Abstract

As a complementary technique of the BDD-based approach, bounded model checking (BMC) has been successfully applied to LTL symbolic model checking. However, the expressiveness of LTL is rather limited, and some important properties cannot be captured by such logic. In this paper, we present a semantic BMC encoding approach to deal with the mixture ofETLfandETLl. Since such kind of temporal logic involves both finite and looping automata as connectives, all regular properties can be succinctly specified with it. The presented algorithm is integrated into the model checker ENuSMV, and the approach is evaluated via conducting a series of imperial experiments.

Highlights

  • A crucial bottleneck of model checking is the state-explosion problem, and the symbolic model checking technique has proven to be an applicable approach to alleviate it

  • A modular symbolic Buchi automata construction is presented in [19] by Cimatti et al In this paper, we present a semantic bounded model checking (BMC) encoding for ETL employing both finite acceptance and looping acceptance automata connectives

  • For a given labeled transition system (LTS) M and the given ETLl+f formula φ, since we have shown that M ⊭ φ if and only if M × T¬φ involves some fair path, we just need to test if there is some k making ΨM(k)×T¬φ satisfiable, where k ≤ CT(M × T¬φ)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A crucial bottleneck of model checking is the state-explosion problem, and the symbolic model checking technique has proven to be an applicable approach to alleviate it. As pointed in [5, 6], it is of great importance for a specification language to have the power to express all ω-regular properties—as an example, it is a necessary requirement to support modular model checking Such specification language like PSL [7] has been accepted as industrial standard. A modular symbolic Buchi automata construction is presented in [19] by Cimatti et al. In this paper, we present a semantic BMC encoding for ETL employing both finite acceptance and looping acceptance automata connectives (we in the following refer to it as ETLl+f). In a pure theoretical perspective, looping and finite acceptance, respectively, correspond to safety and liveness properties, and looping acceptance automata can be viewed as the counterparts of finite acceptance automata Both similarities and differences could be found in compiling the semantic models and translating Boolean representations when dealing with these two types of connectives.

Preliminaries
Experimental Results
Concluding Remarks
Omitted Proofs
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call