2013 # Regular Model Checking Using Solver Technologies and Automata Learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Paper Sections

Select...

3

1

1

Citation Types

0

40

0

Year Published

2016

2021

Publication Types

Select...

6

2

Relationship

1

7

Authors

Journals

(40 citation statements)

0

40

0

“…1<i≤n 1≤j<i 9) constants true and false, which are implemented analogously. Moreover, our SAT encoding is extensible, and additional LTL operators such as weak until or weak and strong release can easily be added.…”

confidence: 99%

“…1<i≤n 1≤j<i 9) constants true and false, which are implemented analogously. Moreover, our SAT encoding is extensible, and additional LTL operators such as weak until or weak and strong release can easily be added.…”

confidence: 99%

“…The framework of regular proofs is incomplete in general since it could happen that there is a proof, but no regular proof. The pathological cases when only non-regular proofs exist do not, however, seem to frequently occur in practice, e.g., see [44,45,18,14,19,46,47,15,48].…”

confidence: 99%

“…may be asked by the L * algorithm, which amounts to checking reachability in an infinite-state system, which is undecidable in general. This problem was already noted in [55], [56], [63], [64]. Secondly, a regular inductive invariant satisfying (i) and (ii) might not be unique, and so strictly speaking we are not dealing with a well-defined learning problem.…”

confidence: 95%

“…In this paper, we revisit the classic problem of verifying safety in the regular model checking framework. Many sophisticated semi-algorithms for dealing with this problem have been developed in the literature using methods such as abstraction [4], [5], [21], [20], widening [15], [23], acceleration [58], [43], [11], and learning [55], [56], [39], [64], [63]. One standard technique for proving safety for an infinite-state systems is by exhibiting an inductive invariant Inv (i.e.…”

confidence: 99%