2002
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45739-9_15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification of Timed Automata via Satisfiability Checking

Abstract: In this paper we show how to translate bounded-length verification problems for timed automata into formulae in difference logic, a propositional logic enriched with timing constraints. We describe the principles of a satisfiability checker specialized for this logic that we have implemented and report some preliminary experimental results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Difference constraints can express naturally a variety of timing-related problems including schedulability, circuit timing analysis, and bounded model checking of timed automata [16,3]. In addition, difference constraints can be used as an abstraction for general linear constraints and many problems involving general linear constraints are dominated by difference constraints.…”
Section: Difference Constraints and Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Difference constraints can express naturally a variety of timing-related problems including schedulability, circuit timing analysis, and bounded model checking of timed automata [16,3]. In addition, difference constraints can be used as an abstraction for general linear constraints and many problems involving general linear constraints are dominated by difference constraints.…”
Section: Difference Constraints and Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Containment of one set of states, 4> n ew, in another, (fr o id, is checked by deciding the validity of the SL formula <j> = (f) new ==> (/) O M (or equivalently, the satisfiability of -i0). There are several procedures that can decide separation formulas (e.g., [17,4,15]). …”
Section: Pret([a\mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many fully symbolic, but bounded model checking methods based on SAT have been developed recently (e.g., [5,15]). These algorithms cannot be directly extended to perform unbounded model checking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, existing verification techniques frequently apply symbolic representations of state spaces using either operations on Difference Bound Matrices [34], variations of Boolean Decision Diagrams [11,84,84], or SAT-related algorithms. The latter can exploit either a sequence of translations starting from timed automata and TCTL, going via (quantified) separation logic to quantified propositional logic and further to propositional logic [10,57,73] or a direct translation from timed automata and TCTL to propositional logic [63,86,92]. Finite state spaces, preserving properties to be checked, are usually built using detailed region approach or (possibly minimal) abstract models based on state classes or regions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%