Progress Checking for Dummies

  • Antti Valmari
  • Henri HansenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11119)


Verification of progress properties is both conceptually and technically significantly more difficult than verification of safety and deadlock properties. In this study we focus on the conceptual side. We make a simple modification to a well-known model to demonstrate that it passes progress verification although the resulting model is intuitively badly incorrect. Then we point out that the error can be caught easily by adding a termination branch to the system. We compare the use of termination branches to the established method of addressing the same need, that is, weak fairness. Then we discuss another problem that may cause failure of catching progress errors even with weak fairness. Finally we point out an alternative notion of progress that needs no explicit fairness assumptions. Our ideas are especially well-suited for newcomers in model checking, and work well with stubborn set methods.


Usability of verification methods Progress Fairness Fair testing 



We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments.


  1. 1.
    Dyseryn, V., van Glabbeek, R.J., Höfner, P.: Analysing mutual exclusion using process algebra with signals. In: Peters, K., Tini, S. (eds.) Proceedings of EXPRESS/SOS 2017, Berlin, Germany, 4 September 2017. EPTCS, vol. 255, pp. 18–34 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaivola, R., Valmari, A.: The weakest compositional semantic equivalence preserving nexttime-less linear temporal logic. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630, pp. 207–221. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems - Specification. Springer, New York (1992). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pelánek, R.: BEEM: benchmarks for explicit model checkers. In: Bošnački, D., Edelkamp, S. (eds.) SPIN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4595, pp. 263–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peterson, G.L.: Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 12(3), 115–116 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reeves, G.E.: What really happened on Mars? (1997). Accessed 7 May 2018
  7. 7.
    Rensink, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing. Inf. Comput. 205(2), 125–198 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Valmari, A.: The weakest deadlock-preserving congruence. Inf. Process. Lett. 53(6), 341–346 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valmari, A.: A chaos-free failures divergences semantics with applications to verification. In: Davies, J., Roscoe, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Millennial Perspectives in Computer Science: Proceedings of the 1999 Oxford-Microsoft Symposium in Honour of Sir Tony Hoare, Cornerstones of Computing, pp. 365–382. Palgrave (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valmari, A., Setälä, M.: Visual verification of safety and liveness. In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 228–247. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valmari, A., Tienari, M.: Compositional failure-based semantics models for basic LOTOS. Formal Asp. Comput. 7(4), 440–468 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valmari, A., Vogler, W.: Fair testing and stubborn sets. In: Bošnački, D., Wijs, A. (eds.) SPIN 2016. LNCS, vol. 9641, pp. 225–243. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogler, W. (ed.): Modular Construction and Partial Order Semantics of Petri Nets. LNCS, vol. 625. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.MathematicsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations