Covering step graph preserving failure semantics
Within the framework of concurrent systems, several verification approaches require as a preliminary step the complete derivation of the state space. Partial-order methods are efficient for reducing the state explosion due to the modeling of parallelism by interleaving.
In the case of persistent or sleep sets, only a subset of enable transitions is examined, the derived graph is then a subgraph of the whole graph. The resulting sub-graph may be used for verifying absence of deadlock or more specific properties.
The covering step graph (CSG) approach visits all the transitions, but some independent events are put together to build a single transition step, the firing of this transition step is then atomic.
In a CSG, steps of independent transitions are substituted as much as possible to the subgraph which would result from the firing of the independent transitions. The potential benefit of such a substitution may be exponential with respect to the number of “merged” independent transitions.
This paper investigates the on-the-fly derivation of covering step graphs preserving failure semantics. Testing Equivalence and CSP semantics are considered.
Keywordsconcurrent systems state space exploration partial-order failure semantics verification methods
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [Bri 88]E. BrinksmaA theory for the derivation of tests In S. Aggrawal and K. Sabani Eds., PSTV, Vol. VIII. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North Holland, 1988Google Scholar
- [Esp 93]J. Esparza Model checking using net unfoldings In TAPSOFT'93, 1993, LNCS 668Google Scholar
- [FM 90]J. Fernandez, L. Mounier Verifying Bisimulation on the Fly 3rd Int. Conf on Formal Description Techniques, Madrid, 1990Google Scholar
- [GW 91]P. Godefroid, P. Wolper Using partial orders for efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties 3rd Int. Conf on Computer Aided Verification, 1991, LNCS 575Google Scholar
- [GP 93]P. Godefroid, D. Pirotin Refining Dependencies Improves Partial-Order Verification Methods 5th Int. Conf on Computer Aided Verification, 1993, LNCS 697Google Scholar
- [Hen 85]M. Hennessy Acceptance trees Journal of the A.C.M Volume 32 1985Google Scholar
- [Jen 87]K. Jensen Coloured Petri Nets. In Brauer, W., Reisig, W. & Rozenberg, G. (Ed.): Petri Nets: Central Models and their Properties. Advances in Petri Nets LNCS 254Google Scholar
- [McMil 95]K. L. McMillan Trace theoretic verification of asynchronous circuits using unfoldings In Computer Aided Verification, 1995, LNCS 939Google Scholar
- [Maz 87]A. Mazurkiewicz Trace Theory In “Petri Nets: Applications and Relationship to other models of concurrency” LNCS 255Google Scholar
- [Mil 85]R. Milner Communication and Concurrency Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- [OH 86]E.R. Olderog, C.A. HoareSpecification-Oriented Semantics for Communicating Processes Acta Informatica 23, 1986, pp 9–66Google Scholar
- [PF 90]D. H. Pitt, D. Freestone The derivation of conformance tests from LOTOS specifications IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(12), 1990Google Scholar
- [Val 89]A. Valmari Stubborn sets for reduced state space generation 10 th Int. Conf on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Bonn, 1989, LNCS 483Google Scholar
- [VAM 96]F. Vernadat, P. Azéma, F. Michel Covering Step Graphs 17 th Int. Conf on Application and Theory of Petri Nets 96, June 24–28 1996, Osaka — Japan, LNCS 1091Google Scholar
- [WG 93]P. Wolper, P. Godefroid Partial Order Methods for Temporal Verification Proceedings of CONCUR'93, LNCS 715Google Scholar