Model Checking - My 27-Year Quest to Overcome the State Explosion Problem

Model Checking is an automatic verification technique for state-transition systems that are finite=state or that have finite-state abstractions. In the early 1980 s in a series of joint papers with my graduate students E.A. Emerson and A.P. Sistla, we proposed that Model Checking could be used for verifying concurrent systems and gave algorithms for this purpose. At roughly the same time, Joseph Sifakis and his student J.P. Queille at the University of Grenoble independently developed a similar technique. Model Checking has been used successfully to reason about computer hardware and communication protocols and is beginning to be used for verifying computer software. Specifications are written in temporal logic, which is particularly valuable for expressing concurrency properties. An intelligent, exhaustive search is used to determine if the specification is true or not. If the specification is not true, the Model Checker will produce a counterexample execution trace that shows why the specification does not hold. This feature is extremely useful for finding obscure errors in complex systems. The main disadvantage of Model Checking is the state-explosion problem, which can occur if the system under verification has many processes or complex data structures. Although the state-explosion problem is inevitable in worst case, over the past 27 years considerable progress has been made on the problem for certain classes of state-transition systems that occur often in practice. In this talk, I will describe what Model Checking is, how it works, and the main techniques that have been developed for combating the state explosion problem

Learning to Prove Safety over Parameterised Concurrent Systems (Full Version)

We revisit the classic problem of proving safety over parameterised concurrent systems, i.e., an infinite family of finite-state concurrent systems that are represented by some finite (symbolic) means. An example of such an infinite family is a dining philosopher protocol with any number n of processes (n being the parameter that defines the infinite family). Regular model checking is a well-known generic framework for modelling parameterised concurrent systems, where an infinite set of configurations (resp. transitions) is represented by a regular set (resp. regular transducer). Although verifying safety properties in the regular model checking framework is undecidable in general, many sophisticated semi-algorithms have been developed in the past fifteen years that can successfully prove safety in many practical instances. In this paper, we propose a simple solution to synthesise regular inductive invariants that makes use of Angluin's classic L* algorithm (and its variants). We provide a termination guarantee when the set of configurations reachable from a given set of initial configurations is regular. We have tested L* algorithm on standard (as well as new) examples in regular model checking including the dining philosopher protocol, the dining cryptographer protocol, and several mutual exclusion protocols (e.g. Bakery, Burns, Szymanski, and German). Our experiments show that, despite the simplicity of our solution, it can perform at least as well as existing semi-algorithms.Comment: Full version of FMCAD'17 pape

Sequentializing Parameterized Programs

We exhibit assertion-preserving (reachability preserving) transformations from parameterized concurrent shared-memory programs, under a k-round scheduling of processes, to sequential programs. The salient feature of the sequential program is that it tracks the local variables of only one thread at any point, and uses only O(k) copies of shared variables (it does not use extra counters, not even one counter to keep track of the number of threads). Sequentialization is achieved using the concept of a linear interface that captures the effect an unbounded block of processes have on the shared state in a k-round schedule. Our transformation utilizes linear interfaces to sequentialize the program, and to ensure the sequential program explores only reachable states and preserves local invariants.Comment: In Proceedings FIT 2012, arXiv:1207.348

Synthesis of Parametric Programs using Genetic Programming and Model Checking

Formal methods apply algorithms based on mathematical principles to enhance the reliability of systems. It would only be natural to try to progress from verification, model checking or testing a system against its formal specification into constructing it automatically. Classical algorithmic synthesis theory provides interesting algorithms but also alarming high complexity and undecidability results. The use of genetic programming, in combination with model checking and testing, provides a powerful heuristic to synthesize programs. The method is not completely automatic, as it is fine tuned by a user that sets up the specification and parameters. It also does not guarantee to always succeed and converge towards a solution that satisfies all the required properties. However, we applied it successfully on quite nontrivial examples and managed to find solutions to hard programming challenges, as well as to improve and to correct code. We describe here several versions of our method for synthesizing sequential and concurrent systems.Comment: In Proceedings INFINITY 2013, arXiv:1402.661

Graphical modelling language for spycifying concurrency based on CSP

Introduced in this (shortened) paper is a graphical modelling language for specifying concurrency in software designs. The language notations are derived from CSP and the resulting designs form CSP diagrams. The notations reflect both data-flow and control-flow aspects of concurrent software architectures. These designs can automatically be described by CSP algebraic expressions that can be used for formal analysis. The designer does not have to be aware of the underlying mathematics. The techniques and rules presented provide guidance to the development of concurrent software architectures. One can detect and reason about compositional conflicts (errors in design), potential deadlocks (errors at run-time), and priority inversion problems (performance burden) at a high level of abstraction. The CSP diagram collaborates with objectoriented modelling languages and structured methods

Parameterized Synthesis

We study the synthesis problem for distributed architectures with a parametric number of finite-state components. Parameterized specifications arise naturally in a synthesis setting, but thus far it was unclear how to detect realizability and how to perform synthesis in a parameterized setting. Using a classical result from verification, we show that for a class of specifications in indexed LTL\X, parameterized synthesis in token ring networks is equivalent to distributed synthesis in a network consisting of a few copies of a single process. Adapting a well-known result from distributed synthesis, we show that the latter problem is undecidable. We describe a semi-decision procedure for the parameterized synthesis problem in token rings, based on bounded synthesis. We extend the approach to parameterized synthesis in token-passing networks with arbitrary topologies, and show applicability on a simple case study. Finally, we sketch a general framework for parameterized synthesis based on cutoffs and other parameterized verification techniques.Comment: Extended version of TACAS 2012 paper, 29 page