On the Complexity of Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable LTL formulas

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

Low-Effort Specification Debugging and Analysis

Reactive synthesis deals with the automated construction of implementations of reactive systems from their specifications. To make the approach feasible in practice, systems engineers need effective and efficient means of debugging these specifications. In this paper, we provide techniques for report-based specification debugging, wherein salient properties of a specification are analyzed, and the result presented to the user in the form of a report. This provides a low-effort way to debug specifications, complementing high-effort techniques including the simulation of synthesized implementations. We demonstrate the usefulness of our report-based specification debugging toolkit by providing examples in the context of generalized reactivity(1) synthesis.Comment: In Proceedings SYNT 2014, arXiv:1407.493

Handling Conflicts in Depth-First Search for LTL Tableau to Debug Compliance Based Languages

Providing adequate tools to tackle the problem of inconsistent compliance rules is a critical research topic. This problem is of paramount importance to achieve automatic support for early declarative design and to support evolution of rules in contract-based or service-based systems. In this paper we investigate the problem of extracting temporal unsatisfiable cores in order to detect the inconsistent part of a specification. We extend conflict-driven SAT-solver to provide a new conflict-driven depth-first-search solver for temporal logic. We use this solver to compute LTL unsatisfiable cores without re-exploring the history of the solver.Comment: In Proceedings FLACOS 2011, arXiv:1109.239

Integrating Topological Proofs with Model Checking to Instrument Iterative Design

System development is not a linear, one-shot process. It proceeds through refinements and revisions. To support assurance that the system satisfies its requirements, it is desirable that continuous verification can be performed after each refinement or revision step. To achieve practical adoption, formal verification must accommodate continuous verification efficiently and effectively. Model checking provides developers with information useful to improve their models only when a property is not satisfied, i.e., when a counterexample is returned. However, it is desirable to have some useful information also when a property is instead satisfied. To address this problem we propose TOrPEDO, an approach that supports verification in two complementary forms: model checking and proofs. While model checking is typically used to pinpoint model behaviors that violate requirements, proofs can instead explain why requirements are satisfied. In our work, we introduce a specific notion of proof, called Topological Proof. A topological proof produces a slice of the original model that justifies the property satisfaction. Because models can be incomplete, TOrPEDO supports reasoning on requirements satisfaction, violation, and possible satisfaction (in the case where satisfaction depends on unknown parts of the model). Evaluation is performed by checking how topological proofs support software development on 12 modeling scenarios and 15 different properties obtained from 3 examples from literature. Results show that: (i) topological proofs are ≈60% smaller than the original models; (ii) after a revision, in ≈78% of cases, the property can be re-verified by relying on a simple syntactic check

MaxSAT Evaluation 2018 : Solver and Benchmark Descriptions

Non peer reviewe