Abstract
Of special interest in formal verification are safety properties, which assert that the system always stays within some allowed region. Each safety property ψ can be associated with a set of bad prefixes: a set of finite computations such that an infinite computation violates ψ iff it has a prefix in the set. By translating a safety property to an automaton for its set of bad prefixes, verification can be reduced to reasoning about finite words: a system is correct if none of its computations has a bad prefix. Checking the latter circumvents the need to reason about cycles and simplifies significantly methods like symbolic fixed-point based verification, bounded model checking, and more.
A drawback of the translation lies in the size of the automata: while the translation of a safety LTL formula ψ to a nondeterministic Büchi automaton is exponential, its translation to a tight bad-prefix automaton — one that accepts all the bad prefixes of ψ, is doubly exponential. Kupferman and Vardi showed that for the purpose of verification, one can replace the tight automaton by a fine automaton — one that accepts at least one bad prefix of each infinite computation that violates ψ. They also showed that for many safety LTL formulas, a fine automaton has the same structure as the Büchi automaton for the formula. The problem of constructing fine automata for general safety LTL formulas was left open. In this paper we solve this problem and show that while a fine automaton cannot, in general, have the same structure as the Büchi automaton for the formula, the size of a fine automaton is still only exponential in the length of the formula.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Armoni, R., Korchemny, D., Tiemeyer, A., Vardi, M.Y., Zbar, Y.: Deterministic dynamic monitors for linear-Time assertions. In: Havelund, K., Núñez, M., Roşu, G., Wolff, B. (eds.) FATES 2006 and RV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4262, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Burch, J.R., Clarke, E.M., McMillan, K.L., Dill, D.L., Hwang, L.J.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. I& C 98(2), 142–170 (1992)
Boyer, R.S., Moore, J.S.: Proof-checking, theorem-proving and program verification. Technical Report 35, Institute for Computing Science and Computer Applications, University of Texas at Austin (January 1983)
Clarke, E.M., Bierea, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 7–34 (2001)
Courcoubetis, C., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P., Yannakakis, M.: Memory efficient algorithms for the verification of temporal properties. Formal Methods in System Design 1, 275–288 (1992)
Giannakopoulou, D., Havelund, K.: Automata-based verification of temporal properties on running programs. In: Proc. 16th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 412–416. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)
Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: Dembiski, P., Sredniawa, M. (eds.) Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, pp. 3–18. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1995)
Godefroid, P., Wolper, P.: Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, pp. 332–342. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)
Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker: primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)
Hardin, R.H., Kurshan, R.P., Shukla, S.K., Vardi, M.Y.: A new heuristic for bad cycle detection using BDDs. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 268–278. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Iwashita, H., Nakata, T.: Forward model checking techniques oriented to buggy designs. In: Proc. ICCAD, pp. 400–404 (1997)
Kupferman, O., Morgenstern, G., Murano, A.: Typeness for ω-regular automata. In: Wang, F. (ed.) ATVA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3299, pp. 324–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Krishnan, S.C., Puri, A., Brayton, R.K.: Deterministic ω-automata vis-a-vis deterministic Büchi automata. In: Du, D.-Z., Zhang, X.-S. (eds.) ISAAC 1994. LNCS, vol. 834, pp. 378–386. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Kupferman, O., Safra, S., Vardi, M.Y.: Relating word and tree automata. In: Proc. 11th LICS, DIMACS, pp. 322–333 (June 1996)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Formal methods in System Design 19(3), 291–314 (2001)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: On bounded specifications. In: Nieuwenhuis, R., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2250, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: From linear time to branching time. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic 6(2), 273–294 (2005)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Safraless decision procedures. In: Proc. 46th FOCS, Pittsburgh, pp. 531–540 (October 2005)
Landweber, L.H.: Decision problems for ω–automata. Mathematical Systems Theory 3, 376–384 (1969)
Latvala, T.: Efficient model checking of safety properties. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 74–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Manna, Z., Anuchitanukul, A., Bjorner, N., Browne, A., Chang, E., Colon, M., De Alfaro, L., Devarajan, H., Sipma, H., Uribe, T.: STeP: The Stanford Temporal Prover. TR STAN-CS-TR-94-1518, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University (1994)
McMillan, K.L.: Using unfolding to avoid the state explosion problem in the verification of asynchronous circuits. In: Probst, D.K., von Bochmann, G. (eds.) CAV 1992. LNCS, vol. 663, pp. 164–174. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Meyer, A.R., Fischer, M.J.: Economy of description by automata, grammars, and formal systems. In: Proc. 12th IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, pp. 188–191 (1971)
Miyano, S., Hayashi, T.: Alternating finite automata on ω-words. Theoretical Computer Science 32, 321–330 (1984)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, Berlin (1992)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Safety. Springer, New York (1995)
Melzer, S., Roemer, S.: Deadlock checking using net unfoldings. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 364–375. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Owre, S., Shankar, R.E., Rushby, J.M.: User guide for the PVS specification and verification system. CSL (1995)
Pnueli, A.: The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 45–60 (1981)
Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. Journal ACM 32, 733–749 (1985)
Sistla, A.P.: Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 495–511 (1994)
Sakoda, W., Sipser, M.: Non-determinism and the size of two-way automata. In: Proc. 10th STOC, pp. 275–286 (1978)
Valmari, A.: On-the-fly verification with stubborn sets. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Proc. 1st LICS, Cambridge, pp. 332–344 (June 1986)
Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation 115(1), 1–37 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kupferman, O., Lampert, R. (2006). On the Construction of Fine Automata for Safety Properties. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4218. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-47237-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47238-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)