G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990. 61, 63  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....in our experience the technique seems not to require it very often. The robustness and the capacity increase of bounded model checking make it attractive for industrial use. Behind these advantages is the fact that satisfiability solvers, such as GRASP [33] SATO [39] and Stalmarck s algorithm [35], seldom require exponential space, while BDDs often do. The disadvantages of bounded model checking, to balance the picture, are that the method lacks completeness and the types of properties that can currently be checked are very limited. Additionally, it has not been shown that the method can ....

....circuit description, a property to be proven, and a user supplied time bound, k. It then generates the type of propositional formula described in Section 3.1. It supports both the DIMACS format [20] for CNF formulae, and the input format for the PROVER Tool [5] which is based on Stalmarck s Method [35]. In our experiments, we have used the PROVER tool, as well as two public domain SAT solvers, SATO [39] and GRASP [33] both of which use the DIMACS format. We first discuss experiments on circuits available in the public domain, that are known to be difficult for BDDbased approaches. First we ....

G. Stalmarck and M. S aflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990.

....perform better on the particular class of models used. For instance, since it is usually possible to predict a bound on the size of the operation scheme (in total time as well as number of operations) it is possible to state the problem as an NP problem and then to apply a SAT solver (e.g. [12]) We are currently working on the integration of our methodology into the Dortmund plant in the context of the European Project ESPRIT LTR VHS [13] Acknowledgements Thanks go to Stefan Kowalewski, Nanette Bauer and Andre Deparade for their patient explanations on the Dortmund plant as well as ....

M. Saflund and G. Stalmarck. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In SAFECOMP'90, pages 31--36, 1990.

....that ordered binary decision diagrams can require exponential space. Recently a new technique called bounded model checking [1] has been proposed that uses fast satisfiability solvers instead of BDDs. The advantage of satisfiability solvers like SATO [15] GRASP [13] and Stalmarck s algorithm [14] is that they never require exponential space. In [1] it was shown that this new technique sometimes performed much better than BDD based symbolic model checking. However, the performance was obtained on academic examples, and doubt remained about whether bounded model checking would work well on ....

.... f (and a counterexample for Gp) iff q holds at one of the k 1 states or equivalently the assignment also satisfies: f ] k : q( s 0 ) q( s 1 ) Delta Delta Delta q( s k ) 2) The final step is to translate the conjunction of (1) and (2) into CNF and check it with SAT tools such as [13, 15, 14]. Translation into CNF is described in [11] 4 Classical and Bounded Cone of Influence Reduction The Cone of Influence Reduction is a well known technique 1 . For bounded model checking this technique can be specialized to the Bounded Cone of Influence Reduction, described below. The basic ....

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990.

.... for formulas of the much simpler grammar OE : L j OE OE j OE OE, where L ranges over literals (atoms and their negation) One could conceivably cover the design and verification of algorithms for satisfiability, such as Horn formulas, or heuristic SAT solvers, such as Stalmarck s method [23], 22] In predicate logic, one could feature algorithms for computing certain quantifier normal forms. Exposure to a labeling algorithm for finite state verification illustrates depth first backwards search in a directed graph; this search is recursive and the recursion is driven by the logical ....

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990.

....present a resolution based method for deciding the validity of formulas in intuitionistic propositional logic. A domain of constraints, D, is used to formulate judgments that reason about the constraints on any possible strong counter models of such a formula OE. Similarly to St almarck s method [6, 5], we obtain a hierarchy of polynomial algorithms, although we generate the possible proof or strong counter model on the fly and model both in the same data structure, a constraintflow model for OE. We formulate an invariant for this analysis to prove soundness of the deductive system and the ....

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990.

....Abstract Symbolic Model Checking [3, 14] has proven to be a powerful technique for the verification of reactive systems. BDDs [2] have traditionally been used as a symbolic representation of the system. In this paper we show how boolean decision procedures, like Stalmarck s Method [16] or the Davis Putnam Procedure [7] can replace BDDs. This new technique avoids the space blow up of BDDs, generates counterexamples much faster, and sometimes speeds up the verification. In addition, it produces counterexamples of minimal length. We introduce a bounded model checking procedure ....

....applied in various domains, such as hardware verification [17] modal logics [9] formal verification of railway control systems [1] and AI planning systems [11] A number of efficient implementations are available. Some notable examples are the PROVE tool [1] based on Stalmarck s Method [16], and SATO [18] based on the Davis Putnam Procedure [7] In this paper we present a symbolic model checking technique based on SAT procedures. The basic idea is to consider counterexamples of a particular length k and generate a propositional formula that is satisfiable iff such a counterexample ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP '90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990.

....who had founded a company called Logikonsult based on a particularly efficient propositional formula checker. Their checker solved the formulas ( 6K) expressing correctness of the VPI at the railway station Hoorn Kersenboogerd. Gunnar gladly explained me some principles behind their prover [20, 13]. Their prover is protected by a software patent [18] In order to understand the stunning effectiveness of the Stalmarck propositional formula checker, we decided to build a checker along the same principles ourselves, although for a while we could use the Stalmarck checker for experiments. When ....

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B.K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems, 1990 (SAFECOMP '90), Pergamon Press. pp. 31-36, Gatwick, UK, 1990.

No context found.

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems, 1990 (SAFECOMP '90), pages 31--36, Gatwick, UK, 1990. Pergamon Press.

....the proof rules, a saturation algorithm is developed, based on triplets, which can be used for consistency and truth checking of constraints in FDC. The algorithm has two primary areas of usage: as an extension of a previously defined algorithm for verification of propositional specifications [SS90] such as control system specifications, and as an improved constraint solver for use in finite domain constraint programming. There are still other propagation techniques, in particular numerical methods for interval propagation, which should be added to NP(FD) that would further increase the ....

.... to discrete constraint satisfaction problems, so called finite domain problems, have been carefully studied [HDT92] Similarly, propagation techniques tailored for propositional logic have been designed which compare favorably with other approaches to propositional theorem proving [DC93a, Rau94, SS90] We focus in this article on the saturation algorithm developed and patented by Stalmarck for verifying propositional formulas [Sta94] The method is based on a natural deduction style proof system fulfilling the so called subformula property [Pra65, Sta91, Har96] and resembles the semantic ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and Verifying Systems and Software in Propositional Logic. In Safety of Computer Control Systems. IFAC Symposia Series, 1990.

....the proof rules, a saturation algorithm is developed, based on triplets, which can be used for consistency and truth checking of constraints in FDC. The algorithm has two primary areas of usage: as an extension of a previously defined algorithm for verification of propositional specifications [SS90] such as control system specifications, and as an improved constraint solver for use in finite domain constraint programming. There are still other propagation techniques, in particular numerical methods for interval propagation, which should be added to NP(FD) that would further increase the ....

.... to discrete constraint satisfaction problems, so called finite domain problems, have been carefully studied [HDT92] Similarly, propagation techniques tailored for propositional logic have been designed which compare favorably with other approaches to propositional theorem proving [DC93a, Rau94, SS90] We focus in this article on the saturation algorithm developed and patented by Stalmarck for verifying propositional formulas [Sta94] The method is based on a natural deduction style proof system fulfilling the so called subformula property [Pra65, Sta91, Har96] and resembles the semantic ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and Verifying Systems and Software in Propositional Logic. In Safety of Computer Control Systems. IFAC Symposia Series, 1990.

No context found.

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems (SAFECOMP'90), pages 31--36. Pergamon Press, 1990. 61, 63

No context found.

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and Verifying Systems and Software in Propositional Logic. in proc. of Internat. Conf. on Safety of Computer Control Systems (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1990) 31-36.

No context found.

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and verifying systems and software in propositional logic. In B. K. Daniels, editor, Safety of Computer Control Systems, 1990 (SAFECOMP '90), pages 31--36, Gatwick, UK, 1990. Pergamon Press.

No context found.

G. Stalmarck and M. Saflund. Modeling and Verifying Systems and Software in Propositional Logic. in proc. of Internat. Conf. on Safety of Computer Control Systems (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1990) 31-36.

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