Generating and Solving Symbolic Parity Games

We present a new tool for verification of modal mu-calculus formulae for process specifications, based on symbolic parity games. It enhances an existing method, that first encodes the problem to a Parameterised Boolean Equation System (PBES) and then instantiates the PBES to a parity game. We improved the translation from specification to PBES to preserve the structure of the specification in the PBES, we extended LTSmin to instantiate PBESs to symbolic parity games, and implemented the recursive parity game solving algorithm by Zielonka for symbolic parity games. We use Multi-valued Decision Diagrams (MDDs) to represent sets and relations, thus enabling the tools to deal with very large systems. The transition relation is partitioned based on the structure of the specification, which allows for efficient manipulation of the MDDs. We performed two case studies on modular specifications, that demonstrate that the new method has better time and memory performance than existing PBES based tools and can be faster (but slightly less memory efficient) than the symbolic model checker NuSMV.Comment: In Proceedings GRAPHITE 2014, arXiv:1407.767

Open computation tree logic for formal verification of modules

Modules of large VLSI circuits are often designed by different designers spread across the globe. One of the main challenges of the designer is to guarantee that the module he/she designs will work correctly in the global design, the details of which, is often unknown to him/her. Modules are open systems whose behavior is subject to the inputs it receives from its environment. It has been shown that verification of open systems (modules) is computationally very hard (EXPTIME complete, 1996) when we consider all possible environments. On the other hand we show that integrating the specification of the properties to be verified with the specification of only the valid input patterns (under which the module is expected to function correctly) gives us a powerful syntax which can be verified in polynomial time. We call the proposed logic Open-CTL (CTL for open systems). The convenience of being able to specify the property and the environment in a unified way in Open-CTL is demonstrated through a study of the PCI Bus properties. We present a symbolic BDD-based verification scheme for checking Open-CTL formulas, and present experimental results on modules from the Texas-97 Verification Benchmark circuits

An approach to verification and validation of a reliable multicasting protocol: Extended Abstract

This paper describes the process of implementing a complex communications protocol that provides reliable delivery of data in multicast-capable, packet-switching telecommunication networks. The protocol, called the Reliable Multicasting Protocol (RMP), was developed incrementally using a combination of formal and informal techniques in an attempt to ensure the correctness of its implementation. Our development process involved three concurrent activities: (1) the initial construction and incremental enhancement of a formal state model of the protocol machine; (2) the initial coding and incremental enhancement of the implementation; and (3) model-based testing of iterative implementations of the protocol. These activities were carried out by two separate teams: a design team and a V&V team. The design team built the first version of RMP with limited functionality to handle only nominal requirements of data delivery. This initial version did not handle off-nominal cases such as network partitions or site failures. Meanwhile, the V&V team concurrently developed a formal model of the requirements using a variant of SCR-based state tables. Based on these requirements tables, the V&V team developed test cases to exercise the implementation. In a series of iterative steps, the design team added new functionality to the implementation while the V&V team kept the state model in fidelity with the implementation. This was done by generating test cases based on suspected errant or off-nominal behaviors predicted by the current model. If the execution of a test in the model and implementation agreed, then the test either found a potential problem or verified a required behavior. However, if the execution of a test was different in the model and implementation, then the differences helped identify inconsistencies between the model and implementation. In either case, the dialogue between both teams drove the co-evolution of the model and implementation. We have found that this interactive, iterative approach to development allows software designers to focus on delivery of nominal functionality while the V&V team can focus on analysis of off nominal cases. Testing serves as the vehicle for keeping the model and implementation in fidelity with each other. This paper describes (1) our experiences in developing our process model; and (2) three example problems found during the development of RMP. Although RMP has provided our research effort with a rich set of test cases, it also has practical applications within NASA. For example, RMP is being considered for use in the NASA EOSDIS project due to its significant performance benefits in applications that need to replicate large amounts of data to many network sites