The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification
POPL '85 Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages
Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic
Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFIP WG6.1 International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV
Checking Safety Properties Using Induction and a SAT-Solver
FMCAD '00 Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design
A Fixpoint Based Encoding for Bounded Model Checking
FMCAD '02 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design
Efficient Büchi Automata from LTL Formulae
CAV '00 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
Another Look at LTL Model Checking
CAV '94 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
Accelerating Bounded Model Checking of Safety Properties
Formal Methods in System Design
Efficient reduction of finite state model checking to reachability analysis
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)
Reasoning about infinite computation paths
SFCS '83 Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Shortest counterexamples for symbolic model checking of LTL with past
TACAS'05 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems
Automatic invariant strengthening to prove properties in bounded model checking
Proceedings of the 43rd annual Design Automation Conference
An Automata-Theoretic Dynamic Completeness Criterion for Bounded Model-Checking
VMCAI '09 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation
Bounded Semantics of CTL and SAT-Based Verification
ICFEM '09 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods: Formal Methods and Software Engineering
An incremental approach to model checking progress properties
Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design
Hi-index | 0.01 |
Increasing attention has been paid recently to criteria that allow one to conclude that a structure models a linear-time property from the knowledge that no counterexamples exist up to a certain length. These termination criteria effectively turn Bounded Model Checking into a full-fledged verification technique and sometimes result in considerable time savings. In [M. Awedh and F. Somenzi. Proving more properties with bounded model checking. In R. Alur and D. Peled, editors, Sixteenth Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'04), pages 96-108. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, July 2004. LNCS 3114] we presented a criterion based on the translation of the linear-time specification into a Buchi automaton. BMC can be terminated if no fair cycle is found up to a given length, and one can prove that no fair cycle exists beyond that length. The maximum length for which counterexamples are explicitly checked is called the termination length; it obviously depends on the model, the property, and the termination criterion. In this paper we improve the criterion of [M. Awedh and F. Somenzi. Proving more properties with bounded model checking. In R. Alur and D. Peled, editors, Sixteenth Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'04), pages 96-108. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, July 2004. LNCS 3114] by adding a check that often substantially reduces termination length. Our previous work employed translation to a non-generalized Buchi automaton. Though a well-known technique converts a generalized automaton into that form by composing it with a counter, it has the undesirable effect of considerably lengthening the cycles in the graph to be searched. We propose several alternatives to that approach and compare them experimentally. The translation to automata can be accomplished in more than one way, and in this paper we contrast two of them: one based on the algorithms of [F. Somenzi and R. Bloem. Efficient Buchi automata from LTL formulae. In E. A. Emerson and A. P. Sistla, editors, Twelfth Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'00), pages 248-263. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, July 2000. LNCS 1855], and one based on the notion of tight automaton of [E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and K. Hamaguchi. Another look at LTL model checking. In D. L. Dill, editor, Sixth Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'94), pages 415-427. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. LNCS 818]. The latter yields shorter counterexamples, but the former often leads to earlier termination. In addition, it can help in identifying safety properties, for which termination checks are much more efficient than for the general case. We finally present results on comparing techniques based on cycle detection to the technique of [V. Schuppan and A. Biere. Efficient reduction of finite state model checking to reachability analysis. Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 5(2-3):185-204, Mar. 2004], which converts liveness properties into safety properties by augmentation of the model.