Skip to main content

Bonsai: Cutting Models Down to Size

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Perspectives of System Informatics (PSI 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8974))

Abstract

In model checking, abstractions can cause spurious results, which need to be verified in the concrete system to gain conclusive results. Verification based on multi-valued model checking can distinguish conclusive and inconclusive results, while increasing precision over traditional two-valued over- and under-abstractions. This paper describes the theory and implementation of multi-valued model checking for Promela specifications. We believe our tool Bonsai is the first four-valued model checker capable of multi-valued verification of parallel models, i.e. consisting of multiple concurrent processes. A novel aspect is the ability to only partially abstract a model, keeping parts of it concrete.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. Belnap, N.D.: Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, pp. 30–56. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 274–287. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S.M., Gurfinkel, A.: Multi-valued symbolic model-checking. ACM TOSEM 12(4), 371–408 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: an interpolating SMT solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL, pp. 238–252. ACM (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Jonge, M., Ruys, T.C.: The SpinJa model checker. In: van de Pol, J., Weber, M. (eds.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 6349, pp. 124–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitting, M.: Bilattices and the theory of truth. J. Philos. Logic 18, 225–256 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, Orna (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Grumberg, O.: 2-valued and 3-valued abstraction-refinement in model checking. In: Logics and Languages for Reliability and Security, pp. 105–128. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Multi-valued model checking via classical model checking. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 266–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Why waste a perfectly good abstraction? In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 212–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gurfinkel, A., Wei, O., Chechik, M.: Yasm: a software model-checker for verification and refutation. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 170–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker - primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D.A.: Modal transition systems: a foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: Sands, D. (ed.) ESOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2028, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Konikowska, B., Penczek, W.: Reducing model checking from multi-valued \({\rm CTL}^{\ast }\) to \({\rm CTL}^{\ast }\). In: Brim, L., Jančar, P., Křetínský, M., Kučera, A. (eds.) CONCUR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2421, pp. 226–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Seger, C.J.H., Bryant, R.E.: Formal verification by symbolic evaluation of partially-ordered trajectories. Formal Methods Sys. Des. 6(2), 147–189 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Vijzelaar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vijzelaar, S., Verstoep, K., Fokkink, W., Bal, H. (2015). Bonsai: Cutting Models Down to Size. In: Voronkov, A., Virbitskaite, I. (eds) Perspectives of System Informatics. PSI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8974. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46823-4_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46823-4_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46822-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46823-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics