Parallel program design: a foundation
Parallel program design: a foundation
Partial evaluation and automatic program generation
Partial evaluation and automatic program generation
Formal methods: state of the art and future directions
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) - Special ACM 50th-anniversary issue: strategic directions in computing research
Model checking
Expressing interesting properties of programs in propositional temporal logic
POPL '86 Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages
Communication and Concurrency
Evaluating Deadlock Detection Methods for Concurrent Software
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
Partial-Order Reduction in the Weak Modal Mu-Calculus
CONCUR '97 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Concurrency Theory
Efficient Model Checking Using Tabled Resolution
CAV '97 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
The Murphi Verification System
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
The Concurrency Factory: A Development Environment for Concurrent Systems
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
PVS: Combining Specification, Proof Checking, and Model Checking
CAV '96 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
Experimental Design for Comparing Static Concurrency Analysis
Experimental Design for Comparing Static Concurrency Analysis
Understanding Memory Management in Prolog Systems
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Logic Programming
C Wolf - A Toolset for Extracting Models from C Programs
FORTE '02 Proceedings of the 22nd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference Houston on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems
Verifying Reliable Data Transmission over UMTS Radio Interface with High Level Petri Nets
FORTE '02 Proceedings of the 22nd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference Houston on Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems
GCCS: A Graphical Coordination Language for System Specification
COORDINATION '00 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Coordination Languages and Models
Constraint Logic Programming for Local and Symbolic Model-Checking
CL '00 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic
Improving Non-Progress Cycle Checks
Proceedings of the 16th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking Software
Static analysis, abstract interpretation and verification in (constraint logic) programming
A 25-year perspective on logic programming
Tabled resolution + constraints: a recipe for model checking real-time systems
RTSS'10 Proceedings of the 21st IEEE conference on Real-time systems symposium
Model checking abstract state machines with answer set programming
LPAR'05 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning
Model Checking Abstract State Machines with Answer Set Programming
Fundamenta Informaticae - This is a SPECIAL ISSUE ON ASM'05
CSR'07 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Computer Science: theory and applications
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The i-protocol, an optimized sliding-window protocol for GNU UUCP, came to our attention two years ago when we used the Concurrency Factory's local model checker to detect, locate, and correct a non-trivial livelock in version 1.04 of the protocol. Since then, we have repeated this verification effort with five widely used model checkers, namely, COSPAN, Murϕ, SMV, Spin, and XMC. It is our contention that the i-protocol makes for a particularly compelling case study in protocol verification and for a formidable benchmark of verification-tool performance, for the following reasons: 1) The i-protocol can be used to gauge a tool's ability to detect and diagnose livelock errors. 2) The size of the i-protocol's state space grows exponentially in the window size, and the entirety of this state space must be searched to verify that the protocol, with the livelock error eliminated, is deadlock- or livelock-free. 3) The i-protocol is an asynchronous, low-level software system equipped with a number of optimizations aimed at minimizing control-message and retransmission overhead. It lacks the regular structure that is often present in hardware designs. In this sense, it provides any verification tool with a vigorous test of its analysis capabilities.