A Compositional Model Checking Procedure
We consider the problem of formalizing a compositional model checking procedure with the ACL2 theorem prover. The algorithm uses conjunctive and cone of influence reductions to reduce a large model checking problem into a collection of smaller problems, and we prove the soundness of the composition of these reductions. The algorithm checks properties specified in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), but the ACL2 logic does not allow us to express either the classical semantics of LTL or the classical soundness proofs for these reductions. We discuss ways of getting around this obstacle. We also discuss recent enhancements to ACL2, for example, a connection with the HOL4 theorem prover that may make similar efforts easier in future.
KeywordsInfinite Sequence Linear Temporal Logic Kripke Structure Peano Arithmetic Linear Temporal Logic Formula
- 22.R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. Metafunctions: Proving them Correct and Using Them Efficiently as New Proof Procedure. In R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore, editors, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science. Academic Press, London, UK, 1981.Google Scholar
- 49.E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic. In D. C. Kozen, editor, Logic of Programs, Workshop, volume 131 of LNCS, pages 52–71, Yorktown Heights, NY, May 1981. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 71.E. A. Emerson and V. Kahlon. Reducing Model Checking of the Many to the Few. In D. A. McAllester, editor, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE 2000), volume 1831 of LNCS, pages 236–254, Pittsburg, PA, July 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 87.M. J. C. Gordon, W. A. Hunt, Jr., M. Kaufmann, and J. Reynolds. An Integration of HOL and ACL2. In A. Gupta and P. Manolios, editors, Proceedings on the 6th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD-2006), pages 153–160, San Jose, CA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- 89.M. J. C. Gordon and A. M. Pitts. The HOL Logic and System. In J. Bowen, editor, Towards Verified Systems, volume 2 of Real-Time Safety Critical Systems, chapter 3, pages 49–70. Elsevier Science B.V., 1994.Google Scholar
- 98.J. Harrison. Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique. Technical Report CRC-053, SRI International Cambridge Computer Science Research Center, 1995.Google Scholar
- 118.HOL 4, Kananaskis 1 release. http://hol.sf.net/.
- 151.P. Manolios. Mu-Calculus Model Checking in ACL2. In M. Kaufmann, P. Manolios, and J. S. Moore, editors, Computer-Aided Reasoning: ACL2 Case Studies, pages 73–88. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, June 2000. (one more editor s present)Google Scholar
- 212.S. Ray, J. Matthews, and M. Tuttle. Certifying Compositional Model Checking Algorithms in ACL2. In W. A. Hunt, Jr., M. Kaufmann, and J. S. Moore, editors, 4th International Workshop on the ACL2 Theorem Prover and Its Applications (ACL2 2003), Boulder, CO, July 2003.Google Scholar
- 231.K. Schneider and D. W. Hoffmann. A HOL Conversion for Translating Linear Time Temporal Logic to ω-Automata. In Y. Bertot, G. Dowek, A. Hirschowitz, C. Paulin, and L. Théry, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLS 1999), volume 1690 of LNCS, pages 255–272, Nice, France, 1999. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 253.J. von Wright. Mechanizing the Temporal Logic of Actions in HOL. In M. Archer, J. J. Joyce, K. N. Levitt, and P. J. Windley, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the HOL Theorem Proving System and Its Applications, pages 155–161, Davis, CA, August 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar