Another look at LTL model checking

Clarke, Edmund M.; Grumberg, Orna; Hamaguchi, Kiyoharu

doi:10.1007/3-540-58179-0_72

Cited by 93 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the LTL property ltl stable n , we apply the technique reported in [12,24] and verify the existence of fair paths satisfying a ∀µ-calculus formula. Observe that the completeness criteria for these properties are uniformly obtained by our framework.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Wang

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we present a complete bounded model checking algorithm for the universal fragment of µ-calculus. The new algorithm checks the completeness of bounded proof of each property on the fly and does not depend on prior knowledge of the completeness thresholds. The key is to combine both local and bounded model checking techniques and use SAT solvers to perform local model checking on finite Kripke structures. Our proof-theoretic approach works for any property in the specification logic and is more general than previous work on specific properties. We report experimental results to compare our algorithm with the conventional BDD-based algorithm.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Wang

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the moment, only LTL can be checked by transformation into a CTL model checking problem for the well-known CTL model checker SMV [4] as a back end. In this section, some experimental results obtained by that implementation and the original implementation of [9] are given.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…as given in [9] and the second one for an enhanced tableau procedure also developed by the author. It can be seen that the presented translation leads to only O(e) reachable states in contrast to O(e2 2e ) reachable states of the tableau method.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the use of the standard CTL model checking procedure is correct for the verification of LTL properties. This is not really surprising, since translations from LTL to ω-automata allow also to use existing CTL model checking tools [9]. Also, if we consider the overall complexities, we obtain in both cases exponential decision procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

“…To see this, note that all known decision procedures for LTL are based on translations to ω-automata [9,10,11]: Having computed an ω-automaton A Φ for the specification Φ with the acceptance condition ϕ and the automaton A S for the system's behavior, the remaining problem is to check whether ϕ holds for the product automaton A Φ × A S . However, the computation of the product automaton A Φ × A S usually yields in very large state spaces the number of states of the system is multiplied with the number of states of the ω-automaton.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Model Checking on Product Structures

Schneider

1998

Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an algorithm for checking CTL formulas in Kripke structures with side conditions, where the side conditions define new variables in terms of path formulas. Given any CTL formula where the defined variables may occur, the presented algorithm will determine the set of states where the CTL * formula holds that is obtained by replacing each new variable defined by a side condition by its definition. The basic idea of our algorithm is to translate each side condition to a Kripke structure that encodes precisely the definition of the new variable. After that, we compute the products of these structures with the given structure and use a generalization of the well-known CTL model checking procedure. The presented model checking procedure can still be implemented as a symbolic model checking procedure (e.g. with BDDs). We moreover show how each CTL * model checking problem can be translated efficiently to a CTL model checking problem with side conditions, and hence show that the method can be used to construct efficient CTL * and LTL model checking procedures. Moreover, it is shown that for LTL model checking, we can still use standard CTL model checking procedures instead of our generalized version.

show abstract

Verification of Finite‐State Systems

Pradat-Peyre¹,

Thierry-Mieg²

2011

Models and Analysis in Distributed Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Another look at LTL model checking

Cited by 93 publications

References 14 publications

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Proving ∀μ-Calculus Properties with SAT-Based Model Checking

Model Checking on Product Structures

Verification of Finite‐State Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About