O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 381--401. Springer-Verlag, 1998.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....communicates with other nodes to achieve the required (global) result. Laster (Yorav) and Grumberg [LG98, Yor00] have developed an approach to model checking of software which uses modularity. Their notion of a module differs from that used in modular model checking as understood for example in [KV00, KV97, BCC97, Tsa00]. A module here is not a part of a whole system that runs in parallel with other modules (i.e. that contributes to the whole system in a multiplicative way) but a subset of a state space that originates from splitting the whole system in an additive way. It is defined by following the syntactical ....

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In COMPOS, pages 381--401, 1997.

.... symbolically rather than explicitly [33] Our algorithms are insensitive to this difference; indeed, we performed the verification tasks in this paper on a model checker employing symbolic representations [43] Several researchers have described techniques for modular verification of designs [17, 22, 28, 36]. These techniques are based on a hardware oriented notion of modularity, in which modules are composed in parallel. For instance, one module might be a CPU, while another module represents a floating point co processor. The research then shows how to ensure the preservation of individual ....

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

.... paradigm [74, 83] The level of interaction between the module and its environment is far more intricate than the kinds of interaction we have been discussing, and, hence, in modular model checking the computational overhead for the combination is much more significant than in our setting [78]. It is worth remarking that we do not consider in this thesis the (nontrivial) problem of decomposing a complex system into simpler components. We simply assume that the target system is already expressible as a combination of components according to some combining method. We showed that in some ....

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In COMPOS'97, 1997.

....it communicates with other nodes to achieve the required (global) result. Laster (Yorav) and Grumberg [9,16] have developed an approach to model checking of software which uses modularity. Their notion of a module differs from that used in modular model checking as understood for example in [7,8,3,13]. A module here is not a part of a whole system that runs in parallel with other modules (i.e. that contributes to the whole system in a multiplicative way) but a subset of a state space that originates from splitting the whole system in an additive way. It is defined by following the syntactical ....

Kupferman, O. and M. Y. Vardi, Modular model checking, in: COMPOS, 1997, pp. 381--401.

....in verification, in which one layer is shown to subsume the behavior of another [25] This work is orthogonal to ours, which does not require any abstraction relationship between collaborations. Several researchers have described modular verification techniques based on parallel composition [16, 20, 24, 29]. Some preliminary research [2, 11, 26] considers modular model checking under sequential composition, which is closer to the model used in software. Laster and Grumberg s approach [26] handles designs with only one state machine; it also lacks a design framework, such as collaboration based ....

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

.... H[#,#] #; W : #,#) 2] while W #= # do [3] remove (n,x) from W ; y: H[n,x] 4] if n is not a call node or an exit node then [5] foreach m#Succ(n) do propagate(m,x,fm (y) 6] if n is a call node then [7] e : called entry(n) propagate(e,y,fe(y) 8] if n is an exit node then [9] foreach r#Succ(n) and l #L do [10] if H[call node(r) l] x then propagate(r,l,fr (y) 11] foreach n#N do [12] S[n] V l#L H[n,l] 13] procedure propagate(n,x,y) 14] H[n,x] H[n,x] # y; if H[n,x] changed then add (n,x) to W ; Fig. 1. Worklist implementation of ....

.... m#Succ(n) do propagate(m,x,f # m (y) 6a ] if n is a call node and n #BoundaryCalls then [7a] e : called entry(n) propagate(e,y,f # e (y) 6b ] if n is a call node and n#BoundaryCalls then [7b ] r : ret node(n) propagate(r,x,f # r (#c(n) y) 8] if n is an exit node then [9] foreach r#Succ(n) and l # #L # do [10] if H[call node(r) l # ] x then propagate(r,l # ,f # r (y) 11] foreach n#N # do [12] S[n] V l # #L # H[n,l # ] Fig. 3. Worklist implementation of context sensitive fragment analysis analysis is performed first, and then a more precise ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Symp. on Compositionality, LNCS 1536, pages 381--401, 1997.

....notion of re nement is (reverse) trace inclusion. In theories of concurrency such as CCS [19] and CSP [4] in which deadlock is possible, maximal trace inclusion is not compositional [18] In contrast, our must preorder is compositional, at least for the operators presented here. Other work [6, 10, 13]investigated ####### and #### ########## ############## in similar non deadlockenvironments. Relatively more work has been devoted to analyzing relationships ####### re nement and logical approaches. One line of study relates temporal logic speci cations to re nement based ones by establishing ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In ################# ### ########## #########,volume 1536 of ####. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....notion of re nement is (reverse) trace inclusion. In theories of concurrency such as CCS [19] and CSP [4] in which deadlock is possible, maximal trace inclusion is not compositional [18] In contrast, our must preorder is compositional, at least for the operators presented here. Other work [6, 10, 13] investigated modular and compositional model checking in similar non deadlock environments. Relatively more work has been devoted to analyzing relationships between re nement and logical approaches. One line of study relates temporal logic speci cations to re nement based ones by ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Compositionality: The Signicant Dierence, volume 1536 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

No context found.

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 381--401. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

No context found.

O. Kupferman and M. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 381-401. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

....systems, yielding clean and asymptotically optimal algorithms. The automata theoretic framework for reasoning about finitestate systems has proven to be very versatile. Automata are the key to techniques such as on the fly verification [GPVW95] and they are useful also for modular verification [KV98] partial order verification [GW94,WW96] verification of real time and hybrid systems [HKV96,DW99] and verification of open systems [AHK97,KV99] Many decision and synthesis problems have automata based solutions and no other solution for them is known [EJ88,PR89,KV00] Automata based methods ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, LNCS 1536, pp. 381--401, 1998.

....find branching time unintuitive. IBM s experience with RuleBase has been that nontrivial CTL equations are hard to understand and prone to error [SBF 97] The branching time framework was designed for reasoning about closed systems. Bran ching time modular reasoning is exceedingly hard [KV98] Combining formal and dynamic validation (i.e. simulation) techniques for branchingtime model checking is possible only in a very limited fashion, as dynamic validation is inherently linear. LTL includes several connectives that handle unbounded time. For example, the formula eventually p ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 381--401. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

....as co B uchi and co B uchi is not at least as 9 strong as B uchi. Note that Theorem 1 implies that the Buchi condition is too weak for defining maximal models for 8CTL formulas. On the other hand, the Buchi condition is sufficiently strong for defining maximal models for 8CTL formulas [GL94,KV98a] Since parity, Rabin, and Streett are at least as 9 strong as Buchi and co Buchi, it follows from Theorem 1 that parity, Rabin, and Streett are all 9 stronger than Buchi and co Buchi. So far things seem to be very similar to tree automata, where Buchi and co Buchi conditions are incomparable ....

....verification of concurrent systems. In the linear paradigm, the composition S = S 1 kS 2 of S 1 and S 2 is defined so that T (S) T (S 1 ) T (S 2 ) cf. Kur94] In the branching paradigm [GL94] Grumberg and Long defined the parallel compositions of two Streett systems. As studied in [GL94,KV98a] in order to be used in modular verification, a definition of composition has to satisfy the following two conditions, for all systems S, S 0 , and S 00 . First, if S 0 9 S 00 , then SkS 0 9 SkS 00 . Second, S 9 S 0 kS 00 iff S 9 S 0 and S 9 S 00 . In particular, it ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, LNCS 1536, pp. 381--401, 1998.

....systems, yielding clean and asymptotically optimal algorithms. The automata theoretic framework for reasoning about finitestate systems has proven to be very versatile. Automata are the key to techniques such as on the fly verification [GPVW95] and they are useful also for modular verification [KV98] partial order verification [GW94,WW96] verification of real time and hybrid systems [HKV96,DW99] and verification of open systems [AHK97,KV99] Many decision and synthesis problems have automata based solutions and no other solution for them is known [EJ88,PR89,KV00] Automata based methods ....

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, LNCS 1536, pp. 381--401, 1998.

No context found.

O. Kupferman and M.Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Proc. Compositionality Workshop, LNCS 1536. Springer-Verlag, 1998. 135

No context found.

O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Modular model checking. In Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC