NuSMV: A New Symbolic Model Verifier

Cimatti, Alessandro; Clarke, Edmund M.; Giunchiglia, Fausto; Roveri, Marco

doi:10.1007/3-540-48683-6_44

Cited by 431 publications

(302 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

301

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Temporal logics have been used extensively in model checking [21], for example in the tools (there are too many others to fully list here): BLAST [37] Java Pathfinder [70] NuSMV [19] PRISM [48] SPIN [40] UPPAAL [9]. Temporal logics have also been used in run-time checking, even for the functional language Haskell [66].…”

Section: Context-free Grammarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Monitoring with Run-Time Assertion Checking

Boer

Gouw

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. According to a study in 2002 commisioned by a US Department, software bugs annually costs the US economy an estimated $59 billion 1 . A more recent study in 2013 by Cambridge University estimated that the global cost has risen to $312 billion globally 2 .There exists various ways to prevent, isolate and fix software bugs, ranging from lightweight methods that are (semi)-automatic, to heavyweight methods that require significant user interaction. Our own method described in this tutorial is based on automated run-time checking of a combination of protocol-and data-oriented properties of object-oriented programs. Run-Time Checking of Object-Oriented ProgramsGiven a program and a specification, a run-time verifier inserts checks in the code that determine whether the specification is satisfied. The checks are triggered during an actual execution of the program. In contrast to static verification, where properties are checked with respect to all executions (possibly there are infinitely many), run-time checkers only consider a single execution of the program. There is a wide range of specification languages used in run-time verification. They can be partitioned into two categories: languages that focus on the control-flow (these approaches are also called "monitoring"), and those focussing on data-flow.As an example, one can use regular expressions to specify the order in which functions or methods in a program should be called [18]. Such specifications describe the control-flow of the program. Other formalisms for specifying controlflow are temporal logics, various kinds of automata and context-free grammars. For these formalisms, checking whether a given property holds of the current execution involves parsing a word (where the word is some representation of the trace of method calls in the current execution) in an automata. Generally only formalisms are chosen with a decidable parsing problem (in particular, this is the case for regular expressions, context-free grammars and most automata), so Approaches that specify data-flow usually do so by annotating the source code with assertions: logical formulas that must be true whenever control passes them. The formulas constrain the values of the program variables. If assertions are expressed in first-order logic with arithmetic, it is in general undecidable due to unbounded quantification (i.e. ranging over an infinite number of values) whether the assertion is true, thus usually the assertions are restricted in some way. For instance, Java contains an assert-statement which restricts to quantifier-free formulas (i.e. Boolean expressions). Design by Contract [53] provides a systematic way of using assertions to specify classes, interfaces and methods with respectively class invariants and pre-and postconditions. It was first used in the programming language Eiffel, and subsequently has also been applied to many other programming languages. For example, JML [14] is one of the most popular specification languages for Java and supports Design by Contract. JML...

show abstract

Section: Context-free Grammarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Monitoring with Run-Time Assertion Checking

Boer

Gouw

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This concept, and the following algorithm to create an FSM with equivalent properties to the conceptual expectation graph model represent the key new development of this work. This transformation allows the use of the NuSMV [11] model checker, and ultimately makes it possible to easily implement the previous ESB theory.…”

Section: Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executing Specifications of Social Reasoning Agents

Wallace

Rovatsos

2011

Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VIII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Social reasoning theories, whilst studied extensively in the area of multiagent systems, are hard to implement directly in agents. They often specify properties of beliefs or behaviours but not the way these should affect the computational reasoning mechanisms of a concrete agent design. The Expectation-Strategy-Behaviour (ESB) framework addresses this problem by separating and abstracting social reasoning from other practical reasoning, providing the computational machinery that is necessary to perform social reasoning in practice. We present an extension to previous work on ESB to a reasoning system which enables the execution of concise and modular declarative social reasoning rules. These rules represent the belief revision inherent to social reasoning, by representing hidden properties of other agents and social constraints. We review the foundations of the abstract ESB framework and present the implementation of a reasoner based on CTL model checking. Our system allows for conditioning agent behaviours on complex preconditions and verification of properties to aid the agent designer. It also allows for easy integration with a BDI reasoning system. We exemplify the suitability of ESB for social reasoning constructs with a specification of Joint Intention theory in ESB and illustrate the modularity of the representation by extending this to a specific example in a robotic soccer domain.

show abstract

“…We have implemented the RBC extension of the compact conversion as part of the NuSMV model checker [5]. The implementation performs the substitutions and duplications described above implicitly rather than constructing the resulting graph explicitly.…”

Section: Implementation and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clause Form Conversions for Boolean Circuits

Jackson

Sheridan

2005

Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Boolean circuits is well established as a data structure for building propositional encodings of problems in preparation for satisfiability solving. The standard method for converting Boolean circuits to clause form (naming every vertex) has a number of shortcomings.In this paper we give a projection of several well-known clause form conversions to a simplified form of Boolean circuit. We introduce a new conversion which we show is equivalent to that of Boy de la Tour in certain circumstances and is hence optimal in the number of clauses that it produces. We extend the algorithm to cover reduced Boolean circuits, a data structure used by the model checker NuSMV.We present experimental results for this and other conversion procedures on BMC problems demonstrating its superiority, and conclude that the CNF conversion has a significant role in reducing the overall solving time.

show abstract

NuSMV: A New Symbolic Model Verifier

Cited by 431 publications

References 3 publications

Combining Monitoring with Run-Time Assertion Checking

Combining Monitoring with Run-Time Assertion Checking

Executing Specifications of Social Reasoning Agents

Clause Form Conversions for Boolean Circuits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About