Skip to main content

Revising Specifications with CTL Properties Using Bounded Model Checking

  • Conference paper
Book cover Advances in Artificial Intelligence - SBIA 2008 (SBIA 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5249))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

During the process of software development, it is very common that inconsistencies arise between the formal specification and some desired property. Belief Revision deals with the problem of accommodating new information that may be inconsistent with an existing knowledge base.

In this paper, we propose the use of belief revision techniques in order to deal with inconsistencies in formal specifications. The main problem to be solved is that the most well known results for belief revision only hold for logics which are monotonic and compact, while most discrete-time temporal logics used to express system properties – and in particular, CTL — are not compact. We suggest the use of bounded model-checking, transforming the problem from CTL into classical propositional logic and then transforming back the results to suggest revisions to the user.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Winter, K.: Model checking for abstract state machines. Journal of Universal Computer Science 3(5), 689–701 (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Büessow, R.: Model Checking Combined Z and Statechart Specifications. PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Faculty of Computer Science (November 2003), http://edocs.tu-berlin.de/diss/2003/buessow_robert.pdf

  3. Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: A model checker for B. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Kolyang, S.T., Wolff, B.: A structure preserving encoding of Z in Isabelle/HOL. In: von Wright, J., Harrison, J., Grundy, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 1996. LNCS, vol. 1125, pp. 283–298. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Hamaguchi, K.: Another look at LTL model checking. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 415–427. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. de Sousa, T.C., Wassermann, R.: Handling inconsistencies in CTL model-checking using belief revision. In: Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods (SBMF) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hansson, S.O., Wassermann, R.: Local change. Studia Logica 70(1), 49–76 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without bdds. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Grove, A.: Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2), 157–170 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Huth, M., Ryan, M.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Flouris, G.: On Belief Change and Ontology Evolution. PhD thesis, University of Crete (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Penczek, W., Wozna, B., Zbrzezny, A.: Bounded model checking for the universal fragment of CTl. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(1), 135–156 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC 2001), pp. 530–535 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: Berkmin: A Fast and Robust SAT Solver. In: Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE 2002), pp. 142–149 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Finger, M., Wassermann, R. (2008). Revising Specifications with CTL Properties Using Bounded Model Checking. In: Zaverucha, G., da Costa, A.L. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence - SBIA 2008. SBIA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5249. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88190-2_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88190-2_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88189-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88190-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics