Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Producing Explanations for Rich Logics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Methods (FM 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10951))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

One of the claimed advantages of model checking is its capability to provide a counter-example explaining why a property is violated by a given system. Nevertheless, branching logics such as Computation Tree Logic and its extensions have complex branching counter-examples, and standard model checkers such as NuSMV do not produce complete counter-examples—that is, counter-examples providing all information needed to understand the verification outcome—and are limited to single executions. Many branching logics can be translated into the µ-calculus. To solve this problem of producing complete and complex counter-examples for branching logics, we propose a µ-calculus-based framework with rich explanations. It integrates a µ-calculus model checker that produces complete explanations, and several functionalities to translate them back to the original logic. In addition to the framework itself, we describe its implementation in Python and illustrate its applicability with Alternating Temporal Logic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Buccafurri, F., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Leone, N.: On ACTL formulas having linear counterexamples. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 62(3), 463–515 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Busard, S.: Symbolic model checking of multi-modal logics: uniform strategies and rich explanations. Ph.D. thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, July 2017

    Google Scholar 

  5. Busard, S., Pecheur, C.: Rich counter-examples for temporal-epistemic logic model checking. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Interactions, Games and Protocols, IWIGP 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, 25th March 2012, pp. 39–53 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.78.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Busard, S., Pecheur, C.: PyNuSMV: NuSMV as a python library. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 453–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Chechik, M., Gurfinkel, A.: A framework for counterexample generation and exploration. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 220–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Chechik, M., Gurfinkel, A.: A framework for counterexample generation and exploration. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 9(5–6), 429–445 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, E.M., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Tree-like counterexamples in model checking. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2002), pp. 19–29 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0025774

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/5397.5399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cranen, S., Luttik, B., Willemse, T.A.C.: Proof graphs for parameterised boolean equation systems. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 470–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40184-8_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong, Y., Ramakrishnan, C.R., Smolka, S.A.: Model checking and evidence exploration. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2003), pp. 214–223 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Gammie, P., van der Meyden, R.: MCK: model checking the logic of knowledge. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 479–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27813-9_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Proof-like counter-examples. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 160–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36577-X_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang, C., Ciardo, G.: Generation of minimum tree-like witnesses for existential CTL. In: Beyer, D., Huisman, M. (eds.) TACAS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10805, pp. 328–343. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89960-2_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kick, A.: Generation of witnesses for global \(\mu \)-calculus model checking. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kick, A.: Tableaux and witnesses for the \(\mu \)-calculus. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(82)90125–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Linssen, C.A.: Diagnostics for Model Checking. Master’s thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: a model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 682–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02658-4_55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: an open-source model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 1–22 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-015-0378-x

  26. Lomuscio, A., Raimondi, F.: mcmas: a model checker for multi-agent systems. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 450–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11691372_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Mateescu, R.: Efficient diagnostic generation for boolean equation systems. In: Graf, S., Schwartzbach, M. (eds.) TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46419-0_18

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Penczek, W., Lomuscio, A.: Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. AAMAS 2003, pp. 209–216. ACM, New York (2003). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/860575.860609

  29. Rasse, A.: Error diagnosis in finite communicating systems. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, pp. 114–124. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55179-4_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Roychoudhury, A., Ramakrishnan, C., Ramakrishnan, I.: Justifying proofs using memo tables. In: International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pp. 178–189 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shoham, S., Grumberg, O.: A game-based framework for CTL counterexamples and 3-valued abstraction-refinement. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic (TOCL) 9(1), 1 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Stirling, C.: Local model checking games (extended abstract). In: Lee, I., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) CONCUR 1995. LNCS, vol. 962, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60218-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Tan, L., Cleaveland, R.: Evidence-based model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 455–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Weitl, F., Nakajima, S., Freitag, B.: Structured counterexamples for the temporal description logic ALCCTL. In: 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 232–243. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Simon Busard & Charles Pecheur

Authors
  1. Simon Busard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Pecheur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Busard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, USA

    Klaus Havelund

  2. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Jan Peleska

  3. University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Bill Roscoe

  4. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Erik de Vink

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Busard, S., Pecheur, C. (2018). Producing Explanations for Rich Logics. In: Havelund, K., Peleska, J., Roscoe, B., de Vink, E. (eds) Formal Methods. FM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10951. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95582-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95582-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95581-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95582-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation