Abstract
Model checking is an effective tool in the verification of concurrent systems but can require skillful use. The choice of representation for a particular system can make a substantial difference to whether the verification will prove tractable. We present a method for improving the choice of representation by effective use of communication structure. The main contribution is a technique for selecting a communication structure which yields a reduced search space whilst preserving the essential behaviour of a representation. We illustrate our method with examples based on the model-checker Spin.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Calder, M., Miller, A.: Using SPIN for feature interaction analysis - a case study. In: Dwyer, M.B. (ed.) SPIN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2057, pp. 143–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Pelcd, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Camhridge (1999)
Fcrsman, E., Jonsson, B.: Abstraction of communication channels in promcla: A case study (2000)
Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: Protocol Specification Testing and Verification, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 3–18. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (1995)
Hofzinann, G.: The model checker spin. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997)
Holzmann, G.J., Peled, D.: An improvement in formal verification. In: Proc. Formal Description Techniques, FORTE 1994, Berne, Switzerland, October 1994, pp. 197–211. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (1994)
Koutsofios, E., North, S.: Drawing graphs with Technical Report 910904-59113-08TM, AT&T Bell Laboratories, September 1991. Murray Hill, NJ (1991)
Lutz, M.: Programming Python.O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 103a Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA, Tel: +1 707 829 0515, and 90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02149, USA, Tel: +1 617 354 5800 (Fall 1996)
Millett, L., Teitelbaum, T.: Slicing promela and its applications to model checking (1998)
Peled, D.: Combining partial order reductions with on-the-fly model-cheeking. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 377–390 (1994)
Peled, D.: Partial order reduction: Linear and branching temporal logics and process algebras. In: Partial Orders Methods in Verification, DIMACS, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp. 233–257. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1996)
Ruys, T.C.: Low-fat recipes for spin. In: Havelund, K., Penix, J., Visser, W. (eds.) SPIN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1885, pp. 287–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Saffrey, P.: Optimising Communication Structure for Model Checking. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow (July 2003)
Tip, F.: A survey of program slicing techniques. Technical Report CS-R9438, CWI - Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, July 31 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Saffrey, P., Calder, M. (2004). Optimising Communication Structure for Model Checking. In: Wermelinger, M., Margaria-Steffen, T. (eds) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. FASE 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2984. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24721-0_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24721-0_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-21305-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24721-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive