Model Checking & Program Analysis
|
|
- Donald May
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Model Checking & Program Analysis Markus Müller-Olm Dortmund University Overview Introduction Model Checking Flow Analysis Some Links between MC and FA Conclusion Apology for not giving proper credit to other researchers' work in this tutorial! MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
2 Purposes of Automatic Analysis Optimizing compilation Validation/Verification Type checking Functional correctness Security properties... Debugging MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Fundamental Limit Rice's Theorem [Rice,1953]: All interesting semantic questions about programs from a universal programming language are undecidable. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
3 Example: Detection of Constants read(new); π; write(new)? read(new); π; write(k) write(new) can be replaced by write(k) for some constant k π terminates Hence: Constant Detection is undecidable MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Two Solutions Weaker formalisms analyze abstract models of systems e.g.: automata, labelled transition systems,... Approximate analyses yield sound but, in general, incomplete results e.g.: detects some instead of all constants Model checking Flow analysis Abstract interpretation Type checking MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
4 Weaker Formalisms Program main() { x=17; if (x>63) { y=17;x=10;x=x+1;} else { x=42; while (y<99) { y=x+y;x=y+1;} y=11;} x=y+1; out(x); } Approximate Abstract model Exact Exact analyzer for abstract model MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Overview Introduction Model Checking Flow Analysis Some Links between MC and FA Conclusion MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
5 Model Checking OK Finite-state structure or G( Φ FΨ) Temporal logic formula Model Checker Error trace MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, What is a Model Checker? an automatic procedure for deciding M where M is a model structure is a (temporal-logic) formula means satisfaction MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
6 Model Structures M MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Model Structures own use own use own use Kripke structure acquire start Labeled Transition System release end P Q acquire P Q start P Q Kripke Transition System release end MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
7 Kripke Structures own use own use own use K= ( S, R, I), where S states R S S transition relation, total AP I : S 2 interpretation AP atomic propositions MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Temporal Logics M MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
8 Temporal Logics Linear-Time Logics formulas specify properties of program paths state satisfies property if all paths starting in this state do Branching-Time Logic can specify properties sensitive to branching has (or can simulate) path quantifiers A and E MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Branching vs. Linear-Time Logics P coin Q coin coin coffee tea coffee tea LT logics cannot distinguish P and Q: P and Q have same execution paths BT logics can: P [coin] <tea> true but Q [coin] <tea> true MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
9 A Linear-Time Logic: PLTL own use own use own use 1. own the resource before using it use U own 2. release the resource in finite time own F( own) PLTL formulas :: = p X U Abbreviations F : = trueu G : = F( ) WUψ : = U ψ G MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Linear-Time Modalities X :... next G :... Generally F :... Finally U ψ: ψ... Until WU ψ: U ψ or G Weak Until MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
10 Until ψ Linear-time: blue nodes satisfy v U ψ ψ Branching-time: blue nodes satisfy v A( U ψ) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Weak Until ψ Linear-time: blue nodes satisfy v WU ψ ψ Branching-time: blue nodes satisfy v A ( WU ψ) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
11 A Branching-Time Logic: CTL own use own use own use 1. own the resource before using it A( use U own) 2. release the resource in finite time own AF( own) State formulas :: = p Eψ Aψ Path formulas ψ 1 2 ψ :: = X U G F 1 2 MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Duality Path quantifiers are duals: A = E E = A Until and weak until are almost duals (on paths): ( U ψ) = ψ WU ( ψ) ( WU ψ) = ψ U ( ψ) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
12 Modal mu-calculus a branching-time logic with local modalities : all successor states satisfy : some successor state satisfies and fixpoint formulae. µ X. (X) : minimum fixpoint formula ν X. (X) : maximum fixpoint formula Fixpoint formulae can be nested Alternation: µx.(νy.x Y) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Local Modalities for Labelled Edges [a] : a a a.. <a> : a a a.. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
13 Computing Fixpoint Formulae On finite structures, meaning of fixpoint formulae can be computed by computing Kleene chains until stabilization: µ :,f( ),f(f( ),f(f(f( ))),... ν :,f( ),f(f( )),f(f(f( ))),... f is a function on state sets derived from the body of the fixpoint formula. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, CTL and Modal mu-calculus CTL-formulae can inductively be transformed to modal mu-calculus formulae Global modalities can be expressed by fixpoint formulae, e.g.: A( Uψ ) = µ X.( ψ ( X true)) E( Uψ ) = µ X.( ψ ( X)) A( WU ψ) = ν X.( ψ ( X)) E( WU ψ) = ν X.( ψ ( ( X false))) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
14 Model Checking Approaches M MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Global vs. Local Model Checking Global model checking problem Given: finite model structure M, formula Determine: {s s } Local model checking problem Given: finite model structure M, formula, and state s in M Determine, whether s or not MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
15 Model Checking Approaches Iterative model checking Automata-theoretic model checking Tableau-based model checking MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Iterative Model Checking Good for global model-checking of branching-time logics Idea: Compute semantics of formula on given model by structural induction on the formula Reduce modalities to their fixpoint definition Compute the fixpoints by Kleene chains Alternating fixpoints lead to backtracking ( proceedings) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
16 Iterative Model Checking of CTL Annotate each state with those subformulas ψ of with s ψ. Use structural induction on. Use backwards propagation to compute modalities A( U ψ) and A( WU ψ). MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Model Checking A(Uψ) ψ ψ 1. Mark all nodes v with v ψ 2. Mark all unmarked nodes w with w and all successors marked 3. Iterate 2. until stabilization MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
17 Model Checking A(WUψ) ψ ψ 1. Mark all nodes with v or v ψ 2. Unmark all nodes v with v ψ and some unmarked successor 3. Iterate 2. until stabilization MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Automata-theoretic MC Good for linear-time logics Idea: reduce model-checking to nonemptiness problem of an automaton MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
18 Automata-theoretic MC Construct (Büchi-) automaton, A, from A accepts paths satisfying Construct (Büchi-) automaton, A M, from M A M accepts paths exhibited by M M iff L(A ) L(A ) M iff L(A ) L(A ) = M iff L(A A ) = M MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Automata-theoretic MC Construct (Büchi-) automaton, A, from A accepts paths satisfying Construct (Büchi-) automaton, A M, from M A M accepts paths exhibited by M Compute automaton A M A Complementation & product construction Decide L(A M A )= by reachability analysis MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
19 Automaton for F(P) G(Q) (Finite Maximal Paths Interpretation) {Q} {Q},{P,Q} {Q} {Q},{P,Q} 1 {P,Q} 3 {P,Q} 1 3 {},{P} {},{P} {},{P} {},{P} F(P) & G(Q) Automata construction, Determinization, and Minimization 2 {},{P},{Q},{P,Q} Complementation 2 {},{P},{Q},{P,Q} MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, A Successful Model-Check for formula F(P) G(Q) Kripke structure: Q P,Q Q Corresponding automaton: {Q} {P,Q} {Q} {P,Q} Product automaton: {Q} {P,Q} {Q} {P,Q} 32 {P,Q} {P,Q} MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
20 A Failing Model-Check for formula F(P) G(Q) Kripke structure: Q P,Q Corresponding automaton: {Q} {P,Q} {} {P,Q} Product automaton: {Q} {P,Q} {} {P,Q} 32 {P,Q} {P,Q} MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Tableau-Based Model-Checking Idea: solve local model checking problem by sub-goaling Try to construct a proof tree that witnesses s If no proof tree can be found, then s For proof tree construction, tableau rules are given that reduce goals to sub-goals MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
21 Some Tableau Rules AND s 1 2 s s 1 2 OR1 s 1 2 s 1 OR2 s 1 2 s 2 1 [ a] s a BOX if {s 1,..., sn} = { t s t} s,..., s n DIAMOND s a a if s t t Tableau Rules for Fixpoints Fixpoint formulas are analyzed with unfolding rules, e.g., s µ X. (X) µ -UNFOLD s µ ( X. (X)) If fixpoint formula sequent re-appears later: µ : unsuccessful leaf ν : successful leaf Special care needed for nested fixpoints ( proceedings) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
22 A Model Check by Tableau = ν X.( ψ [b]x) a ψ = µ X. a true b X s t s [ b] s ψ b b ν successful! s s ψ a true s a true t true b ψ s s [ b] Typical Profile of Model Checking Techniques Iterative Tableau methods Automatatheoretic Branchingtime X X Linear-time X X Global X X Local X X MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
23 State-Explosion Problem State-Explosion number of states grows exponentially in number of components or variables Techniques for fighting state-explosion symbolic model-checking incremental construction of state space abstraction symmetry reductions partial-order methods compositional methods MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Other Classes of Systems Infinite-state systems Timed systems Hybrid systems Probabilistic systems... Learn more about such systems this week! MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
24 Overview Introduction Model Checking Flow Analysis Some Links between MC and FA Conclusion MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, From Programs to Flow Graphs main() { x=17; if (x>63) { y=17;x=10;x=x+1;} else { x=42; while (y<99) { y=x+y;x=y+1;} y=11;} x=y+1; out(x); } x := 17 y := 17 x := 10 x := x+1 x := y+1 out(x) x := 42 y := 11 y := x+y x := y+1 MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
25 Dead Code Elimination Goal: find and eliminate assignments that compute values which are never used Fundamental problem: undecidability hence: use approximate algorithm; ignore guards Technique: propagate set of non-needed variables backwards through the flow graph MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, x := 17 y := 17 {x,y} {x} x := 42 {x} {x,y} y := x+y x := 10 {x} x := x+1 {x} x := y+1 {x,y} y := 11 {x} x := y+1 {x,y} {y} out(x) {x,y} MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
26 x := 17 y := 17 {x} x := 42 {x} y := x+y x := 10 {x} x := x+1 {x} x := y+1 y := 11 {x} x := y+1 {y} out(x) {x,y} MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Remarks Forward vs. backward analyses Bitvector analyses backward: live/dead variables, very busy expressions, forward: reaching definitions, available expressions Computation strategies MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
27 Flow Equations for Dead Code DeadIn[ i] = (DeadOut[ i] { x}\{ y, z} j 1 x := y+z... j k DeadOut[ i] = DeadIn[ i] j Succ[ i] General equations: Equations may be combined or replaced by inequations: DeadIn[ i] = (DeadOut[ i] Mod[ i]) \ Use[ i] DeadOut[ i] = DeadIn[ i] j Succ[ i] DeadOut[ i] = (DeadOut[ j] Mod[ j]) \ Use[ j] j Succ[ i] DeadOut[ i] (DeadOut[ j] Mod[ j]) \ Use[ j], for j Succ[ i] MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Data-Flow Frameworks Correctness generic properties of frameworks can be studied and proved Implementation efficient, generic implementations can be constructed MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
28 Data-Flow Frameworks a complete lattice (D, ) of data-flow facts a space F of transfer functions f: D D Id F closed under composition initial value init D a control-flow graph with set of entry/exit nodes mapping assigning transfer functions f i to flow graph nodes i MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Framework for dead variables lattice D 2 Var Var control flow program graph initial value function space { f : D D d,d : f( d) = ( d d ) \ d } f f ( d) = ( d Mod[ i]) \ Use[ i] i i MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
29 What Data Flow Algorithms Compute Forward Analysis Computes maximal solution w.r.t. (D, ) of init In[ i] = Backward Analysis j Pred( i) j f (In[ j]) Computes maximal solution of init Out[ i] = f (Out[ j]) j Succ( i) j i Entry otherwise i Exit otherwise This is called the maximal fixpoint solution MFP[i] MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Assessing Data Flow Frameworks Execution Semantics Abstraction MOP-solution sound? how precise? MFP-solution sound? precise? MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
30 {x,y} v x := 17 {x,y} {x} y := 17 x := 10 x := x+1 x := 42 y := 11 y := x+y x := y+1 x := y+1 out(x) infinitely many such paths MOP[] v = {, x y} {} x = {} x MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Meet-Over-All-Paths Solution Forward Analysis MOP[ i] : = p Paths[ entry, i) F p( init) Backward Analysis MOP[ i] : = p Paths( i, exit ] F p ( init) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
31 Coincidence Theorem Definition: A framework is distributive if f( X)= {f(x) x X} for all X D, f F. Theorem: In any distributive framework, MOP[i]=MFP[i] for all program points i. Theorem: All bitvector frameworks are distributive. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Lattice for Constant Propagation inconsistent value unknown value MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
32 Constant Propagation Framework lattice D Var ( {, }) = Var ConstVal ρ ρ': x: ρ( x) ρ'( x) pointwise meet ( x) = f.a. x Var control flow program graph initial value function space { f : D D f monotone} f i e CP dx [ ( d)] if i annotated with x: = e fi( d) = d otherwise MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, x := 17 ( ρ( x), ρ( y), ρ( z)) x := 2 x := 3 y := 3 y := 2 z := x+y (2,3,5) out(x) (3,2,5) MOP[ v ] = (,,5) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
33 x := 17 ( ρ( x), ρ( y), ρ( z)) (,, ) x := 2 (2,, ) y := 3 (2,3, ) z := x+y out(x) (,, ) (,, ) x := 3 y := 2 (3,, ) (3,2, ) MFP[ v ] = (,, ) MOP[ v ] = (,,5) MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Correctness Theorem Definition: A framework is monotone if f(x) f(y) for all x,y D, x y. Theorem: In any monotone framework, MFP[i] MOP[i] for all program points i. Remark: Any "reasonable" framework is monotone. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
34 Assessing Data Flow Frameworks Execution Semantics Abstraction MOP-solution sound MFP-solution sound precise, if distrib. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Where Flow Analysis Looses Precision Execution Semantic MOP MFP Widening Narrowing Loss of Precision MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
35 Overview Introduction Model Checking Flow Analysis Some Links between MC and FA Conclusion MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Some Links between MC and FA Flow Analysis via Model Checking Model Checking via Flow Analysis Synergy of MC and FA MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
36 Flow Analysis via Model Checking yes/no data-flow problem flow graph Flow graph transformer Design & Programming formula Kripke structure Model-Checker yes/no annotation of Kripke structure nodes Interpretation data flow information for flow graph nodes Dead-Code Elimination Flow Graph Transformation: y := x+y Mod(y), Use(x), Use(y) Formula specifying "x is dead": Dead x = X ( use( x) WU (mod( x) use( x))) Note: more direct specification than in the data flow framework MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
37 x := 17 Mod(x) y := 17 x := 42 Mod(y) Mod(x) Mod(x), Use(y) y := x+y x := 10 Mod(x) x := x+1 x := y+1 y := 11 x := y+1 Mod(x), Use(x) Mod(y) Mod(y), Use(x), Use(y) out(x) Mod(x), Use(y) exit Use(x) End Check: Dead = X ( use( x) WU (mod( x) use( x))) x MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Model Checking via Flow Analysis Evaluation of (CTL) modalities can be seen as a data flow analysis CTL model-checking is iterated flow analysis MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
38 Framework for E( U ψ) lattice D B = {0,1} = 1 0 control flow Kripke structure ( SRI,, ) initial nodes Nodes s with s ψ initial value 1 function space { λx.0, λx.1, λxx. } f i λxx. if i ψ, i fi( d) = λx.0 if i ψ, i 0 1 MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Why the Framework computes E( U ψ) MFP[ v ] = MOP[ v] = 1 iff s E( U ψ ), ψ, ψ, ψ ψ 0 1 λ x. x λx. x λx. x 1 1 0, ψ, ψ, ψ ψ λx. x λx. x λx.0 1
39 Model Checking E( U ψ) 0 λxx. 1 ψ λxx. ψ λxx. λxx. λx.0 λxx. MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, The Model-Extraction Problem in Software Model-Checking Program Abstract model Model Checker void add(object o) { buffer[head] = o; head = (head+1)%size; } Object take() { tail=(tail+1)%size; return buffer[tail]; } Gap Idea: Use techniques from abstract interpretation and program analysis to extract a finite-state model from program MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
40 Bandera: [Dwyer, Hatcliff, et. al.] An open tool set for model-checking Java source code Graphical User Interface Optimization Control Checker Inputs Bandera Temporal Specification void add(object o) { buffer[head] = o; head = (head+1)%size; } Object take() { tail=(tail+1)%size; return buffer[tail]; } Java Source taken from Bandera tutorial of John Hatcliff Transformation & Abstraction Tools Error Trace Mapping Bandera Model Checkers Checker Outputs Conclusion Overview on fundamentals of Model Checking Flow Analysis Some links MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
41 Just the Beginning... More complex properties Theory of Abstract Interpretation Interprocedural Flow Analysis Parallel Programs MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21, Any Questions? MOVEP'02, Nantes, June 17-21,
Model-Checking. A Tutorial Introduction Dortmund, Germany,
Model-Checking A Tutorial Introduction Markus Müller-Olm 1, David Schmidt 2, and Bernhard Steffen 1 1 Dortmund University, Department of Computer Science, FB 4, LS 5, 44221 Dortmund, Germany, {mmo,steffen}@ls5.cs.uni-dortmund.de
More informationTemporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège
Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking Pierre Wolper Université de Liège 1 Topics to be covered Introducing explicit-state model checking Finite automata on infinite words Temporal Logics and
More informationA Tutorial on Program Analysis
A Tutorial on Program Analysis Markus Müller-Olm Dortmund University Thanks! Helmut Seidl (TU München) and Bernhard Steffen (Universität Dortmund) for discussions, inspiration, joint work,... 1 Dream of
More information3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement
3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement Sharon Shoham Academic College of Tel-Aviv Yaffo 1 Model Checking An efficient procedure that receives: A finite-state model describing a system A temporal logic formula
More informationIntroduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either
Introduction to Temporal Logic The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Desired properites. Often liveness properties like In every infinite run action
More informationComputation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms
Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms Martin Fränzle Carl von Ossietzky Universität Dpt. of Computing Science Res. Grp. Hybride Systeme Oldenburg, Germany 02917: CTL & Model Checking
More informationModel Checking with CTL. Presented by Jason Simas
Model Checking with CTL Presented by Jason Simas Model Checking with CTL Based Upon: Logic in Computer Science. Huth and Ryan. 2000. (148-215) Model Checking. Clarke, Grumberg and Peled. 1999. (1-26) Content
More informationFrom Liveness to Promptness
From Liveness to Promptness Orna Kupferman Hebrew University Nir Piterman EPFL Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University Abstract Liveness temporal properties state that something good eventually happens, e.g., every
More informationModel Checking. Boris Feigin March 9, University College London
b.feigin@cs.ucl.ac.uk University College London March 9, 2005 Outline 1 2 Techniques Symbolic 3 Software 4 Vs. Deductive Verification Summary Further Reading In a nutshell... Model checking is a collection
More informationDecision Procedures for CTL
Decision Procedures for CTL Oliver Friedmann 1 Markus Latte 1 1 Dept. of Computer Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany CLoDeM Edinburgh, 15 July 2010 Introduction to CTL Origin: Emerson
More informationCS357: CTL Model Checking (two lectures worth) David Dill
CS357: CTL Model Checking (two lectures worth) David Dill 1 CTL CTL = Computation Tree Logic It is a propositional temporal logic temporal logic extended to properties of events over time. CTL is a branching
More informationAutomata-based Verification - III
COMP30172: Advanced Algorithms Automata-based Verification - III Howard Barringer Room KB2.20: email: howard.barringer@manchester.ac.uk March 2009 Third Topic Infinite Word Automata Motivation Büchi Automata
More informationTemporal Logic Model Checking
18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University Temporal Logic Model Checking 1 Temporal Logic Model Checking Thomas Wahl Computing Laboratory, Oxford University 18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University
More informationSoftware Verification
Software Verification Grégoire Sutre LaBRI, University of Bordeaux, CNRS, France Summer School on Verification Technology, Systems & Applications September 2008 Grégoire Sutre Software Verification VTSA
More information(Optimal) Program Analysis of Sequential and Parallel Programs
(Optimal) Program Analysis of Sequential and Parallel Programs Markus Müller-Olm Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany 3rd Summer School on Verification Technology, Systems, and Applications
More informationChapter 4: Computation tree logic
INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 4: Computation tree logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 CTL: a specification
More informationComputer-Aided Program Design
Computer-Aided Program Design Spring 2015, Rice University Unit 3 Swarat Chaudhuri February 5, 2015 Temporal logic Propositional logic is a good language for describing properties of program states. However,
More informationPartial model checking via abstract interpretation
Partial model checking via abstract interpretation N. De Francesco, G. Lettieri, L. Martini, G. Vaglini Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell Informazione, sez. Informatica, Via Diotisalvi
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 2011 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview Temporal logic Non-probabilistic temporal logic CTL Probabilistic temporal
More informationLecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL)
Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 1 Programme for the upcoming lectures Introducing CTL Basic Algorithms for CTL CTL and Fairness; computing strongly connected components Basic Decision Diagrams
More informationTecniche di Specifica e di Verifica. Automata-based LTL Model-Checking
Tecniche di Specifica e di Verifica Automata-based LTL Model-Checking Finite state automata A finite state automaton is a tuple A = (S,S,S 0,R,F) S: set of input symbols S: set of states -- S 0 : set of
More informationAutomata-based Verification - III
CS3172: Advanced Algorithms Automata-based Verification - III Howard Barringer Room KB2.20/22: email: howard.barringer@manchester.ac.uk March 2005 Third Topic Infinite Word Automata Motivation Büchi Automata
More informationFormal Verification Techniques. Riccardo Sisto, Politecnico di Torino
Formal Verification Techniques Riccardo Sisto, Politecnico di Torino State exploration State Exploration and Theorem Proving Exhaustive exploration => result is certain (correctness or noncorrectness proof)
More informationSymmetry Reductions. A. Prasad Sistla University Of Illinois at Chicago
Symmetry Reductions. A. Prasad Sistla University Of Illinois at Chicago Model-Checking Concurrent PGM Temporal SPEC Model Checker Yes/No Counter Example Approach Build the global state graph Algorithm
More informationFundamentals of Program Analysis + Generation of Linear Prg. Invariants
Fundamentals of Program Analysis + Generation of Linear Prg. Invariants Markus Müller-Olm Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany 2nd Tutorial of SPP RS3: Reliably Secure Software Systems Schloss
More informationOverview. overview / 357
Overview overview6.1 Introduction Modelling parallel systems Linear Time Properties Regular Properties Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) Computation Tree Logic syntax and semantics of CTL expressiveness of CTL
More informationThe State Explosion Problem
The State Explosion Problem Martin Kot August 16, 2003 1 Introduction One from main approaches to checking correctness of a concurrent system are state space methods. They are suitable for automatic analysis
More informationCMSC 631 Program Analysis and Understanding. Spring Data Flow Analysis
CMSC 631 Program Analysis and Understanding Spring 2013 Data Flow Analysis Data Flow Analysis A framework for proving facts about programs Reasons about lots of little facts Little or no interaction between
More informationA tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic
A tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic Davide Bresolin Angelo Montanari Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Udine {bresolin, montana}@dimi.uniud.it
More informationModel Checking Fixed Point Logic with Chop
Model Checking Fixed Point Logic with Chop Martin Lange and Colin Stirling Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science Division of Informatics University of Edinburgh {martin,cps}@dcs.ed.ac.uk Abstract.
More informationMODEL-CHECKING IN DENSE REAL-TIME SHANT HARUTUNIAN
MODEL-CHECKING IN DENSE REAL-TIME SHANT HARUTUNIAN 1. Introduction These slides are for a talk based on the paper Model-Checking in Dense Real- Time, by Rajeev Alur, Costas Courcoubetis, and David Dill.
More informationChapter 6: Computation Tree Logic
Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Outline We introduce Computation Tree Logic (CTL), a branching temporal logic for specifying system properties. A comparison
More informationIntroduction to Model Checking. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras
Introduction to Model Checking Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras How good can you fight bugs? Comprising of three parts Formal Verification techniques consist of three parts: 1. A framework for modeling
More informationLinear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata
Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata Yih-Kuen Tsay Department of Information Management National Taiwan University FLOLAC 2009 Yih-Kuen Tsay (SVVRL @ IM.NTU) Linear Temporal Logic and Büchi Automata
More informationLearning to Verify Branching Time Properties
Learning to Verify Branching Time Properties Abhay Vardhan and Mahesh Viswanathan Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Abstract. We present a new model checking algorithm
More informationLecture 2: Symbolic Model Checking With SAT
Lecture 2: Symbolic Model Checking With SAT Edmund M. Clarke, Jr. School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (Joint work over several years with: A. Biere, A. Cimatti, Y.
More informationTecniche di Specifica e di Verifica. Automata-based LTL Model-Checking
Tecniche di Specifica e di Verifica Automata-based LTL Model-Checking Finite state automata A finite state automaton is a tuple A = (Σ,S,S 0,R,F) Σ: set of input symbols S: set of states -- S 0 : set of
More informationComputation Tree Logic (CTL)
Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Fazle Rabbi University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway fazlr@student.matnat.uio.no, Fazle.Rabbi@hib.no May 30, 2015 Fazle Rabbi et al. (UiO,
More informationModel Checking: An Introduction
Model Checking: An Introduction Meeting 3, CSCI 5535, Spring 2013 Announcements Homework 0 ( Preliminaries ) out, due Friday Saturday This Week Dive into research motivating CSCI 5535 Next Week Begin foundations
More informationMODEL CHECKING. Arie Gurfinkel
1 MODEL CHECKING Arie Gurfinkel 2 Overview Kripke structures as models of computation CTL, LTL and property patterns CTL model-checking and counterexample generation State of the Art Model-Checkers 3 SW/HW
More informationModels for Efficient Timed Verification
Models for Efficient Timed Verification François Laroussinie LSV / ENS de Cachan CNRS UMR 8643 Monterey Workshop - Composition of embedded systems Model checking System Properties Formalizing step? ϕ Model
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 22 Jul 2017
Tableaux for Policy Synthesis for MDPs with PCTL* Constraints Peter Baumgartner, Sylvie Thiébaux, and Felipe Trevizan Data61/CSIRO and Research School of Computer Science, ANU, Australia Email: first.last@anu.edu.au
More informationCS256/Spring 2008 Lecture #11 Zohar Manna. Beyond Temporal Logics
CS256/Spring 2008 Lecture #11 Zohar Manna Beyond Temporal Logics Temporal logic expresses properties of infinite sequences of states, but there are interesting properties that cannot be expressed, e.g.,
More informationStatic Program Analysis
Static Program Analysis Thomas Noll Software Modeling and Verification Group RWTH Aachen University https://moves.rwth-aachen.de/teaching/ss-18/spa/ Recap: Interprocedural Dataflow Analysis Outline of
More informationSFM-11:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 2011
SFM-:CONNECT Summer School, Bertinoro, June 20 EU-FP7: CONNECT LSCITS/PSS VERIWARE Part 3 Markov decision processes Overview Lectures and 2: Introduction 2 Discrete-time Markov chains 3 Markov decision
More informationTimo Latvala. February 4, 2004
Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L Timo Latvala February 4, 2004 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LT L 8-1 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most widely used specification formalism
More informationAutomatic Generation of Polynomial Invariants for System Verification
Automatic Generation of Polynomial Invariants for System Verification Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell Technical University of Catalonia Talk at EPFL Nov. 2006 p.1/60 Plan of the Talk Introduction Need for program
More informationA Tableau Proof System with Names for Modal Mu-calculus
A Tableau Proof System with Names for Modal Mu-calculus School of Informatics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK cps@inf.ed.ac.uk Abstract Howard Barringer was a pioneer in the study of temporal logics
More informationA Brief Introduction to Model Checking
A Brief Introduction to Model Checking Jan. 18, LIX Page 1 Model Checking A technique for verifying finite state concurrent systems; a benefit on this restriction: largely automatic; a problem to fight:
More informationModel Checking in the Propositional µ-calculus
Model Checking in the Propositional µ-calculus Ka I Violet Pun INF 9140 - Specification and Verification of Parallel Systems 13 th May, 2011 Overview Model Checking is a useful means to automatically ascertain
More informationVerifying Temporal Properties of Reactive Systems: A STeP Tutorial *
Formal Methods in System Design, 16, 1 45 (2000) c 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Verifying Temporal Properties of Reactive Systems: A STeP Tutorial * NIKOLAJ
More informationModal and Temporal Logics
Modal and Temporal Logics Colin Stirling School of Informatics University of Edinburgh July 23, 2003 Why modal and temporal logics? 1 Computational System Modal and temporal logics Operational semantics
More informationAutomata-Theoretic Verification
Automata-Theoretic Verification Javier Esparza TU München Orna Kupferman The Hebrew University Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University 1 Introduction This chapter describes the automata-theoretic approach to the
More informationGeneration of. Polynomial Equality Invariants. by Abstract Interpretation
Generation of Polynomial Equality Invariants by Abstract Interpretation Enric Rodríguez-Carbonell Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) Barcelona Joint work with Deepak Kapur (UNM) 1 Introduction
More informationModel Checking Algorithms
Model Checking Algorithms Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan November 14, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Model Checking Algorithms November 14, 2018 1 / 56 Outline
More informationAbstraction for Falsification
Abstraction for Falsification Thomas Ball 1, Orna Kupferman 2, and Greta Yorsh 3 1 Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA. Email: tball@microsoft.com, URL: research.microsoft.com/ tball 2 Hebrew University,
More informationDiscrete Fixpoint Approximation Methods in Program Static Analysis
Discrete Fixpoint Approximation Methods in Program Static Analysis P. Cousot Département de Mathématiques et Informatique École Normale Supérieure Paris
More informationTableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings
Tableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings Davide Bresolin 1, Valentin Goranko 2, Angelo Montanari 3, and Pietro Sala 3 1 Department of Computer Science,
More informationCPSC 421: Tutorial #1
CPSC 421: Tutorial #1 October 14, 2016 Set Theory. 1. Let A be an arbitrary set, and let B = {x A : x / x}. That is, B contains all sets in A that do not contain themselves: For all y, ( ) y B if and only
More informationThe algorithmic analysis of hybrid system
The algorithmic analysis of hybrid system Authors: R.Alur, C. Courcoubetis etc. Course teacher: Prof. Ugo Buy Xin Li, Huiyong Xiao Nov. 13, 2002 Summary What s a hybrid system? Definition of Hybrid Automaton
More informationDFA of non-distributive properties
DFA of non-distributive properties The general pattern of Dataflow Analysis GA (p)= i if p E { GA (q) q F } otherwise GA (p)= f p ( GA (p) ) where : E is the set of initial/final points of the control-flow
More informationComputation Tree Logic
Chapter 6 Computation Tree Logic Pnueli [88] has introduced linear temporal logic to the computer science community for the specification and verification of reactive systems. In Chapter 3 we have treated
More informationT Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL
Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 1 T-79.186 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL Spring 2005, Lecture 4 January 31, 2005 Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 2 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most
More informationDataflow Analysis - 2. Monotone Dataflow Frameworks
Dataflow Analysis - 2 Monotone dataflow frameworks Definition Convergence Safety Relation of MOP to MFP Constant propagation Categorization of dataflow problems DataflowAnalysis 2, Sp06 BGRyder 1 Monotone
More informationDataflow Analysis. Chapter 9, Section 9.2, 9.3, 9.4
Dataflow Analysis Chapter 9, Section 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 2 Dataflow Analysis Dataflow analysis is a sub area of static program analysis Used in the compiler back end for optimizations of three address code and
More informationTemporal Logic. M φ. Outline. Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness. Ralf Huuck. Kripke Structure
Outline Temporal Logic Ralf Huuck Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness Model Checking Problem model, program? M φ satisfies, Implements, refines property, specification
More informationCTL Model checking. 1. finite number of processes, each having a finite number of finite-valued variables. Model-Checking
CTL Model checking Assumptions:. finite number of processes, each having a finite number of finite-valued variables.. finite length of CTL formula Problem:Determine whether formula f 0 is true in a finite
More informationTheoretical Foundations of the UML
Theoretical Foundations of the UML Lecture 17+18: A Logic for MSCs Joost-Pieter Katoen Lehrstuhl für Informatik 2 Software Modeling and Verification Group moves.rwth-aachen.de/teaching/ws-1718/fuml/ 5.
More informationLecture Notes on Model Checking
Lecture Notes on Model Checking 15-816: Modal Logic André Platzer Lecture 18 March 30, 2010 1 Introduction to This Lecture In this course, we have seen several modal logics and proof calculi to justify
More informationTemporal Logic. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. We have designed a system. We want to check that it is correct.
EE 244: Fundamental Algorithms for System Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization Fall 2016 Temporal logic Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE 244, Fall 2016
More informationAlgorithmic verification
Algorithmic verification Ahmed Rezine IDA, Linköpings Universitet Hösttermin 2018 Outline Overview Model checking Symbolic execution Outline Overview Model checking Symbolic execution Program verification
More informationBounded Model Checking with SAT/SMT. Edmund M. Clarke School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University 1/39
Bounded Model Checking with SAT/SMT Edmund M. Clarke School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University 1/39 Recap: Symbolic Model Checking with BDDs Method used by most industrial strength model checkers:
More informationReading: Chapter 9.3. Carnegie Mellon
I II Lecture 3 Foundation of Data Flow Analysis Semi-lattice (set of values, meet operator) Transfer functions III Correctness, precision and convergence IV Meaning of Data Flow Solution Reading: Chapter
More informationa Hebrew University b Weizmann Institute c Rice University
Once and For All Orna Kupferman a, Amir Pnueli b,1, Moshe Y. Vardi c a Hebrew University b Weizmann Institute c Rice University Abstract It has long been known that past-time operators add no expressive
More informationIntroduction. Büchi Automata and Model Checking. Outline. Büchi Automata. The simplest computation model for infinite behaviors is the
Introduction Büchi Automata and Model Checking Yih-Kuen Tsay Department of Information Management National Taiwan University FLOLAC 2009 The simplest computation model for finite behaviors is the finite
More informationMODEL CHECKING TIMED SAFETY INSTRUMENTED SYSTEMS
TKK Reports in Information and Computer Science Espoo 2008 TKK-ICS-R3 MODEL CHECKING TIMED SAFETY INSTRUMENTED SYSTEMS Jussi Lahtinen ABTEKNILLINEN KORKEAKOULU TEKNISKA HÖGSKOLAN HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF
More informationTopics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017
Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017 Last time LTL Syntax ϕ ::= true a ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 a AP. ϕ def = trueu ϕ ϕ def = ϕ g intuitive meaning of and is obt Limitations of LTL pay pay τ τ soda
More informationLecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata
15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata Matt Fredrikson André Platzer Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 18 1 Introduction We ve seen
More informationModel checking (III)
Theory and Algorithms Model checking (III) Alternatives andextensions Rafael Ramirez rafael@iua.upf.es Trimester1, Oct2003 Slide 9.1 Logics for reactive systems The are many specification languages for
More informationGraded Computation Tree Logic
Graded Computation Tree Logic Alessandro Bianco Fabio Mogavero Aniello Murano Universitá degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", 80126 Napoli, Italy. {alessandrobianco, mogavero, murano}@na.infn.it http://people.na.infn.it/
More informationCSC D70: Compiler Optimization Dataflow-2 and Loops
CSC D70: Compiler Optimization Dataflow-2 and Loops Prof. Gennady Pekhimenko University of Toronto Winter 2018 The content of this lecture is adapted from the lectures of Todd Mowry and Phillip Gibbons
More informationBefore we show how languages can be proven not regular, first, how would we show a language is regular?
CS35 Proving Languages not to be Regular Before we show how languages can be proven not regular, first, how would we show a language is regular? Although regular languages and automata are quite powerful
More informationBüchi Automata and Linear Temporal Logic
Büchi Automata and Linear Temporal Logic Joshua D. Guttman Worcester Polytechnic Institute 18 February 2010 Guttman ( WPI ) Büchi & LTL 18 Feb 10 1 / 10 Büchi Automata Definition A Büchi automaton is a
More informationThe theory of regular cost functions.
The theory of regular cost functions. Denis Kuperberg PhD under supervision of Thomas Colcombet Hebrew University of Jerusalem ERC Workshop on Quantitative Formal Methods Jerusalem, 10-05-2013 1 / 30 Introduction
More informationTowards Algorithmic Synthesis of Synchronization for Shared-Memory Concurrent Programs
Towards Algorithmic Synthesis of Synchronization for Shared-Memory Concurrent Programs Roopsha Samanta The University of Texas at Austin July 6, 2012 Roopsha Samanta Algorithmic Synthesis of Synchronization
More informationAn On-the-fly Tableau Construction for a Real-Time Temporal Logic
#! & F $ F ' F " F % An On-the-fly Tableau Construction for a Real-Time Temporal Logic Marc Geilen and Dennis Dams Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology P.O.Box 513, 5600
More informationStatic Program Analysis using Abstract Interpretation
Static Program Analysis using Abstract Interpretation Introduction Static Program Analysis Static program analysis consists of automatically discovering properties of a program that hold for all possible
More informationKnowledge-Based Systems
Knowledge-Based Systems xxx (2008) xxx xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Knowledge-Based Systems journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys Model checking communicative agent-based systems
More informationHelsinki University of Technology Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science Research Reports 66
Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science Research Reports 66 Teknillisen korkeakoulun tietojenkäsittelyteorian laboratorion tutkimusraportti 66 Espoo 2000 HUT-TCS-A66
More informationAutomata-Theoretic LTL Model-Checking
Automata-Theoretic LTL Model-Checking Arie Gurfinkel arie@cmu.edu SEI/CMU Automata-Theoretic LTL Model-Checking p.1 LTL - Linear Time Logic (Pn 77) Determines Patterns on Infinite Traces Atomic Propositions
More informationDecision Procedures for CTL
Decision Procedures for CTL Oliver Friedmann and Markus Latte Dept. of Computer Science, University of Munich, Germany Abstract. We give an overview over three serious attempts to devise an effective decision
More informationAlan Bundy. Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking
Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking Alan Bundy Lecture 9, page 1 Introduction So far we have looked at theorem proving Powerful, especially where good sets of rewrite rules or decision procedures have
More informationSMV the Symbolic Model Verifier. Example: the alternating bit protocol. LTL Linear Time temporal Logic
Model Checking (I) SMV the Symbolic Model Verifier Example: the alternating bit protocol LTL Linear Time temporal Logic CTL Fixed Points Correctness Slide 1 SMV - Symbolic Model Verifier SMV - Symbolic
More informationSoftware Verification using Predicate Abstraction and Iterative Refinement: Part 1
using Predicate Abstraction and Iterative Refinement: Part 1 15-414 Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification and Testing Sagar Chaki November 28, 2011 Outline Overview of Model Checking Creating Models
More informationNested Interpolants. Matthias Heizmann Jochen Hoenicke Andreas Podelski. Abstract. 1. Introduction. University of Freiburg, Germany
c ACM 2010. This is the author s version of the work. t is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Principles of Programming
More informationModal and Temporal Logics
Modal and Temporal Logics Colin Stirling School of Informatics University of Edinburgh July 26, 2003 Computational Properties 1 Satisfiability Problem: Given a modal µ-calculus formula Φ, is Φ satisfiable?
More informationAlternating-Time Temporal Logic
Alternating-Time Temporal Logic R.Alur, T.Henzinger, O.Kupferman Rafael H. Bordini School of Informatics PUCRS R.Bordini@pucrs.br Logic Club 5th of September, 2013 ATL All the material in this presentation
More informationSymbolic Model Checking Property Specification Language*
Symbolic Model Checking Property Specification Language* Ji Wang National Laboratory for Parallel and Distributed Processing National University of Defense Technology *Joint Work with Wanwei Liu, Huowang
More informationDecidable Subsets of CCS
Decidable Subsets of CCS based on the paper with the same title by Christensen, Hirshfeld and Moller from 1994 Sven Dziadek Abstract Process algebra is a very interesting framework for describing and analyzing
More informationReduced Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams
Reduced Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams Lecture #13 of Advanced Model Checking Joost-Pieter Katoen Lehrstuhl 2: Software Modeling & Verification E-mail: katoen@cs.rwth-aachen.de June 5, 2012 c JPK Switching
More information