Systems Verification. Alessandro Abate. Day 1 January 25, 2016
|
|
- Erik Marsh
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Systems Verification Alessandro Abate Day 1 January 25, 2016
2 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
3 Instructors, TAs, times Alessandro Abate (day 1, 4) Marta Kwiatkovska (day 2, 3) Daniel Kroening (day 5) Maria Svorenova, Sadegh E.Z. Soudjani Lectures in the mornings Practicals in the afternoons (except for Friday)
4 Organisation of the module assessment: participation to lectures and practicals readings BK08 C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen, Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA, CGP99 E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.A. Peled, Model Checking, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA, HR04 M. Huth and M, Ryan, Logic in Computer Science - modelling and reasoning about systems, Cambridge Univ. Press, T09 P. Tabuada, Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems, A symbolic approach, Springer, KS08 D. Kroening and O. Strichman, Decision procedures, Springer, tools SPIN/nuSMV, PRISM, FAUST2
5 Objectives of the course To familiarise with the main concepts in systems modelling and property specification To explain the fundamentals of explicit algorithms in qualitative and quantitative model checking To gain practical experience of verification tools and how they are applied through examples To give appreciation of relevant research directions in systems verification and synthesis
6 High-level overview of the course Formalise models of systems under verification Formally study properties (verify specifications) of models expressed in some logics Develop algorithms and data structures to check that the model of a system satisfies a given property Applications to hardware and software systems, extensions to more general systems (biology, autonomy, robotics)
7 List of topics to be covered in the course day 1 Basics of verification. Transition systems, quantitative requirements, temporal logics (LTL and CTL). Fundamentals of algorithmic verification (via model checking). day 2 Verification of Markov models, time and rewards, probabilistic temporal logics. Overview of algorithms, including statistical model checking. day 3 Verification for models with non-determinism/decisions: Markov decision processes, issues of time and rewards. Stochastic games. Main algorithms for verification and strategy/controller synthesis. day 4 Hybrid systems. From discrete to continuous models. The role of stochasticity. Formal abstractions for automated verification and symbolic controller synthesis. Software tools for verification and synthesis of complex control models. day 5 Propositional satisfiability (SAT) checking, SMT solving. Bounded model checking (BMC). Unbounded verification with SAT/SMT and inductive reasoning. Applications to software.
8 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
9 What is verification? Have you actually made what you were trying to make? verification vs validation 1 Does the hardware/software system satisfy all the properties characterising its specification? 2 Is the specification of the system correct? ( Have you made the right thing? ) 1 a-priori, provably correct-by-design 2 a-posteriori, tested to work correctly
10 Limitations of validation validation by testing manual inspection, very costly and error prone validation via simulation computer-based, but often lengthy and imprecise
11 Limitations of validation validation by testing manual inspection, very costly and error prone validation via simulation computer-based, but often lengthy and imprecise Testing/simulation shows the presence of errors, does not prove their absence [Edsger W. Dijkstra]
12 Bugs/errors are everywhere (particularly where they shouldn t be) Therac-25 patients receiving excessive radiation; Bank of New York corrupted database of bond market; FPU of Pentium errors; Ariane explosion; Knight Capital Group default, Denver Airport halt, Toyota Prius recall...
13 The practical need for formal verification Not only reasons of safety, it s also about the money... Bank of New York bug: $ 5 million Pentium bug: $ 475 million Ariane bug: $ 500 million Blackout bug: $ 6 billion Denver bug: $ 300 million Knight bug: $ 440 million The cost of software bugs to the U.S. economy is estimated at $ 60 billion per year. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002
14 When are bugs introduced and detected? System Verification 5 Analysis Conceptual Design Programming Unit Testing System Testing Operation 50% % 30% introduced errors (in %) detected errors (in %) cost of correction 10 per error (in 1,000 US $) % 5 10% 2.5 0% Time (non-linear) 0 Figure 1.3: Software lifecycle and error introduction, detection, and repair costs [275]. Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, USA About 50% of all defects are introduced during programming, the phase in which actual coding takes place. Whereas just 15% of all errors are detected in the initial design stages, most errors are found during testing. At the start of unit testing, which is oriented to discovering defects in the individual software modules that make up the system, a defect density of about 20 defects per 1000 lines of (uncommented) code is typical. This has been reduced to about 6 defects per 1000 code lines at the start of system testing, where acollectionofsuchmodulesthatconstitutesarealproductistested. Onlaunchinganew software release, the typical accepted software defect density is about one defect per 1000
15 Why are bugs introduced? Hardware and software systems - particularly when embedded within physical components - are among the most complex artefacts ever produced by humans. transistors: 55 million area: 146 mm 2 clock rate: Hz Pentium 4 microprocessor
16 How does verification detect bugs? property checking: does system (model) S satisfy property P? equivalence checking: are systems (models) S 1 and S 2 equivalent? in this course, the focus will be on property checking
17 What is formal about formal verification? the system is formalised as some mathematical model the property is formalised within a temporal logic checking whether the system satisfies the property is formalised, that is formally proven
18 Why is formal verification computer-aided? a formal proof that a system satisfies a property may consist of millions of steps without the use of clever algorithms and data structures, proving that a system satisfies a property can be quite impractical automatic techniques are user- and industry-friendly formal verification can be performed via model checking
19 Model checking: a computer-aided, formal verification paradigm model M property p model checker: does M verify p? yes no: counterexample
20 The industrial impact of model checking verification of protocols, circuits, hardware, software
21 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
22 Model of a system given a system (e.g., a physical device, a hardware circuit, or software code), a model represents an abstraction of it all models are wrong, but some are useful [G.E.P. Box] many levels of abstraction are possible many models of a system can be made; abstraction/refinement (choice of right model) ought to be part of the modelling effort formal verification asserts properties of a model, not of the underlying system
23 (Labeled) transition system Definition A transition system is a tuple S,, I, AP, L consisting of a set S of states, a transition relation S S, a set I S of initial states, a set AP of atomic propositions (alphabet), and a labelling function L : S 2 AP. a TS is also known as Kripke structure [CGP99] internal non-determinism a TS can be as well action enabled [BK08] (next slide)
24 (Labeled) transition system with actions Definition A transition system is a tuple S, Act,, I, AP, L consisting of a set S of states, a set Act of actions, a transition relation S Act S, a set I S of initial states, a set AP of atomic propositions (alphabet), and a labelling function L : S 2 AP. action enabled TS are closely related to Moore machines actions: internal vs. external non-determinism henceforth, for simplicity we will work with the first definition
25 On LTS models can write s s instead of (s, s ) we consider exclusively transition relations such that each state has an outgoing transition, that is s S : s S : s s this is known as non-blocking condition, as absence of a terminal state here we consider finite TS, namely assume S has finite cardinality
26 Example: model of a traffic light System description: A traffic light can be red, green, amber or black (not working). The traffic light might stop working at any time. After it has been repaired, it turns red. Initially, the light is red. 1 red 2 amber and red 3 green 4 amber 5 black S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
27 Example: model of a traffic light System description: A traffic light can be red, green, amber or black (not working). The traffic light might stop working at any time. After it has been repaired, it turns red. Initially, the light is red. S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} = {(1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 1), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (5, 1)} I = {1} AP = {r, a, g} L = {1 {r}, 2 {r, a}, 3 {g}, 4 {a}, 5 }
28 Example: model of a traffic light System description: A traffic light can be red, green, amber or black (not working). The traffic light might stop working at any time. After it has been repaired, it turns red. Initially, the light is red
29 Direct predecessors and successors Definition For s S, the set Post(s) of direct successors of s is defined by Post(s) = { s S s s }. For s S, the set Pre(s) of direct predecessors of s is defined by Pre(s) = { s S s s }.
30 Post and Pre Definition The set Post (s) consists of the states reachable in the state graph from s. Let C S. The set Post (C) is defined by Post (C) = Post (s). s C The set Pre (s) consists of the states that can reach s in the state graph. Let C S. The set Pre (C) is defined by Pre (C) = Pre (s). s C Reach(TS) = Post (I ) is the reachability set of TS from I related to safety analysis (and used for CTL model checking)
31 Determinism of a transition system Definition A TS S,, I, AP, L is deterministic if I = 1, and if s S, (Post(s)) = 1, where ( ) denotes the cardinality of a set. Else the TS is non-deterministic. (above notion refers to internal non-determinism)
32 Path fragment, path, trace nomenclature: path, run, execution, trajectory are synonyms Definition Consider the transition system S,, I, AP, L. A finite path fragment is a finite state sequence s 0 s 1... s n for some n 0 such that s i Post(s i 1 ) for all 0 < i n. An infinite path fragment is an infinite state sequence s 0 s 1... such that s i Post(s i 1 ) for all i > 0. A path fragment is initial if s 0 I. A path is an initial infinite path fragment Paths(TS) A trace is the output of a path: L(s 0 )L(s 1 )...
33 Path Give an example of a finite initial path fragment: Give an example of an initial infinite path fragment (a path):
34 Path Give an example of a finite initial path fragment: Give an example of an initial infinite path fragment (a path): (15) ω
35 Some notational conventions let π = s 0 s 1... be an infinite path fragment (notions below apply to finite path as well) for j 0, the jth state of π, s j is denoted by π[j] (initial state is indexed by 0) for j 0, the jth prefix of π, s 0 s 1... s j is denoted by π[..j] π[..j] {}}{ s 0 s 1... s j 1 s j s j+1... for j 0, the jth suffix of π, s j s j+1... is denoted by π[j..] π[j..] {}}{ s 0 s 1... s j 1 s j s j+1... the set of infinite path fragments π with π[0] = s is denoted by Paths(s)
36 Some notational conventions (example) Let π = What is π[4]? What is π[..3]? What is π[5..]? 3
37 Some notational conventions (example) Let π = What is π[4]? 5 What is π[..3]? 1234 What is π[5..]? 12 3
38 Some notational conventions (example, cont d) What is Paths(5)? What is the set of paths of the transition system?
39 Some notational conventions (example, cont d) What is Paths(5)? {(51) ω, (51) 5 Paths(1)} What is the set of paths of the transition system? Paths(TS) = Paths(1) = {(1234) ω, (1234) {1, 12, 123}Paths(5)} = {((1234) (1{ɛ, 2, 23, 234}5) ) {1234, 1{ɛ, 2, 23, 234}5} ω }
40 Example 2: deterministic, finite transition system consider system with 2 variables (x, y), ranging over {0, 1} system starts in state (1, 1), and consists of transition x := (x + y)mod 2 TS can be built as S = {0, 1} {0, 1} I = {(1, 1)} = {((1, 1), (0, 1)), ((0, 1), (1, 1)), ((1, 0), (1, 0)), ((0, 0), (0, 0))} 2 AP = S, L is the identity map
41 Example 2: deterministic, finite transition system consider system with 2 variables (x, y), ranging over {0, 1} system starts in state (1, 1), and consists of transition x := (x + y)mod 2 TS can be built as S = {0, 1} {0, 1} I = {(1, 1)} = {((1, 1), (0, 1)), ((0, 1), (1, 1)), ((1, 0), (1, 0)), ((0, 0), (0, 0))} 2 AP = S, L is the identity map TS path, for the given I, is unique
42 Example 3: transition system for an ODE Ordinary difference equation (ODE) x(k + 1) = f (x(k)), x(0) = x 0, y(k) = Cx(k) e.g. f (x(k)) = Ax(k); k N, x R n
43 Example 3: transition system for an ODE Ordinary difference equation (ODE) x(k + 1) = f (x(k)), x(0) = x 0, y(k) = Cx(k) e.g. f (x(k)) = Ax(k); k N, x R n consider TS where S = R n x x x = f (x) = Ax I = x0 2 AP = R n, L is a linear function with scaling factor C TS is deterministic, but (uncountably) infinite (and with continuous labels set) more about this model on Thursday
44 Example 4: Timed automaton 2 c 10:reset(c) ċ = 1 1 c 2:reset(c) ċ = 1 ċ = 1 2 c 2:reset(c) ċ = 1 1 c 10:reset(c) (not covered in this course)
45 Example 5: Hybrid automaton g 12 (c):reset 12 (c) g 11 (c):reset 11 (c) ċ = f 1 (c) g 41 (c):reset 41 (c) ċ = f 2 (c) ċ = f 4 (c) g 23 (c):reset 23 (c) ċ = f 3 (c) g 34 (c):reset 34 (c) g 33 (c):reset 33 (c) variable c is a vector (covered in this course on day 4)
46 Example 6: Markov chain P = (covered in this course on day 2) Markov decision process: M. chains with actions (day 3)
47 Example x: Stochastic hybrid models g 12 (c):reset 12 (c),w.p.0.7 ċ = f 2 (c) g 11 (c):reset 11 (c) dc = f 1 (c)dt + σ 1 (c)dw g 12 (c):reset 12 (c),w.p.0.3 g 23 (c):reset 23 (c) dc = f 3 (c)dt + σ 3 (c)dw g 41 (c):reset 41 (c) g 34 (c):reset 34 (c) g 33 (c):reset 33 (c)w.p.0.4,reset 33 (c)w.p.0.6 ċ = f 4 (c) stochastic differential equations as special instances to be discussed on day 4
48 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
49 Modal logics based on propositional and predicate logic used to reason about objects with modalities (expressed via modal operators) in particular, modal operators qualify temporal expressions in this course we shall focus on two classes: LTL and CTL 1. LTL: linear temporal logic 2. CTL: computational tree logic allows encoding fine-grained, complex statements in natural language
50 Syntax of LTL ϕ ::= true a ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ U ϕ, a AP alternative expression of more formulae ϕ 1 ϕ 2 = ( ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ) ϕ 1 ϕ 2 = ϕ 1 ϕ 2 and of two temporal modalities ϕ = true U ϕ ϕ = ϕ
51 Alternative syntax in the literature you may encounter the following notations: Xϕ : ϕ Fϕ : ϕ Gϕ : ϕ (notation on left-hand side from [CGP99], on right-hand side from [BK08])
52 Semantics of LTL TS = ϕ iff s I : s = ϕ where s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ
53 Semantics of LTL where and where (cf. LTL syntax) TS = ϕ iff s I : s = ϕ s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ π = true π = a iff a L(π[0]) π = ϕ ψ iff π = ϕ π = ψ π = ϕ iff π = ϕ π = ϕ iff π[1..] = ϕ π = ϕ U ψ iff i 0 : π[i..] = ψ 0 j < i : π[j..] = ϕ
54 Alternative semantics of LTL let ϕ be an LTL formula over AP, inducing the LT property Words(ϕ) = {σ (2 AP ) ω σ = ϕ} where (2 AP ) ω = 2 AP 2 AP..., and where σ = true σ = a a 2 AP... TS = ϕ iff Traces(TS) Words(ϕ)
55 LTL properties for the traffic light model how to express the property the light is infinitely often red by an LTL formula? red
56 LTL properties for the traffic light model how to express the property the light is infinitely often red by an LTL formula? red how to express the property once green, the light cannot become red immediately by an LTL formula? (green red)
57 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red?
58 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red? answer: yes
59 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red?
60 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red? answer: no
61 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red U green?
62 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red U green? answer: yes, because L(2) = {red, amber}
63 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = black?
64 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = black? answer: yes
65 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red?
66 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = red? answer: no
67 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = ( black) U ( red)?
68 Verification of LTL specs is over linear-time paths back to the traffic light model, consider the following path: π : question: π = ( black) U ( red)? answer: yes
69 Classes of LTL specifications question: what class of LTL formulas capture invariants?
70 Classes of LTL specifications question: what class of LTL formulas capture invariants? answer: ϕ, where ϕ ::= true a ϕ ϕ ϕ
71 Classes of LTL specifications question: what class of LTL formulas capture invariants? answer: ϕ, where ϕ ::= true a ϕ ϕ ϕ example: red
72 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of safety properties characterized?
73 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of safety properties characterized? answer: nothing bad ever happens
74 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of safety properties characterized? answer: nothing bad ever happens example: a red light is immediately preceded by amber question: how can we express this property in LTL?
75 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of safety properties characterized? answer: nothing bad ever happens example: a red light is immediately preceded by amber question: how can we express this property in LTL? answer: red ( red amber)
76 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of liveness properties characterized?
77 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of liveness properties characterized? answer: something good eventually happens
78 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of liveness properties characterized? answer: something good eventually happens example: the light is infinitely often red question: how can we express this property in LTL?
79 Classes of LTL specifications question: how is the class of liveness properties characterized? answer: something good eventually happens example: the light is infinitely often red question: how can we express this property in LTL? answer: red
80 Expressiveness of LTL are there temporal properties we cannot express in LTL? yes, example: always a state satisfying a can be reached
81 Expressiveness of LTL are there temporal properties we cannot express in LTL? yes, example: always a state satisfying a can be reached example 2: π Paths(TS) : m 0 : π Paths(π[m]) : n 0 : π [n] = a.
82 Expressiveness of LTL are there temporal properties we cannot express in LTL? yes, example: always a state satisfying a can be reached example 2: π Paths(TS) : m 0 : π Paths(π[m]) : n 0 : π [n] = a. a { }} { { a }} { π Paths(TS) : m 0 : π Paths(π[m]) : n 0 : π [n] = a }{{} } {{ a } a
83 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
84 Unfolding of a transition system the following transition system can be unfolded via its paths as follows... 3
85 LTL, a linear temporal logic
86 CTL, a branching temporal logic
87 Syntax of CTL state formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ ϕ ϕ path formulae are defined by ϕ ::= Φ Φ U Φ
88 Syntax of CTL state formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ ϕ ϕ path formulae are defined by ϕ ::= Φ Φ U Φ two temporal modalities are introduced as Φ = (true U Φ) Φ = (true U Φ) Φ = (true U Φ) Φ = (true U Φ)
89 CTL properties for the traffic light model question: how to express the property each red light is preceded by an amber light in CTL?
90 CTL properties for the traffic light model question: how to express the property each red light is preceded by an amber light in CTL? answer: red (amber red) (derive via implication rule)
91 CTL properties for the traffic light model question: how to express the property the light is infinitely often green in CTL?
92 CTL properties for the traffic light model question: how to express the property the light is infinitely often green in CTL? answer: green
93 Semantics of CTL where (cf. CTL syntax) and where TS = Φ iff s I : s = Φ s = true s = a iff a L(s) s = Φ Ψ iff s = Φ s = Ψ s = Φ iff s = Φ s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ π = Φ iff π[1] = Φ π = Φ U Ψ iff i 0 : π[i] = Ψ 0 j < i : π[j] = Φ
94 Semantics of CTL where (cf. CTL syntax) and where TS = Φ iff s I : s = Φ s = true s = a iff a L(s) s = Φ Ψ iff s = Φ s = Ψ s = Φ iff s = Φ s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ s = ϕ iff π Paths(s) : π = ϕ π = Φ iff π[1] = Φ π = Φ U Ψ iff i 0 : π[i] = Ψ 0 j < i : π[j] = Φ Satisfaction set Sat(Φ) is defined by Sat(Φ) = { s S s = Φ } Thus, TS = Φ iff I Sat(Φ)
95 On the semantics of CTL temporal modalities recall that Φ = (true U Φ) question: how is defined? s = Φ
96 On the semantics of CTL temporal modalities recall that Φ = (true U Φ) question: how is defined? s = Φ answer: π Paths(s) : i 0 : π[i] = Φ
97 On the semantics of CTL temporal modalities recall that Φ = (true U Φ) question: how is defined? s = Φ
98 On the semantics of CTL temporal modalities recall that Φ = (true U Φ) question: how is defined? s = Φ answer: π Paths(s) : i 0 : π[i] = Φ
99 On the semantics of CTL temporal modalities recall that Φ = (true U Φ) question: how is defined? s = Φ answer: π Paths(s) : i 0 : π[i] = Φ (likewise for the other two temporal modalities)
100 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: green? answer:
101 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: green? answer: yes
102 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer:
103 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer: no
104 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer:
105 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer: yes
106 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer:
107 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: black? answer: no
108 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: (( black) U black)? answer:
109 Example of CTL semantics via TS unfolding question: (( black) U black)? answer: yes
110 Expressiveness of LTL and CTL L 425 CTL LTL CTL (a a) a (a a) a a Figure 6.27: Relationship between LTL CTL and CTL. CTL is a modal logic encompassing both LTL and CTL of the consequences of this fact, is that as in LTL fairness assumptions can be ressed syntactically in CTL. For instance, for fairness assumption fair, formulaeof form (fair ϕ) or (fair ϕ)
111 Expressiveness of LTL and CTL L 425 CTL LTL CTL (a a) a (a a) a a Figure 6.27: Relationship between LTL CTL and CTL. CTL is a modal logic encompassing both LTL and CTL of the consequences other logics of this are also fact, used is that as (e.g., in ν-calculus, LTL fairness epistemic assumptions l.,... ) can be ressed syntactically in CTL. For instance, for fairness assumption fair, formulaeof form (fair ϕ) or (fair ϕ)
112 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
113 Model checking procedure formalised model of a system yes does model satisfy property? formalised property no, c-example
114 Model checking procedure over CTL formulae (labeled) transition system TS yes, I Sat(Φ) TS = Φ? CTL formula Φ no, I Sat(Φ) c-example
115 Model checking procedure over LTL formulae (labeled) transition system TS yes, Traces(TS) Words(Φ) TS = Φ? LTL formula Φ no, c-example
116 Model checking CTL: main idea recall that TS = Φ iff I Sat(Φ) basic idea: compute Sat(Φ) by recursion on the structure of Φ, then compare Sat(Φ) with I alternative view: label each state with the subformulae of Φ that it satisfies (i.e. with the subformulae that are satisfied on that state) until while formula is covered, then check whether the entire I is tagged by Φ
117 Model checking CTL consider CTL formula Φ = a (b U c) structure of of Φ is given by its syntax tree (parse tree) leaves have atomic propositions nodes have operators U a b c
118 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat(a)?
119 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat(a)? Answer Sat(a) = { s S a L(s) } S Alternative view Label each state s satisfying a L(s) with a
120 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat(Φ Ψ)?
121 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat(Φ Ψ)? Answer Sat(Φ Ψ) = Sat(Φ) Sat(Ψ) Alternative view Label states, that are labelled with both Φ and Ψ, also with Φ Ψ
122 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat( Φ)?
123 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat( Φ)? Answer Sat( Φ) = { s S Post(s) Sat(Φ) } Alternative view Labels those states that have a (not necessarily all) direct successor labelled with Φ, with Φ
124 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat( (Φ U Ψ))?
125 Model checking CTL CTL formulae are defined by Φ ::= true a Φ Φ Φ Φ (Φ U Φ) Φ (Φ U Φ) Question What is Sat( (Φ U Ψ))? Proposition Sat( (Φ U Ψ)) is the smallest subset T of S such that (a) Sat(Ψ) T, and (b) if s Sat(Φ) and Post(s) T then s T Notice that: (Φ U Ψ) = Ψ (Φ (Φ U Ψ)); pick T = (Φ U Ψ), then T satisfies conditions above condition above can be implemented via reachability procedure
126 Computation of Sat( (Φ U Ψ)) condition above can be implemented via reachability procedure existence of least fixpoint via lattice theory (Tarski-Knaster s fixpoint theorem) over finite TS, procedure completes in finite time but valid also for more complicated (infinite-state) models
127 Model checking CTL comments in its explicit version, boils down to state-space reachability analysis, over the formula tree clearly, this wouldn t scale to models of high cardinality in its practice, CTL MC leverages a symbolic implementation plus a number of other techniques, such as BMC, SAT-based counterexample generation, induction, interpolations, abstractions/refinements nusmv is a CTL model checker widely used
128 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
129 Model checking LTL: main idea LTL model checking algorithm takes a model TS and a formula ϕ and returns yes if TS = ϕ no and a counter-example if TS = ϕ
130 Model checking LTL: main idea LTL model checking algorithm takes a model TS and a formula ϕ and returns yes if TS = ϕ no and a counter-example if TS = ϕ here we look into the automata-based approach (alternatively, tableau construction, and indeed, many more alternatives!)
131 Model checking LTL: essential steps consider model TS, LTL property ϕ qualitatively, TS = ϕ if for all the paths π of TS it holds that π = ϕ, namely if Trace(π) Words(ϕ) equivalently, TS admits no path π such that π = ϕ; if such a path π exists, it is a counterexample for TS over ϕ
132 Model checking LTL: essential steps consider model TS, LTL property ϕ qualitatively, TS = ϕ if for all the paths π of TS it holds that π = ϕ, namely if Trace(π) Words(ϕ) equivalently, TS admits no path π such that π = ϕ; if such a path π exists, it is a counterexample for TS over ϕ more formally, TS = ϕ Traces(TS) Words(ϕ) ( ) Traces(TS) (2 AP ) ω \ Words(ϕ) = Traces(TS) Words( ϕ) =
133 Model checking LTL: essential steps consider model TS, LTL property ϕ qualitatively, TS = ϕ if for all the paths π of TS it holds that π = ϕ, namely if Trace(π) Words(ϕ) equivalently, TS admits no path π such that π = ϕ; if such a path π exists, it is a counterexample for TS over ϕ more formally, TS = ϕ Traces(TS) Words(ϕ) ( ) Traces(TS) (2 AP ) ω \ Words(ϕ) = Traces(TS) Words( ϕ) = let s look into the entity Words( ϕ)
134 Expressing formulae via models let s look into the entity Words( ϕ)
135 Expressing formulae via models let s look into the entity Words( ϕ) first, we relate to an LTL formula ( ϕ) a model, namely an automaton A ϕ recall that Words( ϕ) (2 AP ) ω (is ω-regular) we need an non-terminating automaton with an alphabet Σ on 2 AP : as an option, use of NBA then, we look at the language associated to the automaton, L ω (A ϕ )
136 Expressing formulae via models let s look into the entity Words( ϕ) first, we relate to an LTL formula ( ϕ) a model, namely an automaton A ϕ recall that Words( ϕ) (2 AP ) ω (is ω-regular) we need an non-terminating automaton with an alphabet Σ on 2 AP : as an option, use of NBA then, we look at the language associated to the automaton, L ω (A ϕ ) finally, express check Traces(TS) Words( ϕ) = as Traces(TS) L ω (A ϕ ) =
137 GNBA - syntax Definition A generalised non-deterministic Büchi automaton G is a tuple (Q, Σ, δ, Q 0, F), where Q is a finite state space, Σ is an alphabet, δ : Q Σ 2 Q is a transition relation, Q 0 Q is a set of initial states, F 2 Q are the accepting states.
138 GNBA - accepting run NBA A is obtained as special case where F = F Q, that is a GNBA G is an NBA A whenever F is a singleton additional special cases: DBA (deterministic, less expressive) NFA (finite runs different semantics, equiv. to DFA)
139 GNBA - accepting run NBA A is obtained as special case where F = F Q, that is a GNBA G is an NBA A whenever F is a singleton additional special cases: DBA (deterministic, less expressive) NFA (finite runs different semantics, equiv. to DFA) for NBA, an accepting run for σ = A 0 A 1 A 2... Σ ω is a sequence q 0 q 1 q 2..., where q 0 Q 0, q i Q, and δ(q i, A i ) = q i+1 ; and q i F for infinitely many indices for GNBA, last condition becomes: for all F F, q i F for infinitely many indices
140 (G)NBA - examples ϕ = a A : q 0 a a a a q 1 ϕ = (a b) A : q 0 b a b a b b q 1 (double circles denote accepting states)
141 Model checking LTL: essential steps consider model TS, LTL property ϕ TS = ϕ Traces(TS) Words(ϕ) Traces(TS) (2 AP ) ω \ Words( ϕ) ( ) Traces(TS) (2 AP ) ω \ Words(ϕ) = Traces(TS) Words( ϕ) = Traces(TS) L ω (A ϕ ) = TS A ϕ = F TS A ϕ is a product automaton F is set of accepting states of A ϕ
142 Product Automaton - example model of pedestrian traffic light (green, red) TS ϕ = g, thus ϕ = g; build A ϕ TS : r g T A ϕ : q 0 g g q 1 T q g 2
143 Product Automaton - example model of pedestrian traffic light (green, red) TS ϕ = g, thus ϕ = g; build A ϕ TS : r g T A ϕ : q 0 g g q 1 T g q 2 TS A ϕ : r, q 0 ; q 0 r, q 1 ; q 1 r, q 2 ; q 2 g, q 0 ; q 0 g, q 1 ; q 1 g, q 2 ; q 2
144 Product Automaton - example model of pedestrian traffic light (green, red) TS ϕ = g, thus ϕ = g; build A ϕ TS : r g T A ϕ : q 0 g g q 1 T g q 2 TS A ϕ : r, q 0 ; q 0 r, q 1 ; q 1 r, q 2 ; q 2 g, q 0 ; q 0 g, q 1 ; q 1 g, q 2 ; q 2 P pers(a) = q 1 TS A ϕ = P pers(a) TS = ϕ
145 Comments on LTL model checking algorithm again LTL boils down to reachability analysis however in the practice... on-the-fly procedures symbolic procedures with BDD, SAT-based BMC, use of counter-examples, Craig interpolation and induction, abstractions and refinements compositional verification SPIN is an LTL model checker widely used
146 Outline Course setup Intro to formal verification Models - labelled transition systems Properties as specifications - modal logics Model checking algorithms
147 Support reading from [BK08] for this lecture ch 2 LTS models ch 4 LT properties ch 5 LTL - logic and model checking algorithms ch 6 CTL - logic and model checking algorithms ch 7 equivalences and abstractions
Chapter 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 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 informationChapter 3: Linear temporal logic
INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 3: Linear temporal logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 LTL: a specification
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 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 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 informationComputation Tree Logic
Computation Tree Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE,
More informationLinear-Time Logic. Hao Zheng
Linear-Time Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE, USF)
More informationCDS 270 (Fall 09) - Lecture Notes for Assignment 8.
CDS 270 (Fall 09) - Lecture Notes for Assignment 8. ecause this part of the course has no slides or textbook, we will provide lecture supplements that include, hopefully, enough discussion to complete
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: 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 informationVerification Using Temporal Logic
CMSC 630 February 25, 2015 1 Verification Using Temporal Logic Sources: E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000. E.A. Emerson. Temporal and Modal Logic. Chapter
More informationLecture 2 Automata Theory
Lecture 2 Automata Theory Ufuk Topcu Nok Wongpiromsarn Richard M. Murray Outline: Transition systems Linear-time properties Regular propereties EECI, 14 May 2012 This short-course is on this picture applied
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 informationChapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic
Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Spring 94 Outline We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.
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 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 informationLecture 2 Automata Theory
Lecture 2 Automata Theory Ufuk Topcu Nok Wongpiromsarn Richard M. Murray EECI, 18 March 2013 Outline Modeling (discrete) concurrent systems: transition systems, concurrency and interleaving Linear-time
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 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 informationProperty Checking of Safety- Critical Systems Mathematical Foundations and Concrete Algorithms
Property Checking of Safety- Critical Systems Mathematical Foundations and Concrete Algorithms Wen-ling Huang and Jan Peleska University of Bremen {huang,jp}@cs.uni-bremen.de MBT-Paradigm Model Is a partial
More informationModel for reactive systems/software
Temporal Logics CS 5219 Abhik Roychoudhury National University of Singapore The big picture Software/ Sys. to be built (Dream) Properties to Satisfy (caution) Today s lecture System Model (Rough Idea)
More informationSafety and Liveness Properties
Safety and Liveness Properties Lecture #6 of Model Checking Joost-Pieter Katoen Lehrstuhl 2: Software Modeling and Verification E-mail: katoen@cs.rwth-aachen.de November 5, 2008 c JPK Overview Lecture
More informationState-Space Exploration. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley
EE 144/244: Fundamental Algorithms for System Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization Fall 2014 State-Space Exploration Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE
More informationAutomata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems
Automata-Theoretic Model Checking of Reactive Systems Radu Iosif Verimag/CNRS (Grenoble, France) Thanks to Tom Henzinger (IST, Austria), Barbara Jobstmann (CNRS, Grenoble) and Doron Peled (Bar-Ilan University,
More informationTransition Systems and Linear-Time Properties
Transition Systems and Linear-Time Properties Lecture #1 of Principles of Model Checking Joost-Pieter Katoen Software Modeling and Verification Group affiliated to University of Twente, Formal Methods
More informationOverview. Discrete Event Systems Verification of Finite Automata. What can finite automata be used for? What can finite automata be used for?
Computer Engineering and Networks Overview Discrete Event Systems Verification of Finite Automata Lothar Thiele Introduction Binary Decision Diagrams Representation of Boolean Functions Comparing two circuits
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 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 informationFormal Verification. Lecture 1: Introduction to Model Checking and Temporal Logic¹
Formal Verification Lecture 1: Introduction to Model Checking and Temporal Logic¹ Jacques Fleuriot jdf@inf.ed.ac.uk ¹Acknowledgement: Adapted from original material by Paul Jackson, including some additions
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 informationAbstractions and Decision Procedures for Effective Software Model Checking
Abstractions and Decision Procedures for Effective Software Model Checking Prof. Natasha Sharygina The University of Lugano, Carnegie Mellon University Microsoft Summer School, Moscow, July 2011 Lecture
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 informationChapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic
Chapter 5: Linear Temporal Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Spring 91 Outline We introduce linear temporal logic (LTL), a logical formalism that is suited for specifying LT properties.
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 informationFinite-State Model Checking
EECS 219C: Computer-Aided Verification Intro. to Model Checking: Models and Properties Sanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley Finite-State Model Checking G(p X q) Temporal logic q p FSM Model Checker Yes,
More informationModel Checking. Temporal Logic. Fifth International Symposium in Programming, volume. of concurrent systems in CESAR. In Proceedings of the
Sérgio Campos, Edmund Why? Advantages: No proofs Fast Counter-examples No problem with partial specifications can easily express many concurrency properties Main Disadvantage: State Explosion Problem Too
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 informationFAIRNESS FOR INFINITE STATE SYSTEMS
FAIRNESS FOR INFINITE STATE SYSTEMS Heidy Khlaaf University College London 1 FORMAL VERIFICATION Formal verification is the process of establishing whether a system satisfies some requirements (properties),
More informationESE601: Hybrid Systems. Introduction to verification
ESE601: Hybrid Systems Introduction to verification Spring 2006 Suggested reading material Papers (R14) - (R16) on the website. The book Model checking by Clarke, Grumberg and Peled. What is verification?
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 informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 20 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview PCTL for MDPs syntax, semantics, examples PCTL model checking next, bounded
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 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 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 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 informationAn Introduction to Temporal Logics
An Introduction to Temporal Logics c 2001,2004 M. Lawford Outline Motivation: Dining Philosophers Safety, Liveness, Fairness & Justice Kripke structures, LTS, SELTS, and Paths Linear Temporal Logic Branching
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 informationGuest lecturer: Prof. Mark Reynolds, The University of Western Australia
Università degli studi di Udine Corso per il dottorato di ricerca: Temporal Logics: Satisfiability Checking, Model Checking, and Synthesis January 2017 Lecture 01, Part 02: Temporal Logics Guest lecturer:
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 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 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 informationAutomata, Logic and Games: Theory and Application
Automata, Logic and Games: Theory and Application 1. Büchi Automata and S1S Luke Ong University of Oxford TACL Summer School University of Salerno, 14-19 June 2015 Luke Ong Büchi Automata & S1S 14-19 June
More informationMethods for Software Verification. Andrea Corradini Gian Luigi Ferrari. Second Semester 6 CFU
Methods for Software Verification Andrea Corradini Gian Luigi Ferrari Second Semester 6 CFU. The importance of Software Correctness Increasing integration of ICT in different applications: Embedded systems
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 informationDouble Header. Model Checking. Model Checking. Overarching Plan. Take-Home Message. Spoiler Space. Topic: (Generic) Model Checking
Double Header Model Checking #1 Two Lectures Model Checking SoftwareModel Checking SLAM and BLAST Flying Boxes It is traditional to describe this stuff (especially SLAM and BLAST) with high-gloss animation
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 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 informationIC3 and Beyond: Incremental, Inductive Verification
IC3 and Beyond: Incremental, Inductive Verification Aaron R. Bradley ECEE, CU Boulder & Summit Middle School IC3 and Beyond: Incremental, Inductive Verification 1/62 Induction Foundation of verification
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 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 informationLinear-time Temporal Logic
Linear-time Temporal Logic Pedro Cabalar Department of Computer Science University of Corunna, SPAIN cabalar@udc.es 2015/2016 P. Cabalar ( Department Linear oftemporal Computer Logic Science University
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 Probabilistic model checking System Probabilistic model e.g. Markov chain Result 0.5
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 informationFORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL)
Alessandro Artale (FM First Semester 2007/2008) p. 1/37 FORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Alessandro Artale Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bolzano artale@inf.unibz.it
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 informationCounterexamples in Probabilistic LTL Model Checking for Markov Chains
Counterexamples in Probabilistic LTL Model Checking for Markov Chains Matthias Schmalz 1 Daniele Varacca 2 Hagen Völzer 3 1 ETH Zurich, Switzerland 2 PPS - CNRS & Univ. Paris 7, France 3 IBM Research Zurich,
More informationOn simulations and bisimulations of general flow systems
On simulations and bisimulations of general flow systems Jen Davoren Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering The University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA and Paulo Tabuada Department of Electrical
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 informationIntroduction. Pedro Cabalar. Department of Computer Science University of Corunna, SPAIN 2013/2014
Introduction Pedro Cabalar Department of Computer Science University of Corunna, SPAIN cabalar@udc.es 2013/2014 P. Cabalar ( Department Introduction of Computer Science University of Corunna, SPAIN2013/2014
More informationVerification. Arijit Mondal. Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Patna
IIT Patna 1 Verification Arijit Mondal Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Patna arijit@iitp.ac.in Introduction The goal of verification To ensure 100% correct in functionality
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 informationSanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley
EECS 219C: Computer-Aided Verification Explicit-State Model Checking: Additional Material Sanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley Acknowledgments: G. Holzmann Checking if M satisfies : Steps 1. Compute Buchi
More informationAutomata on Infinite words and LTL Model Checking
Automata on Infinite words and LTL Model Checking Rodica Condurache Lecture 4 Lecture 4 Automata on Infinite words and LTL Model Checking 1 / 35 Labeled Transition Systems Let AP be the (finite) set of
More informationFormal Verification of Mobile Network Protocols
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Italy milazzo@di.unipi.it Pisa April 26, 2005 Introduction Modelling Systems Specifications Examples Algorithms Introduction Design validation ensuring
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 informationTimo Latvala. March 7, 2004
Reactive Systems: Safety, Liveness, and Fairness Timo Latvala March 7, 2004 Reactive Systems: Safety, Liveness, and Fairness 14-1 Safety Safety properties are a very useful subclass of specifications.
More informationA brief history of model checking. Ken McMillan Cadence Berkeley Labs
A brief history of model checking Ken McMillan Cadence Berkeley Labs mcmillan@cadence.com Outline Part I -- Introduction to model checking Automatic formal verification of finite-state systems Applications
More informationReasoning about Strategies: From module checking to strategy logic
Reasoning about Strategies: From module checking to strategy logic based on joint works with Fabio Mogavero, Giuseppe Perelli, Luigi Sauro, and Moshe Y. Vardi Luxembourg September 23, 2013 Reasoning about
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 informationOn the coinductive nature of centralizers
On the coinductive nature of centralizers Charles Grellois INRIA & University of Bologna Séminaire du LIFO Jan 16, 2017 Charles Grellois (INRIA & Bologna) On the coinductive nature of centralizers Jan
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 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 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 informationLTL is Closed Under Topological Closure
LTL is Closed Under Topological Closure Grgur Petric Maretić, Mohammad Torabi Dashti, David Basin Department of Computer Science, ETH Universitätstrasse 6 Zürich, Switzerland Abstract We constructively
More informationA Hierarchy for Accellera s Property Specification Language
A Hierarchy for Accellera s Property Specification Language Thomas Türk May 1st, 2005 Diploma Thesis University of Kaiserslautern Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Klaus Schneider Vorliegende Diplomarbeit wurde von
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 informationLecture Notes on Software Model Checking
15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Software Model Checking Matt Fredrikson André Platzer Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 19 1 Introduction So far we ve focused on
More information2. Elements of the Theory of Computation, Lewis and Papadimitrou,
Introduction Finite Automata DFA, regular languages Nondeterminism, NFA, subset construction Regular Epressions Synta, Semantics Relationship to regular languages Properties of regular languages Pumping
More informationPSPACE-completeness of LTL/CTL model checking
PSPACE-completeness of LTL/CTL model checking Peter Lohmann April 10, 2007 Abstract This paper will give a proof for the PSPACE-completeness of LTLsatisfiability and for the PSPACE-completeness of the
More informationCTL, the branching-time temporal logic
CTL, the branching-time temoral logic Cătălin Dima Université Paris-Est Créteil Cătălin Dima (UPEC) CTL 1 / 29 Temoral roerties CNIL Safety, termination, mutual exclusion LTL. Liveness, reactiveness, resonsiveness,
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 informationModel checking, verification of CTL. One must verify or expel... doubts, and convert them into the certainty of YES [Thomas Carlyle]
Chater 5 Model checking, verification of CTL One must verify or exel... doubts, and convert them into the certainty of YES or NO. [Thomas Carlyle] 5. The verification setting Page 66 We introduce linear
More informationLecture 4 Model Checking and Logic Synthesis
Lecture 4 Model Checking and Logic Synthesis Nok Wongpiromsarn Richard M. Murray Ufuk Topcu EECI, 18 March 2013 Outline Model checking: what it is, how it works, how it is used Computational complexity
More informationCharacterizing Fault-Tolerant Systems by Means of Simulation Relations
Characterizing Fault-Tolerant Systems by Means of Simulation Relations TECHNICAL REPORT Ramiro Demasi 1, Pablo F. Castro 2,3, Thomas S.E. Maibaum 1, and Nazareno Aguirre 2,3 1 Department of Computing and
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 informationPSL Model Checking and Run-time Verification via Testers
PSL Model Checking and Run-time Verification via Testers Formal Methods 2006 Aleksandr Zaks and Amir Pnueli New York University Introduction Motivation (Why PSL?) A new property specification language,
More informationTesting with model checkers: A survey
COMPETENCE NETWORK SOFTNET AUSTRIA Testing with model checkers: A survey SNA-TR-2007-P2-04 Gordon Fraser, Franz Wotawa, Paul E. Ammann SNA TECHNICAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2007 Competence Network Softnet Austria,
More informationA Symbolic Approach to Safety LTL Synthesis
A Symbolic Approach to Safety LTL Synthesis Shufang Zhu 1 Lucas M. Tabajara 2 Jianwen Li Geguang Pu 1 Moshe Y. Vardi 2 1 East China Normal University 2 Rice Lucas M. Tabajara (Rice University) 2 University
More informationComputational Models #1
Computational Models #1 Handout Mode Nachum Dershowitz & Yishay Mansour March 13-15, 2017 Nachum Dershowitz & Yishay Mansour Computational Models #1 March 13-15, 2017 1 / 41 Lecture Outline I Motivation
More information