A Representative Function Approach to Symmetry Exploitation for CSP Refinement Checking

  • Nick Moffat
  • Michael Goldsmith
  • Bill Roscoe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5256)


Effective temporal logic model checking algorithms exist that exploit symmetries arising from parallel composition of multiple identical components. These algorithms often employ a function rep from states to representative states under the symmetries exploited. We adapt this idea to the context of refinement checking for the process algebra CSP. In so doing, we must cope with refinement-style specifications. The main challenge, though, is the need for access to sufficient local information about states to enable definition of a useful rep function, since compilation of CSP processes to Labelled Transition Systems (LTSs) renders state information a global property instead of a local one. Using a structured form of implementation transition system, we obtain an efficient symmetry exploiting CSP refinement checking algorithm, generalise it in two directions, and demonstrate all three variants on simple examples.


Transition System State Pair Parallel Composition Label Transition System Check Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Miller, A., Donaldson, A.F., Calder, M.: Symmetry in Temporal Logic Model Checking. ACM Comput. Surv. 38(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. CACM, 21(8) (1978)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd: Failures-Divergences Refinement: FDR2 User Manual (1992-2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moffat, N., Goldsmith, M., Roscoe, A.W.: Towards Symmetry Aware Refinement Checking (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of International Symmetry Conference, Edinburgh, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ryan, P., Schneider, S., Goldsmith, M., Lowe, G., Roscoe, A.W.: Modelling and Analysis of Security Protocols. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park, D.M.: Concurrency on automata and infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milner, R.: Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, E., Enders, R., Filkhorn, T., Jha, S.: Exploiting Symmetry in Temporal Logic Model Checking. Formal Methods in System Design 9(1/2), 77–104 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Symmetry and model checking. Formal Methods in System Design 9(12), 105–131 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lazić, R.S.: A semantic study of data-independence with applications to the mechanical verification of concurrent systems. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emerson, E.A., Havlicek, J., Trefler, R.: Virtual Symmetry Reduction. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Moffat
    • 1
  • Michael Goldsmith
    • 2
  • Bill Roscoe
    • 3
  1. 1.QinetiQ, Malvern, UK and Kellogg College, University of OxfordUK
  2. 2.Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd and Worcester CollegeUniversity of OxfordUK
  3. 3.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations