Some Solutions to the Ignoring Problem

  • Sami Evangelista
  • Christophe Pajault
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4595)


The ignoring problem refers to the fact that some actions may be infinitely postponed by a state space search algorithm that makes use of partial order reduction (POR). The prevention of this phenomenon is mandatory if one wants to verify more elaborate properties than the deadlock freeness, e.g., safety or liveness properties. We present in this work some solutions to this problem. In order to assess the quality of our propositions, we included them in our model checker Helena. We report the result of some experiments which show that our algorithms yield better reductions than state of the art algorithms like those implemented in the Spin tool.


explicit model checking partial order reduction ignoring problem cycle proviso 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Brayton, R.K., Henzinger, T.A., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.K.: Partial-order reduction in symbolic state space exploration. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 340–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basten, T., Bosnacki, D.: Enhancing partial-order reduction via process clustering. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 245–253. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosnacki, D., Holzmann, G.J.: Improving Spin’s partial-order reduction for breadth-first search. In: Godefroid, P. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 3639, pp. 91–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosnacki, D., Leue, S., Lluch-Lafuente, A.: Partial-order reduction for general state exploring algorithms. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 271–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Couvreur, J.-M.: On-the-fly verification of linear temporal logic. In: Wing, J.M., Woodcock, J.C.P., Davies, J. (eds.) FM 1999. LNCS, vol. 1708, pp. 253–271. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edelkamp, S., Leue, S., Lluch-Lafuente, A.: Directed explicit-state model checking in the validation of communication protocols. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 5(2-3), 247–267 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evangelista, S.: High level petri nets analysis with Helena. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 455–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. In: Proceedings of the 34th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 110–121. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geldenhuys, J., Valmari, A.: Tarjan’s algorithm makes on-the-fly LTL verification more efficient. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Godefroid, P. (ed.): Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. LNCS, vol. 1032. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurshan, R.P., Levin, V., Minea, M., Peled, D., Yenigun, H.: Static partial order reduction. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 345–357. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nalumasu, R., Gopalakrishnan, G.: An efficient partial order reduction algorithm with an alternative proviso implementation. Formal Methods in Systems Design 20(3), 231–247 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pelánek, R.: BEEM: Benchmarks for explicit model checkers. In: Proceedings of the 14th International SPIN Workshop. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2007), Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peled, D.: All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 409–423. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peled, D.: Combining partial order reductions with on-the-fly model-checking. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 377–390. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 156–165. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sami Evangelista
    • 1
  • Christophe Pajault
    • 1
  1. 1.CEDRIC - CNAM Paris, 2, rue Conté, 75003 Paris 

Personalised recommendations