Generating BDDs for symbolic model checking in CCS. In CAV'91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Godefroid and P. Wolper. Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. In CAV'91.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Graf and C. Loiseaux. A tool for symbolic program verification and abstraction. In these proceedings.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Graf and B. Steffen. Compositional minimization of finite state processes. In CAV'90.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    O. Grumberg and D.E. Long. Model checking and modular verification. In CONCUR'91, LNCS 527, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.J. Hu, D.L. Dill, A.J. Drexler, and C. Han Yang. Higher-level specification and verification with BDDs. In CAV'92.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Janicki and M. Koutny. On some implementation of optimal simulations. In CAV'90.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Kaivola and A. Valmari. The weakest compositional semantic equivalence preserving nexttime-less linear temporal logic. In CONCUR'92, LNCS 630, Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Katz and D. Peled. Verification of distributed programs using representative interleaving sequences. Distributed Computing, 6:107–120, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R.P. Kurshan. Analysis of discrete event coordination. In Proc. Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness, LNCS 430, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O. Lichtenstein and A. Pnueli. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proc. 12th POPL, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. McMillan. Using unfoldings to avoid the state explosion problem in the verification of asynchronous circuits. In CA V'92.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In IJCAI'71.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Paige and R. Tarjan. Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 16(6):973–989, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Park. Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In Proc. 5th GI-Conf. on Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 104, Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D.K. Probst and H.F. Li. Using partial-order semantics to avoid the state explosion problem in asynchronous systems. In CAV'90.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.P. Quielle and J. Sifakis. Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Programming, LNCS 137, Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Shurek and O. Grumberg. The modular framework of computer-aided verification: Motivation, solutions and evaluation criteria. In CAV'90.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Valmari. A stubborn attack on state explosion. In CAV'90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Dams
    • 1
  • Orna Grumberg
    • 2
  • Rob Gerth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyMB EindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.AT&T Bell LabsMurray HillUSA

Personalised recommendations