15 research outputs found

    Exploiting Resolution Proofs to Speed Up LTL Vacuity Detection for BMC

    Get PDF

    On the Complexity of Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formulas

    Full text link
    We show that (1) the Minimal False QCNF search-problem (MF-search) and the Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formula search problem (MU-search) are FPSPACE complete because of the very expressive power of QBF/LTL, (2) we extend the PSPACE-hardness of the MF decision problem to the MU decision problem. As a consequence, we deduce a positive answer to the open question of PSPACE hardness of the inherent Vacuity Checking problem. We even show that the Inherent Non Vacuous formula search problem is also FPSPACE-complete.Comment: Minimal unsatisfiable cores For LTL causes inherent vacuity checking redundancy coverag

    Contradictory antecedent debugging in bounded model checking

    Full text link
    In the context of formal verification Bounded Model Check-ing (BMC) has shown to be very powerful for large industrial designs. BMC is used to check whether a circuit satisfies a temporal property or not. Typically, such a property is for-mulated as an implication. In the antecedent of the property the verification engineer specifies the assumptions about the design environment and joins the respective expressions by logical AND. However, the overall conjunction may have no solution, i.e. the antecedent is contradictory. Since in this case a property trivially holds this situation has to be avoided. Furthermore, the root cause of a contradictory an-tecedent has to be identified which is a manual and very time-consuming process. In this paper we propose a fully automatic approach for presenting all reasons of a contradictory antecedent to the verification engineer, i.e. the approach pinpoints to the sub-expressions in the antecedent that form a contradiction. Hence, our approach reduces the debugging time of a con-tradictory antecedent significantly

    User-guided discovery of declarative process models

    Full text link

    Explicit or Symbolic Translation of Linear Temporal Logic to Automata

    Get PDF
    Formal verification techniques are growing increasingly vital for the development of safety-critical software and hardware in practice. Techniques such as requirements-based design and model checking for system verification have been successfully used to verify systems for air traffic control, airplane separation assurance, autopilots, CPU logic designs, life-support, medical equipment, and other functions that ensure human safety. Formal behavioral specifications written early in the system-design process and communicated across all design phases increase the efficiency, consistency, and quality of the system under development. We argue that to prevent introducing design or verification errors, it is crucial to test specifications for satisfiability. We advocate for the adaptation of a new sanity check via satisfiability checking for property assurance. Our focus here is on specifications expressed in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). We demonstrate that LTL satisfiability checking reduces to model checking and satisfiability checking for the specification, its complement, and a conjunction of all properties should be performed as a first step to LTL model checking. We report on an experimental investigation of LTL satisfiability checking. We introduce a large set of rigorous benchmarks to enable objective evaluation of LTL-to-automaton algorithms in terms of scalability, performance, correctness, and size of the automata produced. For explicit model checking, we use the Spin model checker; we tested all LTL-to-explicit automaton translation tools that were publicly available when we conducted our study. For symbolic model checking, we use CadenceSMV, NuSMV, and SAL-SMC for both LTL-to-symbolic automaton translation and to perform the satisfiability check. Our experiments result in two major findings. First, scalability, correctness, and other debilitating performance issues afflict most LTL translation tools. Second, for LTL satisfiability checking, the symbolic approach is clearly superior to the explicit approach. Ironically, the explicit approach to LTL-to-automata had been heavily studied while only one algorithm existed for LTL-to-symbolic automata. Since 1994, there had been essentially no new progress in encoding symbolic automata for BDD-based analysis. Therefore, we introduce a set of 30 symbolic automata encodings. The set consists of novel combinations of existing constructs, such as different LTL formula normal forms, with a novel transition-labeled symbolic automaton form, a new way to encode transitions, and new BDD variable orders based on algorithms for tree decomposition of graphs. An extensive set of experiments demonstrates that these encodings translate to significant, sometimes exponential, improvement over the current standard encoding for symbolic LTL satisfiability checking. Building upon these ideas, we return to the explicit automata domain and focus on the most common type of specifications used in industrial practice: safety properties. We show that we can exploit the inherent determinism of safety properties to create a set of 26 explicit automata encodings comprised of novel aspects including: state numbers versus state labels versus a state look-up table, finite versus infinite acceptance conditions, forward-looking versus backward-looking transition encodings, assignment-based versus BDD-based alphabet representation, state and transition minimization, edge abbreviation, trap-state elimination, and determinization either on-the-fly or up-front using the subset construction. We conduct an extensive experimental evaluation and identify an encoding that offers the best performance in explicit LTL model checking time and is constantly faster than the previous best explicit automaton encoding algorithm

    Declarative symbolic pure-logic model checking

    Get PDF
    Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2005.Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-181).Model checking, a technique for findings errors in systems, involves building a formal model that describes possible system behaviors and correctness conditions, and using a tool to search for model behaviors violating correctness properties. Existing model checkers are well-suited for analyzing control-intensive algorithms (e.g. network protocols with simple node state). Many important analyses, however, fall outside the capabilities of existing model checkers. Examples include checking algorithms with complex state, distributed algorithms over all network topologies, and highly declarative models. This thesis addresses the problem of building an efficient model checker that overcomes these limitations. The work builds on Alloy, a relational modeling language. Previous work has defined the language and shown that it can be analyzed by translation to SAT. The primary contributions of this thesis include: a modeling paradigm for describing complex structures in Alloy; significant improvements in scalability of the analyzer; and improvements in usability of the analyzer via addition of a debugger for over constraints. Together, these changes make model-checking practical for important new classes of analyses. While the work was done in the context of Alloy, some techniques generalize to other verification tools.by Ilya A. Shlyakhter.S.M

    Proceedings of the Second NASA Formal Methods Symposium

    Get PDF
    This publication contains the proceedings of the Second NASA Formal Methods Symposium sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and held in Washington D.C. April 13-15, 2010. Topics covered include: Decision Engines for Software Analysis using Satisfiability Modulo Theories Solvers; Verification and Validation of Flight-Critical Systems; Formal Methods at Intel -- An Overview; Automatic Review of Abstract State Machines by Meta Property Verification; Hardware-independent Proofs of Numerical Programs; Slice-based Formal Specification Measures -- Mapping Coupling and Cohesion Measures to Formal Z; How Formal Methods Impels Discovery: A Short History of an Air Traffic Management Project; A Machine-Checked Proof of A State-Space Construction Algorithm; Automated Assume-Guarantee Reasoning for Omega-Regular Systems and Specifications; Modeling Regular Replacement for String Constraint Solving; Using Integer Clocks to Verify the Timing-Sync Sensor Network Protocol; Can Regulatory Bodies Expect Efficient Help from Formal Methods?; Synthesis of Greedy Algorithms Using Dominance Relations; A New Method for Incremental Testing of Finite State Machines; Verification of Faulty Message Passing Systems with Continuous State Space in PVS; Phase Two Feasibility Study for Software Safety Requirements Analysis Using Model Checking; A Prototype Embedding of Bluespec System Verilog in the PVS Theorem Prover; SimCheck: An Expressive Type System for Simulink; Coverage Metrics for Requirements-Based Testing: Evaluation of Effectiveness; Software Model Checking of ARINC-653 Flight Code with MCP; Evaluation of a Guideline by Formal Modelling of Cruise Control System in Event-B; Formal Verification of Large Software Systems; Symbolic Computation of Strongly Connected Components Using Saturation; Towards the Formal Verification of a Distributed Real-Time Automotive System; Slicing AADL Specifications for Model Checking; Model Checking with Edge-valued Decision Diagrams; and Data-flow based Model Analysis

    Computer Aided Verification

    Get PDF
    The open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency
    corecore