article

Free access

Compositional verification by model checking for counter-examples

Authors:

Jeffrey Fischer,

Richard GerberAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Volume 21, Issue 3

Pages 224 - 238

https://doi.org/10.1145/226295.226321

Published: 01 May 1996 Publication History

Abstract

Many concurrent systems are required to maintain certain safety and liveness properties. One emerging method of achieving confidence in such systems is to statically verify them using model checking. In this approach an abstract, finite-state model of the system is constructed; then an automatic check is made to ensure that the requirements are satisfied by the model. In practice, however, this method is limited by the state space explosion problem.We have developed a compositional method that directly addresses this problem in the context of multi-tasking programs. Our solution depends on three key space-saving ingredients: (1) checking for counter-examples, which leads to simpler search algorithms; (2) automatic extraction of interfaces, which allows a refinement of the finite model --- even before its communicating partners have been compiled; and (3) using propositional "strengthening assertions" for the sole purpose of reducing state space.In this paper we present our compositional approach, and describe the software tools that support it.

References

[1]

R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, T. A. Henzinger, and P. Ho. Hybrid automata' an algomthmic approach to the specification and verification of hybrid systems. Proceed,rigs of the Workshop on Theory of Hybrid Systems, 1992.

Digital Library

[2]

J. 1%. Burch, E. M. Clarke, K. L. McMillan, D. L Dill, and L H Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Proceedings of the F~fth Annual Sympos,um on Logzc,n Computer Science, 428-439, 1990.

[3]

M. Chiodo, T. R. Shlple, A. Sangiovanni-Vmcentelli, and R.K.Brayton Automatic reduction in CTL compositional model checking Proceedings CA V'92, LNCS 663, 234-247, June 1992.

Digital Library

[4]

E M Clarke, E. A. Emerson, and A. P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic spectfications. ACM Transactzons on Prograramzng Languages and Systems, 8(2):244-263, April 1986

Digital Library

[5]

S C. Cheung and J. Kramer. Enhancing Compositional Reachabihty Analysis with Context Constraints. Proceed,rigs FSE'93, ACM SIGSOFT, 115-125, December 1993.

Digital Library

[6]

R Cleaveland Tableau-based model checking in the propomtional mu-calculus. Acta Informat,ca, 27:725-747, 1990.

Digital Library

[7]

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench. Proceed,ngs of the Workshop on Automat, c Verification Methods for Finite-State Systems, LNCS 4{07, 24-37, 1990.

Digital Library

[8]

E. M. Clarke, D. E. Long, and K. L McMillan. Compositional model checking. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposmm on Logic in Computer Science, 464-475, June 1989.

Digital Library

[9]

E. A. Emerson and J. Y. Halpern. 'Sometimes' and 'not never' revisited, on branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the A CM, 33(1):151-178, January 1986.

Digital Library

[10]

E. A. Emerson and C Lei. Efficient model checking m fragments of the propositional mu-calculus. Proceedings of Symposium on Log,c ~n Computer Science, 267-278, 1986

[11]

J. Fischer and R Gerber. Compositional Model Checking of Ada Tasking Programs Proceedings COMPASS'9~i. 1994.

Digital Library

[12]

N. Halbwachs. Delay analysis in synchronous programs CAV93, LNCS 697. 1993.

Digital Library

[13]

R. J van Glabbeek. The linear time - branching time spectrum CONCUR90, LNCS,t58, 1990.

Digital Library

[14]

R. Gerber and I Lee. A Layered Approach to Automating the Verification of 1%eat-Time Systems. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., 18(9).768-784, 1992.

Digital Library

[15]

O. Lichtenstein and A. PnueIi Checking that finite state concurrent programs satmfy their hnear specifications. 1984.

[16]

J. S. Ostroff. Survey of formal methods for the spec~ficat,on and design of real-t,me systems. Draft for IEEE Press book "Tutorial on Specification of Time", 1992.

[17]

C. Stirling and D. Walker. CCS, hveness, and local model checking in the linear time mu-calculus. Automatic Vergficat~on Methods for F, ngte State Systems, LNCS,107, 1989

Digital Library

[18]

W. J Yeh and M. Young. Compositional Reachability Analysis Using Process Algebra. Proceedings TA V4, A CM SIGSOFT, 49-59, October 1991.

Digital Library

Cited By

Brandin BMalik RMalik P(2004)Incremental Verification and Synthesis of Discrete-Event Systems Guided by Counter ExamplesIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology10.1109/TCST.2004.82479512:3(387-401)Online publication date: May-2004
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2004.824795
Bultan TGerber RLeague C(2000)Composite model-checkingACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/332740.3327469:1(3-50)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/332740.332746
Corbett J(2000)Using shape analysis to reduce finite-state models of concurrent Java programsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/332740.3327419:1(51-93)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/332740.332741
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Compositional verification by model checking for counter-examples
ISSTA '96: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis

Many concurrent systems are required to maintain certain safety and liveness properties. One emerging method of achieving confidence in such systems is to statically verify them using model checking. In this approach an abstract, finite-state model of ...
Finding Feasible Counter-examples when Model Checking Abstracted Java Programs
TACAS 2001: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Despite recent advances in model checking and in adapting model checking techniques to software, the state explosion problem remains a major hurdle in applying model checking to software. Recent work in automated program abstraction has shown promise as ...
Finding feasible abstract counter-examples

A strength of model checking is its ability to automate the detection of subtle system errors and produce traces that exhibit those errors. Given the high-computational cost of model checking most researchers advocate the use of aggressive property-...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes

ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Volume 21, Issue 3

May 1996

293 pages

ISSN:0163-5948

DOI:10.1145/226295

Editors:
Steven J. Zeil
Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk, VA
,
Will Tracz
Loral Federal Systems, Owego, NY

Issue’s Table of Contents

ISSTA '96: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis
May 1996
294 pages
ISBN:0897917871
DOI:10.1145/229000
Editors:
Steve J. Zeil
Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk, VA
,
Will Tracz
Loral Federal Systems, Owego, NY

Copyright © 1996 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 May 1996

Published in SIGSOFT Volume 21, Issue 3

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
689
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)139
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

Reflects downloads up to 27 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Brandin BMalik RMalik P(2004)Incremental Verification and Synthesis of Discrete-Event Systems Guided by Counter ExamplesIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology10.1109/TCST.2004.82479512:3(387-401)Online publication date: May-2004
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2004.824795
Bultan TGerber RLeague C(2000)Composite model-checkingACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/332740.3327469:1(3-50)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/332740.332746
Corbett J(2000)Using shape analysis to reduce finite-state models of concurrent Java programsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/332740.3327419:1(51-93)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/332740.332741
Brandin BMalik RDietrich P(2000)Incremental system verification and synthesis of minimally restrictive behavioursProceedings of the 2000 American Control Conference. ACC (IEEE Cat. No.00CH36334)10.1109/ACC.2000.876984(4056-4061 vol.6)Online publication date: 2000
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2000.876984
(2017)A methodological approach for checking safety-critical systems softwareInternational Journal of Critical Computer-Based Systems10.1504/IJCCBS.2017.0899857:4(341-368)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1504/IJCCBS.2017.089985
Morales LCapel M(2016)Checking Critical Software Systems: A Formal Proposal2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC)10.1109/QUATIC.2016.041(160-163)Online publication date: Sep-2016
https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2016.041
Zhang PElbaum SDwyer MHeimdahl MSu Z(2012)Compositional load test generation for software pipelinesProceedings of the 2012 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/2338965.2336764(89-99)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2338965.2336764
Mendoza LCapel MPérez MBenghazi K(2009)Compositional Model-Checking Verification of Critical SystemsEnterprise Information Systems10.1007/978-3-642-00670-8_16(213-225)Online publication date: 2009
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00670-8_16
Chakrabarti AGodefroid PMin SYi W(2006)Software partitioning for effective automated unit testingProceedings of the 6th ACM & IEEE International conference on Embedded software10.1145/1176887.1176925(262-271)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1176887.1176925
Cheung SGiannakopoulou DKramer J(2005)Verification of liveness properties using compositional reachability analysisSoftware Engineering — ESEC/FSE'9710.1007/3-540-63531-9_17(227-243)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2005
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63531-9_17
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents