SAT-based Explicit LTL Reasoning

We present here a new explicit reasoning framework for linear temporal logic (LTL), which is built on top of propositional satisfiability (SAT) solving. As a proof-of-concept of this framework, we describe a new LTL satisfiability tool, Aalta\_v2.0, which is built on top of the MiniSAT SAT solver. We test the effectiveness of this approach by demonnstrating that Aalta\_v2.0 significantly outperforms all existing LTL satisfiability solvers. Furthermore, we show that the framework can be extended from propositional LTL to assertional LTL (where we allow theory atoms), by replacing MiniSAT with the Z3 SMT solver, and demonstrating that this can yield an exponential improvement in performance

Fast LTL Satisfiability Checking by SAT Solvers

Satisfiability checking for Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) is a fundamental step in checking for possible errors in LTL assertions. Extant LTL satisfiability checkers use a variety of different search procedures. With the sole exception of LTL satisfiability checking based on bounded model checking, which does not provide a complete decision procedure, LTL satisfiability checkers have not taken advantage of the remarkable progress over the past 20 years in Boolean satisfiability solving. In this paper, we propose a new LTL satisfiability-checking framework that is accelerated using a Boolean SAT solver. Our approach is based on the variant of the \emph{obligation-set method}, which we proposed in earlier work. We describe here heuristics that allow the use of a Boolean SAT solver to analyze the obligations for a given LTL formula. The experimental evaluation indicates that the new approach provides a a significant performance advantage

Learning Linear Temporal Properties

We present two novel algorithms for learning formulas in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) from examples. The first learning algorithm reduces the learning task to a series of satisfiability problems in propositional Boolean logic and produces a smallest LTL formula (in terms of the number of subformulas) that is consistent with the given data. Our second learning algorithm, on the other hand, combines the SAT-based learning algorithm with classical algorithms for learning decision trees. The result is a learning algorithm that scales to real-world scenarios with hundreds of examples, but can no longer guarantee to produce minimal consistent LTL formulas. We compare both learning algorithms and demonstrate their performance on a wide range of synthetic benchmarks. Additionally, we illustrate their usefulness on the task of understanding executions of a leader election protocol

Transformational Verification of Linear Temporal Logic

We present a new method for verifying Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) properties of finite state reactive systems based on logic programming and program transformation. We encode a finite state system and an LTL property which we want to verify as a logic program on infinite lists. Then we apply a verification method consisting of two steps. In the first step we transform the logic program that encodes the given system and the given property into a new program belonging to the class of the so-called linear monadic !-programs (which are stratified, linear recursive programs defining nullary predicates or unary predicates on infinite lists). This transformation is performed by applying rules that preserve correctness. In the second step we verify the property of interest by using suitable proof rules for linear monadic !-programs. These proof rules can be encoded as a logic program which always terminates, if evaluated by using tabled resolution. Although our method uses standard program transformation techniques, the computational complexity of the derived verification algorithm is essentially the same as the one of the Lichtenstein-Pnueli algorithm [9], which uses sophisticated ad-hoc techniques

LTLf satisfiability checking

We consider here Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas interpreted over \emph{finite} traces. We denote this logic by LTLf. The existing approach for LTLf satisfiability checking is based on a reduction to standard LTL satisfiability checking. We describe here a novel direct approach to LTLf satisfiability checking, where we take advantage of the difference in the semantics between LTL and LTLf. While LTL satisfiability checking requires finding a \emph{fair cycle} in an appropriate transition system, here we need to search only for a finite trace. This enables us to introduce specialized heuristics, where we also exploit recent progress in Boolean SAT solving. We have implemented our approach in a prototype tool and experiments show that our approach outperforms existing approaches

Linear Encodings of Bounded LTL Model Checking

We consider the problem of bounded model checking (BMC) for linear temporal logic (LTL). We present several efficient encodings that have size linear in the bound. Furthermore, we show how the encodings can be extended to LTL with past operators (PLTL). The generalised encoding is still of linear size, but cannot detect minimal length counterexamples. By using the virtual unrolling technique minimal length counterexamples can be captured, however, the size of the encoding is quadratic in the specification. We also extend virtual unrolling to Buchi automata, enabling them to accept minimal length counterexamples. Our BMC encodings can be made incremental in order to benefit from incremental SAT technology. With fairly small modifications the incremental encoding can be further enhanced with a termination check, allowing us to prove properties with BMC. Experiments clearly show that our new encodings improve performance of BMC considerably, particularly in the case of the incremental encoding, and that they are very competitive for finding bugs. An analysis of the liveness-to-safety transformation reveals many similarities to the BMC encodings in this paper. Using the liveness-to-safety translation with BDD-based invariant checking results in an efficient method to find shortest counterexamples that complements the BMC-based approach.Comment: Final version for Logical Methods in Computer Science CAV 2005 special issu