Model Checking Birth and Death

Distefano, Dino; Rensink, Arend; Katoen, Joost-Pieter

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35608-2_36

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For models with unbounded domains (and consequently an infinite number of states, in a suitable finite representation) but very limited structure, some results on model checking were presented in [11,10]. The first of these shows decidability of model checking for unstructured domains, i.e., just sets of entities; the second gives a safe approximation in the case where the domains are singly-linked lists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Model Checking Quantified Computation Tree Logic

Rensink

2006

CONCUR 2006 – Concurrency Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Propositional temporal logic is not suitable for expressing properties on the evolution of dynamically allocated entities over time. In particular, it is not possible to trace such entities through computation steps, since this requires the ability to freely mix quantification and temporal operators. In this paper we study Quantified Computation Tree Logic (QCTL), which extends the well-known propositional computation tree logic, PCTL, with first and (monadic) second order quantification. The semantics of QCTL is expressed on algebra automata, which are automata enriched with abstract algebras at each state, and with reallocations at each transition that express an injective renaming of the algebra elements from one state to the next. The reallocations enable minimization of the automata modulo bisimilarity, essentially through symmetry reduction. Our main result is to show that each combination of a QCTL formula and a finite algebra automaton can be transformed to an equivalent PCTL formula over an ordinary Kripke structure, while maintaining the symmetry reduction. The transformation is structure-preserving on the formulae. This gives rise to a method to lift any model checking technique for PCTL to QCTL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From this observation, it follows that there is interest in logics in which quantification and modalities can be freely mixed -a point we have argued before in [11,10,19], and has been made independently by Yahav et al in [21]. In contrast to the latter, we pursue a model checking approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Model Checking Quantified Computation Tree Logic

Rensink

2006

CONCUR 2006 – Concurrency Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This includes a front-end to compile code to graph grammars (a prototype of a Java byte code translator has been developed) and a back-end to model check the resulting GTS's. In [1] we have taken a first step toward developing a logic to reason about the dynamic aspects of GTS's. See [4] for a global overview of the programme.…”

Section: Design and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The GROOVE Simulator: A Tool for State Space Generation

Rensink

2004

Applications of Graph Transformations With Industrial Relevance

Self Cite

215

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To replace the propositional logic used in traditional model checking, we have proposed a predicate graph logic in [13] for the purpose of formulating the properties to be checked. Some preliminary ideas on model checking such properties can be found in [4].…”

Section: The Groove Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model Checking Graph Transformations: A Comparison of Two Approaches

Rensink

Schmidt

Varró

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Model checking is increasingly popular for hardware and, more recently, software verification. In this paper we describe two different approaches to extend the benefits of model checking to systems whose behavior is specified by graph transformation systems. One approach is to encode the graphs into the fixed state vectors and the transformation rules into guarded commands that modify these state vectors appropriately to enjoy all the benefits of the years of experience incorporated in existing model checking tools. The other approach is to simulate the graph production rules directly and build the state space directly from the resultant graphs and derivations. This avoids the preprocessing phase, and makes additional abstraction techniques available to handle symmetries and dynamic allocation. In this paper we compare these approaches on the basis of three case studies elaborated in both of them, and we evaluate the results. Our conclusion is that the first approach outperforms the second if the dynamic and/or symmetric nature of the problem under analysis is limited, while the second shows its superiority for inherently dynamic and symmetric problems.

show abstract

Model Checking Birth and Death

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Model Checking Quantified Computation Tree Logic

Model Checking Quantified Computation Tree Logic

The GROOVE Simulator: A Tool for State Space Generation

Model Checking Graph Transformations: A Comparison of Two Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About