Chapter 4 model checking of finite state systems
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 9

Chapter 4: Model Checking of Finite State Systems PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 59 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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


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


Example; Solution to Mutual Exclusion Problem

N1,N2

T1,N2

N1,T2

C1,N2

T1,T2

T1,T2

N1,C2

C1,T2

T1,C2


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


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


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;

}

}


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


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


  • Login