Advertisement

Abstract

Model checking is an automatic technique for verifying finite state systems: in this approach, properties are expressed in a temporal logic and systems are modelled as transition systems. A main problem of model checking is state explosion: very complex systems are often represented by transition systems with a prohibitive number of states. The primary cause of this problem is the parallel composition of interacting processes. Many techniques have been proposed to attack this problem, among them compositional techniques. These techniques reduce state explosion exploiting the natural decomposition of complex systems into processes. In this paper we present a formula-based compositional rule that allows us to deduce a property of a parallel composition of processes by checking it only on a component process.

Keywords

model checking compositionality temporal logic state explosion. 

References

  1. [1]
    H.R. Andersen, G. Winskel. Compositional Checking of Satisfaction. Formal Methods in System Design, 1(4), 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Barbuti, N. De Francesco, A. Santone, G. Vaglini. Selective Mu-Calculus: New Modal Operators for Proving Properties on Reduced Transition Systems. In Proceedings of FORTE X/PSTV XVII ‘87. Chapman & Hall, 1997. 519–534Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Barbuti, N. De Francesco, A. Santone, G. Vaglini. Selective Mu-Calculus and Formula-Based Abstractions of Transition Systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 59(3), 1999. 537–556.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T. Bolognesi, E. Brinksma. Introduction to ISO Specification Language LOTOS. Comp. Networks and ISDN Systems, 14, 1987. 2559.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Bouali, S. Gnesi, S. Larosa. The integration Project for the JACK Environment. Bulletin of the EATCS, 54, 1994. 207–223.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Burch, E. Clarke, K. McMillan, D. Dill, L. Hwang. Symbolic Model Checking: 1020 States and Beyond. In Proceedings of Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science,1990. 428–439.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E.M. Clarke, O.Grumberg, D.E. Long. Model Checking and Abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(5), 1994. 1512–1542.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E.M. Clarke, D.E. Long, K.L. McMillan. Compositional Model Checking. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1989. 353–362.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Cleveland. Tableau-based Model Checking in the Propositional Mu-Calculus. Acta Informatica, 27, 1990. 725–747.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Cleaveland, S. Sims. The NCSU Concurrency Workbench. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’96), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1102, 1996. 394–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    E.A. Emerson, J.Y. Halpern. “Sometimes” and “Not Never” Revisited: On Branching Time Versus Linear Time. Journal of ACM, 33 (1), 1986. 151–178.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.C. Fernandez, L. Mounier. Verifying Bisimulation on the fly. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Formal Description Techniques, FORTE’90, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Grumberg, D.E. Long. Model Checking and Modular Verification. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16 (3), 1994. 843–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Jard, T. Jéron. Bounded-memory Algorithms for Verification on-the-fly. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’91), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 575, 1991. 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Kaivola. Compositional Model Checking for Linear-Time Temporal Logic. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV’92), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 663, 1991. 248–259.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. Kozen. Results on the Propositional Mu-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27, 1983. 333–354.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. Madelaine, D. Vergamini. Finiteness Conditions and Structural Construction of Automata for all Process Algebras. In Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Computer-Aided Verification. DIMACS Technical Report 90–31, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Paige, R. Tarjan. Three Partition Refinement Algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing, 16(6), 1987. 973–989.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Pnueli. In Transition for Global to Modular Temporal Reasoning about Programs Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems. NATO ASI Series. Series F, Computer and System Sciences, 13. Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    C. Stirling. An Introduction to Modal and Temporal Logics for CCS. In Concurrency: Theory, Language, and Architecture, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 391, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Stirling, D. Walker. Local Model Checking in the Modal Mu-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 89, 1991. 161–177.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonella Santone
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversità di PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations