Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Smaller Abstractions for ∀CTL* without Next

  • Chapter
Concurrency, Compositionality, and Correctness

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 5930))

  • 490 Accesses

Abstract

The success of applying model-checking to large systems depends crucially on the choice of good abstractions. In this work we present an approach for constructing abstractions when checking Next-free universal CTL* properties. It is known that functional abstractions are safe and that Next-free universal CTL* is insensitive to finite stuttering. We exploit these results by introducing a safe Next-free abstraction that is typically smaller than the usual functional one while at the same time more precise, i.e., it has less spurious counter-examples.

Work was partially supported by ARC Discovery Grants RM00384 and RM02036.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ball, T., Kupferman, O., Sagiv, M.: Leaping loops in the presence of abstraction. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 491–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ball, T., Millstein, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Polymorphic predicate abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 27(2), 314–343 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bengtsson, J., Larsen, K.G., Larsson, F., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL — a tool suite for automatic verification of real-time systems. In: Alur, R., Sontag, E.D., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) HS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1066, pp. 232–243. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bensalem, S., Lakhnech, Y., Owre, S.: Computing abstractions of infinite state systems automatically and compositionally. In: Hu, A.J., Vardi, M.Y. (eds.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 319–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.): CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Browne, M.C., Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O.: Characterizing finite Kripke structures in propositional temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science 59, 115–131 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Groce, A., Jha, S., Veith, H.: Modular verification of software components in C. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2003, pp. 385–395 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of synchronisation skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of programming languages, pp. 343–354 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cousot, P.: On abstraction in software verification. In: Brinksma, Larsen [5], pp. 37–56

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dams, D.: Abstract Interpretation and Partition Refinement for Model Checking. PhD thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven (July 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(2), 253–291 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.: Three logics for branching bisimulation. Journal of the ACM 42(2), 458–487 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Dingel, J., Filkorn, T.: Model checking for infinite state systems using data abstraction, assumption-commitment style reasoning and theorem proving. In: Wolper, P. (ed.) CAV 1995. LNCS, vol. 939, pp. 54–69. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J., Joehanes, R., Laubach, S., Pasareanu, C.S.: Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (May 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Godefroid, P., Jagadeesan, R.: Automatic abstraction using generalized model checking. In: Brinksma, Larsen [5], pp. 137–150

    Google Scholar 

  19. Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.: An efficient algorithm for branching bisimulation and stuttering equivalence. In: Paterson, M. (ed.) ICALP 1990. LNCS, vol. 443, pp. 626–638. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Henzinger, T.A., Ho, P.-H., Wong-Toi, H.: HyTech: a model checker for hybrid systems. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1, 110–122 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker. Pearson Educational, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kesten, Y., Pnueli, A.: Verification by augmented finitary abstraction. Information and Computation 163(1), 203–243 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Kripke, S.A.: Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 83–94 (1963)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamport, L.: What good is temporal logic? In: Mason, R.E.A. (ed.) Information Processing 1983, Proceedings of the IFIP 9th World Computer Congress, Paris, France, September 19-23, pp. 657–668. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S.: Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods in System Design 6(1), 11–44 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Olivero, A., Yovine, S.: KRONOS: A Tool for Verifying Real-Time Systems. User’s Guide and Reference Manual. VERIMAG, Grenoble (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pnueli, A., Xu, J., Zuck, L.D.: Liveness with (0, 1, infty)-counter abstraction. In: Brinksma, Larsen [5], pp. 107–122

    Google Scholar 

  29. Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Ranzato, F., Tapparo, F.: Generalized strong preservation by abstract interpretation. Journal of Logic and Computation 17(1), 157–197 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Saïdi, H.: Model checking guided abstraction and analysis. In: Palsberg, J. (ed.) SAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1824, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Valmari, A.: The state explosion problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSE, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

    Kai Engelhardt & Ralf Huuck

  2. National ICT Australia Ltd. (NICTA), Locked Bag 6016, NSW 1466, Australia

    Kai Engelhardt & Ralf Huuck

Authors
  1. Kai Engelhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralf Huuck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Ave., 07974, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

    Dennis Dams

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Bremen, P.O. Box 330440, 28334, Bremen, Germany

    Ulrich Hannemann

  3. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Department of Computer Science, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1080, 0316, Blindern, Oslo, Norway

    Martin Steffen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Engelhardt, K., Huuck, R. (2010). Smaller Abstractions for ∀CTL* without Next. In: Dams, D., Hannemann, U., Steffen, M. (eds) Concurrency, Compositionality, and Correctness. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5930. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11511-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11512-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics