Advertisement

Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 51–72 | Cite as

A divide & conquer approach to liveness model checking under fairness & anti-fairness assumptions

  • Kazuhiro OgataEmail author
Research Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes an approach to making liveness model checking problems under fairness feasible. The proposed method divides such a problem into smaller ones that can be conquered. It is not superior to existing tools dedicated to model checking liveness properties under fairness assumptions in terms of model checking performance but has the following positive aspects: 1) the approach can be used to model check liveness properties under anti-fairness assumptions as well as fairness assumptions, 2) the approach can help humans better understand the reason why they need to use fairness and/or anti-fairness assumptions, and 3) the approach makes it possible to use existing linear temporal logic model checkers to model check liveness properties under fairness and/or anti-fairness assumptions.

Keywords

anti-fairness fairness liveness property Maude model checking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank anonymous referees who commented on drafts of this article. This article was partially supported by JSPS Kakenhi (23220002, 26540024).

Supplementary material

11704_2017_7036_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (116 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 113 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Ogata K, Zhang M. A divide & conquer approach to model checking of liveness properties. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual IEEE Computer Software and Applications Conference. 2013, 648–657Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ogata K. Model checking liveness properties under fairness & antifairness assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 2013, 565–570Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manna Z, Pnueli A. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer Science & Business Media, 1992, 16CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamport L. Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled D A. Model Checking. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Latvala T. Model checking LTL properties of high-level Petri nets with fairness constraints. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets. 2001, 242–262Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun J, Liu Y, Dong J S, Pang J. PAT: towards flexible verification under fairness. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 2009, 709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Si Y, Sun J, Liu Y, Dong J S, Pang J, Zhang S J, Yang X. Model checking with fairness assumptions using PAT. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2014, 8(1): 1–16MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bae K, Meseguer J. State/event-based LTL model checking under parametric generalized fairness. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 2011, 132–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bae K, Meseguer J. Model checking LTLR formulas under localized fairness. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and its Applications. 2012, 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bae K, Meseguer J. Model checking linear temporal logic of rewriting formulas under localized fairness. Science of Computer Programming, 2015, 99: 193–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzmann G J. The SPIN Model Checker–Primer and Reference Manual. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Moura L, Owre S, Rueß H, Rushby J, Shankar N, Sorea M, Tiwari A. SAL 2. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 2004, 496–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clavel M, Durán F, Eker S, Lincoln P, Martí-Oliet N, Meseguer J, Talcott C. All About Maude–A High-Performance Logical Framework: How to Specify, Program and Verify Systems in Rewriting Logic. Springer-Verlag, 2007zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suzuki I, Kasami T. A distributed mutual exclusion algorithm. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1985, 3(4): 344–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogata K, Futatsugi K. Formal analysis of Suzuki&Kasami distributed mutual exclusion algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. 2002, 181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ogata K, Futatsugi K. Comparison of Maude and SAL by conducting case studies model checking a distributed algorithm. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Comptuter Sciences, 2007, 90(8): 1690–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Futatsugi K, Goguen J A, Ogata K. Verifying design with proof scores. In: Proceedings of the 1st IFIP TC 2/WG 2.3 Conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments. 2008, 277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meseguer J. Localized fairness: a rewriting semantics. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Term Rewriting and Applications. 2005, 250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaki S, Clarke E M, Ouaknine J, Sharygina N, Sinha N. State/event-based software model checking. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods. 2004, 128–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McMillan K L. Applications of Craig interpolants in model checking. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. 2005, 1–12Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maksimova L L. Temporal logics with “the next” operator do not have interpolation or the Beth property. Siberian Mathematical Journal, 1991, 32(6): 989–993MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gheerbrant A, Ten Cate B. Craig interpolation for linear temporal languages. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Workshop on Computer Science Logic. 2009, 287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke EM, Long D E, McMillan K L. Compositional model checking. In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 1989, 353–362Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurshan R P, Lamport L. Verification of a multiplier: 64 bits and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. 1993, 166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abadi M, Lamport L. Open systems in TLA. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 1994, 81–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST)IshikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations