Skip to main content

States vs. Traces in Model Checking by Abstract Interpretation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Static Analysis (SAS 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2477))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In POPL’00, Cousot and Cousot showed that the classical state-based model checking of a very general temporal language called \( \mu \curvearrowleft \star \)-calculus is an incomplete abstract interpretation of its trace-based semantics. In ESOP’01, Ranzato showed that the least refinement of the state-based model checking semantics of the \( \mu \curvearrowleft \star \)-calculus which is complete w.r.t. its trace-based semantics exists, and it is essentially the trace-based semantics itself. The analogous problem in the opposite direction is solved by the present paper. First, relatively to any incomplete temporal connective of the \( \mu \curvearrowleft \star \)-calculus, we characterize the structure of the models, i.e. transition systems, for which the state-based model checking is trace-complete. On this basis, we prove that the unique abstraction of the state-based model checking semantics of the \( \mu \curvearrowleft \star \)-calculus (actually, of any fragment allowing conjunctions) which is complete w.r.t. the trace-based semantics is the straightforward semantics carrying no information at all. The following consequence can be drawn: there is no way to either refine or abstract sets of states in order to get a model checking algorithm for (any fragment allowing conjunctions of) the \( \mu \curvearrowleft \star \)-calculus which is trace-complete.

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. T. Ball, A. Podelski, and S.K. Rajamani. Relative Completeness of Abstraction Refinement for Software Model Checking. In Proc. of TACAS’02, LNCS 2280, pp. 158–172, Springer, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C.H. Bennett. Logical reversibility of computation. IBM J. Research Dev., 21:905–940, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Chomicki. Temporal query languages: A survey. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Temporal Logic, LNAI 827, pp. 506–534, Springer, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Chomicki, D. Toman, and M.H. Böhlen. Quering ATSQL databases with temporal logic. A CM Trans. Database Syst., 26(2):145–1178, 2001.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. E. Long. Model checking and abstraction. A CM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 19(5):1512–1542, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Proc. CAV’00, LNCS 1855, pp. 154–169, Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model checking, The MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Clifford, A. Croker, and A. Tuzhilin. On completeness of historical relational query languages. A CM Trans. Database Syst., 19(1):64–116, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proc. ACM POPL’77, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In Proc. ACM POPL’79, pp. 269–282. ACM Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Temporal abstract interpretation. In Proc. ACM POPL’00, pp. 12–25. ACM Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Dams, R. Gerth, and O. Grumberg. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. A CM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 19(2):253–291, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Giacobazzi, F. Ranzato, and F. Scozzari. Making abstract interpretations complete. J. A CM, 47(2):361–416, 2000.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. R. Giacobazzi and E. Quintarelli. Incompleteness, counterexamples and refinements in abstract model checking. In Proc. SAS’01, LNCS 2126, pp. 356–373, Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Loiseaux, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, A. Bouajjani, and S. Bensalem. Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods Syst. Des., 6:1–36, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. M. Müller-Olm, D. Schmidt, and B. Steffen. Model checking: A tutorial introduction. In Proc. SAS’99, LNCS 1694, pp. 330–354. Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Ranzato. On the completeness of model checking. In Proc. ESOP’01, LNCS 2028, pp. 137–154, Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A.P. Sistla and O. Wolfson. Temporal triggers in active databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data. Eng., 7(3):471–486, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. A.U. Tansel. Adding time dimension to relational model and extending relational algebra. Information Systems, 11(4):343–355, 1986.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giacobazzi, R., Ranzato, F. (2002). States vs. Traces in Model Checking by Abstract Interpretation. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Puebla, G. (eds) Static Analysis. SAS 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2477. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45789-5_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45789-5_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44235-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45789-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics