Reachability as Derivability, Finite Countermodels and Verification

  • Alexei Lisitsa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6252)


We propose a simple and efficient approach to the verification of parameterized and infinite state system. The approach is based on modeling the reachability relation between parameterized states as deducibility between suitable encodings of the states using formulae of first-order logic. To establish a safety property, namely the non-reachability of unsafe states, a finite model finder is used to generate a finite countermodel, thus providing the witness for non-deducibility. We show that under an appropriate encoding the combination of finite model finding and theorem proving provides us with a decision procedure for the safety of the lossy channel systems. We illustrate the approach by reporting on experiments verifying both alternating bit protocol (specified as a lossy channel system) and a number of parameterized cache coherence protocols specified by extended finite state machines. In these experiments, the finite model finder Mace4 is used.


Global State Regular Language Predicate Logic Safety Property Unsafe State 
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.
    Abdulla, P.A., Jonsson, B.: Verifying programs with unreliable channels. Information and Computation 127(2), 91–101 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caferra, R., Leitsch, A., Peltier, N.: Automated Model Building. Applied Logic Series, vol. 31. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8, 18–36 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng, K.-T., Krishnakumar, A.S.: Automatic generation of cunstional vectors using extended finite state machine model. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems 1(1), 57–79 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courcelle, B.: On constructing obstruction sets of words. Bulletin of the EATCS (44), 178–185 (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delzanno, G.: Verification of consistency protocols via infinite-state symbolic model checking, a case study. In: Proc. of FORTE/PSTV, pp. 171–188 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delzanno, G.: Constraint-based Verification of Parametrized Cache Coherence Protocols. Formal Methods in System Design 23(3), 257–301 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A., Kahlon, V.: Exact and efficient verification of parameterized cache coherence protocols. In: Geist, D., Tronci, E. (eds.) CHARME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2860, pp. 247–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esparza, J., Finkel, A., Mayr, R.: On the Verification of Broadcast Protocols. In: Proc. 14th IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 352–359. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher, M., Lisitsa, A.: Deductive Verification of Cache Coherence Protocols. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems, AVoCS 2003, Southampton, UK, April 2-3, pp. 177–186 (2003), Technical Report DSSE-TR-2003-2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher, M., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: Practical Infinite-state Verification with Temporal Reasoning. In: Verification of Infinite State Systems and Security. NATO Security through Science Series: Information and Communication, vol. 1. IOS Press, Amsterdam (January 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guttman, J.: Security Theorems via Model Theory, arXiv:0911.2036Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Higman, G.: Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras. Proc. London Math. Soc. 2, 326–336 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lisitsa, A.: Verification via Countermodel Finding (2009),
  15. 15.
    Lisitsa, A.: Reachability as deducibility, finite countermodels and verification. In: Proceedings of AVOCS 2009, pp. 241–243 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lisitsa, A., Nemytykh, A.: Reachability Analisys in Verification via Supercompilation. In: Proceedings of the Satellite Workshops of DTL 2007, Part 2, vol. 45, pp. 53–67. TUCS General Publication (June 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCune, W.: Prover9 and Mace4,
  18. 18.
    Pong, F., Dubois, M.: Verification techniques for cache coherence protocols. ACM Computing Surveys 29(1), 82–126 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.): Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. I, II. Elsevier/MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roychoudhury, A., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: Inductively Verifying Invariant Properties of Parameterized Systems. Automated Software Engineering 11, 101–139 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexei Lisitsa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Sciencethe University of LiverpoolLiverpoolU.K.

Personalised recommendations