Advertisement

RERS 2018: CTL, LTL, and Reachability

  • Marc Jasper
  • Malte Mues
  • Maximilian Schlüter
  • Bernhard Steffen
  • Falk Howar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11245)

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to the Rigorous Examination of Reactive Systems (RERS) Challenge 2018. We focus on changes and improvements compared to previous years. RERS again provided a large variety of verification benchmarks that foster the comparison of validation tools while featuring both sequential and parallel programs. In addition to reachability questions, the RERS Challenge is known for its linear temporal logic (LTL) properties, and RERS’18 extends the portfolio of verification tasks to computational tree logic (CTL). Modifications compared to the previous iteration include an enhanced generation of sequential benchmarks, an improved automation of the construction of parallel benchmarks, a redesigned penalty for wrong answers, and the addition of CTL properties. We illustrate our newly applied generation of parallel benchmarks in detail.

Keywords

Benchmark generation Program verification Temporal logics LTL CTL Property-preservation Modal transition systems Modal contracts 

References

  1. 1.
    Bartocci, E., et al.: First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. STTT, 1–40 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-017-0454-5
  2. 2.
    Beyer, D.: Competition on software verification. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 504–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28756-5_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D.: Software verification and verifiable witnesses. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 401–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0025774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erickson, K.T.: Programmable logic controllers. IEEE Potentials 15(1), 14–17 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geske, M., Jasper, M., Steffen, B., Howar, F., Schordan, M., van de Pol, J.: RERS 2016: parallel and sequential benchmarks with focus on LTL verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 787–803. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gropp, W.D., Gropp, W., Lusk, E., Skjellum, A.: Using MPI: Portable Parallel Programming with the Message-Passing Interface, vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holzmann, G.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D., Păsăreanu, C.: Rigorous examination of reactive systems. The RERS challenges 2012 and 2013. STTT 16(5), 457–464 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huisman, M., Klebanov, V., Monahan, R.: VerifyThis 2012. STTT 17(6), 647–657 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isberner, M., Howar, F., Steffen, B.: The open-source LearnLib. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 487–495. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jasper, M., et al.: The RERS 2017 challenge and workshop (invited paper). In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International SPIN Symposium on Model Checking of Software, SPIN 2017, pp. 11–20. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jasper, M., Steffen, B.: Synthesizing subtle bugs with known witnesses. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11245, pp. 235–257. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kordon, F.: Report on the model checking contest at Petri nets 2011. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M., Ajmone Marsan, M., Franceschinis, G., Kleijn, J., Kristensen, L.M. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency VI. LNCS, vol. 7400, pp. 169–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35179-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen, K.G.: Modal specifications. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 232–246. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52148-8_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liao, C., Lin, P.H., Asplund, J., Schordan, M., Karlin, I.: DataRaceBench: a benchmark suite for systematic evaluation of data race detection tools. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC 2017, pp. 11:1–11:14. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1977), pp. 46–57, October 1977Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1989, pp. 179–190. ACM, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steffen, B., Jasper, M., Meijer, J., van de Pol, J.: Property-preserving generation of tailored benchmark Petri nets. In: 17th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD), pp. 1–8, June 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steffen, B., Howar, F., Isberner, M., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T.: Tailored generation of concurrent benchmarks. STTT 16(5), 543–558 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steffen, B., Isberner, M., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Geske, M.: Property-driven benchmark generation: synthesizing programs of realistic structure. STTT 16(5), 465–479 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steffen, B., Jasper, M.: Property-preserving parallel decomposition. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 125–145. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Jasper
    • 1
  • Malte Mues
    • 1
  • Maximilian Schlüter
    • 1
  • Bernhard Steffen
    • 1
  • Falk Howar
    • 1
  1. 1.TU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations