The concurrency workbench

Cleaveland, Rance; Parrow, Joachim; Steffen, Bernhard

doi:10.1145/151646.151648

Cited by 425 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We use the more recent CCS model obtained from the site ftp.sics.se/pub/fdt/fm/Coma rather than that in the paper; we also modify the syntax to that of the Concurrency Workbench [5]. We used the Concurrency workbench in order to convert the model into a representation that we can use for our experiment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Model Checking

Groce

Peled

Yannakakis

2002

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider the case where inconsistencies are present between a system and its corresponding model, used for automatic verification. Such inconsistencies can be the result of modeling errors or recent modifications of the system. Despite such discrepancies we can still attempt to perform automatic verification. In fact, as we show, we can sometimes exploit the verification results to assist in automatically learning the required updates to the model. In a related previous work, we have suggested the idea of black box checking, where verification starts without any model, and the model is obtained while repeated verification attempts are performed. Under the current assumptions, an existing inaccurate (but not completely obsolete) model is used to expedite the updates. We use techniques from black box testing and machine learning. We present an implementation of the proposed methodology called AMC (for Adaptive Model Checking). We discuss some experimental results, comparing various tactics of updating a model while trying to perform model checking.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Model Checking

Groce

Peled

Yannakakis

2002

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, simulation implies trace containment, whose checking for nondeterministic specifications is PSPACE-complete [Meyer and Stockmeyer, 1972]. The computational advantage is so compelling as to make simulation useful also to researchers that favor the linear approach to specification: in automatic verification, simulation is widely used as a sufficient condition for trace containment [Cleaveland et al, 1993]; in manual verification, trace containment is most naturally proved by exhibiting local witnesses such as simulation relations or refinement mappings (a restricted form of simulation relations) [Lamport, 1983;Lynch and Tuttle, 1987;Lynch, 1996].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage of Implementations by Simulating Specifications

Chockler

Kupferman

2002

Foundations of Information Technology in the Era of Network and Mobile Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In formal verification, we verify that an implementation is correct with respect to a specification. When verification succeeds and the implementation is proven to be correct, there is still a question of how complete the specification is, and whether it really covers all the behaviors of the implementation. In this paper we study coverage for simulation-based formal verification, where both the implementation and the specification are modelled by labeled state-transition graphs, and an implementation I satisfies a specificationS if S simulates I. Our measure of coverage is based on small modifications we apply to I. A part of I is covered by S if the mutant implementation in which this part is modified is no longer simulated by S. Thus, "mutation coverage" tells us which parts of the implementation were actually essential for the success of the verification. We describe two algorithms for finding the parts of the implementation that are covered by S. The first algorithm improves a naive algorithm that checks the mutant implementations one by one by exploiting the significant overlaps among the mutant implementations. The second algorithm is symbolic, and it improves a naive symbolic algorithm by reducing the number of variables in the OBDDs involved. In addition, we compare our coverage measure with other approaches for measuring coverage.

show abstract

“…State-space exploration tools for software systems have traditionally been restricted to the exploration of the state space of an abstract description of the system, specified in a modeling language (e.g., [15,5,22)). Once a model of a new software application has been thoroughly analyzed, it can also be used as the core of the implementation of the application, as can be done with software development environments for languages such as SDL [16] and VFSM [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploiting Symmetry When Model-Checking Software

Godefroid¹

1999

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study how to exploit symmetry induced by identical processes or data structures when systematically exploring the state spaces of concurrent software applications such as implementations of communication protocols. Existing model-checking symmetry reduction methods are based on equivalence classes of states, and assume that every system state can easily be encoded by a unique string of bits. When dealing with processes described by software programs written in full-fledged programming languages such as C, C++ or Java, this assumption is not valid anymore. Indeed, the state of each process is determined by the values of all the memory locations that can be accessed by the process and influence its behavior (including activation records associated to procedure calls). This amount of information is typically far too large and complex to be efficiently computed at each step of a state-space exploration.We develop in this paper a simple theory based on equivalence classes of sequences of transitions for representing symmetries in a system. We then present a state-space exploration algorithm for exploiting symmetries on transitions which does not rely on explicit encodings of system states. This algorithm can be used to dynamically prune the state spaces of implementations of concurrent reactive software systems in a reliable way.

show abstract

The concurrency workbench

Cited by 425 publications

References 13 publications

Adaptive Model Checking

Adaptive Model Checking

Coverage of Implementations by Simulating Specifications

Exploiting Symmetry When Model-Checking Software

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About