1 / 9

Chapter 4: Model Checking of Finite State Systems

Chapter 4: Model Checking of Finite State Systems. Albert M. K. Cheng. Model Checking. Is the finite-state graph a model of the temporal logic formula?. Specification represented as a labeled finite-state Graph (Kripke structure). Safety assertion written as temporal logic formula.

dalton-whitehead
Download Presentation

Chapter 4: Model Checking of Finite State Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 4: Model Checking of Finite State Systems Albert M. K. Cheng

  2. Model Checking Is the finite-state graph a model of the temporal logic formula? Specification represented as a labeled finite-state Graph (Kripke structure) Safety assertion written as temporal logic formula

  3. Propositional, branching-time temporal logic Next-time operator X, Until operator U A(E)X f : f holds in every (some) immediate successor of current state A(E)[f1 U f2] : for every (some) computation path, there exists an initial prefix of the path such that f2 holds at the last state of the prefix and f1 holds at all other states along the prefix Computation Tree Logic CTL

  4. Example; Solution to Mutual Exclusion Problem N1,N2 T1,N2 N1,T2 C1,N2 T1,T2 T1,T2 N1,C2 C1,T2 T1,C2

  5. AF(f) = A[True U f]: f holds in the future along every path from the initial state s0, so f is inevitable EG(f) = NOT AF(NOT f) EF(f) = E[True U f]: there is some path from the initial state s0 that leads to a state at which f holds, so f potentially holds AG(f) = NOT EF(NOT f) CTL abbreviations

  6. for (fi=flength; fi >= 1; fi--) labelgraph(fi,s,&correct); labelgraph (fi,s,b) short fi, s; Boolean *b; { short i; switch(nf[fi-1][0].opcode) { case atomic: atf(fi,s,b); break; case nt: ntf(fi,s,b); break; case ad: adf(fi,s,b); break; case ax: axf(fi,s,b); break; case ex: exf(fi,s,b); break; Explicit-State Model Checking

  7. Explicit-State Model Checking case au: for (i=0; i <= numstates; i++) marked[i] = false; for (i=0; i <= numstates; i++) if (!marked[i]) auf(fi,s,b); break; case eu: euf(fi,s,b); break; } }

  8. Symbolic Model Checking • Transition relation between the values of the variables in the current and the next states can be stated as a Boolean formula • Use Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) to present this Boolean formula • Apply model checker to finite-state graph represented as BBDs

  9. Real-Time CTL • Existentially Bounded Until operator: E[f_1 U[x,y] f_2] at state s_0 means there exists a path beginning at s_0 and some i such that x <= i <= y and f_2 holds at state s_i and forall j < i, f_1 holds at state s_j • Min/max delays • Min/max number of condition occurrences

More Related