Symbolic Model Checking with Sentential Decision Diagrams

Vinkhuijzen, Lieuwe; Laarman, Alfons

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62822-2_8

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While SAT-based methods for model checking have become increasingly popular, doing reachability analysis with decision diagrams is still an important component of many state-of-the-art model checking tools, as can be seen in the Model Checking Contest (MCC) [30,40]. Symbolic reachability analysis with binary decision diagrams (BDDs) and other variants [6,20,27,41] is done by encoding both the initial system state S init and its transition relation R in the diagram. The set of reachable states S is then iteratively computed using the image operation [33], denoted by S.R, starting from S init .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Decision Diagram Operation for Reachability

Brand

Bäck²,

Laarman³

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saturation is considered the state-of-the-art method for computing fixpoints with decision diagrams. We present a relatively simple decision diagram operation called Reach that also computes fixpoints. In contrast to saturation, it does not require a partitioning of the transition relation. We give sequential algorithms implementing the new operation for both binary and multi-valued decision diagrams, and moreover provide parallel counterparts. We implement these algorithms and experimentally compare their performance against saturation on 692 model checking benchmarks in different languages. The results show that the Reach operation often outperforms saturation, especially on transition relations with low locality. In a comparison between parallelized versions of Reach and saturation we find that Reach obtains comparable speedups up to 16 cores, although falls behind saturation at 64 cores. Finally, in a comparison with the state-of-the-art model checking tool ITS-tools we find that Reach outperforms ITS-tools on 29% of models, suggesting that Reach can be useful as a complementary method in an ensemble tool.

show abstract