On Reasoning About Rings

Namjoshi, Kedar S.

doi:10.1142/s0129054103001881

Cited by 122 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the verification for the reduced system can be accomplished by using model checking. This approach can be used to verify a number of systems [13,18,8]. The sound but incomplete approaches include methods based on synthesis of invisible invariant (e.g., [10]); methods based on network invariant (e.g., [21]) that relies on the effectiveness of a generated invariant and the invariant refinement techniques; regular model checking [19] that requires acceleration techniques.…”

Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fair Model Checking with Process Counter Abstraction

Sun

Liu

Roychoudhury

et al. 2009

FM 2009: Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Parameterized systems are characterized by the presence of a large (or even unbounded) number of behaviorally similar processes, and they often appear in distributed/concurrent systems. A common state space abstraction for checking parameterized systems involves not keeping track of process identifiers by grouping behaviorally similar processes. Such an abstraction, while useful, conflicts with the notion of fairness. Because process identifiers are lost in the abstraction, it is difficult to ensure fairness (in terms of progress in executions) among the processes. In this work, we study the problem of fair model checking with process counter abstraction. Even without maintaining the process identifiers, our on-the-fly checking algorithm enforces fairness by keeping track of the local states from where actions are enabled / executed within an execution trace. We enhance our home-grown PAT model checker with the technique and show its usability via the automated verification of several real-life protocols.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fair Model Checking with Process Counter Abstraction

Sun

Liu

Roychoudhury

et al. 2009

FM 2009: Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We distance ourselves from the automatic finding of invariants and perform explicit induction using a fixed invariant, delivering a proof rule for the class of aggregation protocols with irregular topology. Explicit induction has been also used for the verification of regular networks [6].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameterized Verification of Track Topology Aggregation Protocols

Feo-Arenis

Westphal

2013

Formal Techniques for Distributed Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present an approach for the verification aggregation protocols, which may be used to perform critical tasks and thus should be verified. We formalize the class of track topology aggregation protocols and provide a parameterized proof of correctness where the problem is reduced to checking a property of the node's aggregation algorithm. We provide a verification rule based on our property and illustrate the approach by verifying a non-trivial aggregation protocol.

show abstract

“…Representative works of this approach include methods based on: explicit induction [EN95], network invariants that can be viewed as implicit induction [LHR97], abstraction and approximation of network invariants [CGJ95], and other methods based on abstraction [GZ98]. Other methods include those relying on "regular model-checking" (e.g., [JN00]) that overcome some of the complexity issues by employing acceleration procedures, methods based on symmetry reduction (e.g., [GS97]), or compositional methods (e.g., ([McM99]), combining automatic abstraction with finite-instantiation due to symmetry.…”

Section: I K P( I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liveness by Invisible Invariants

Fang

McMillan

Pnueli

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The method of Invisible Invariants was developed in order to verify safety properties of parametrized systems in a fully automatic manner. In this paper, we apply the method of invisible invariant to "bounded response" properties, i.e., liveness properties of the type p =⇒ ½ q that are bounded -once a p-state is reached, it takes a bounded number of rounds (where a round is a sequence of steps in which each process has been given a chance to proceed) to reach a q-state -thus, they are essentially safety properties.With a "liveness monitor" that observes certain behavior of a system, establishing "bounded response" properties over the system is reduced to the verification of invariant properties.It is often the case that the inductive invariants for systems with "liveness monitors" contain assertions of a certain form that the original method of invisible invariant is not able to generate, nor to check inductiveness. To accommodate invariants of such forms, we extend the techniques used for invariant generation, as well as the small model theorem for validity check.

show abstract

On Reasoning About Rings

Cited by 122 publications

References 6 publications

Fair Model Checking with Process Counter Abstraction

Fair Model Checking with Process Counter Abstraction

Parameterized Verification of Track Topology Aggregation Protocols

Liveness by Invisible Invariants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About