Tree-like counterexamples in model checking

Clarke, Edmund M.; Jha, Somesh; Lu, Yuanxu; Veith, Helmut

doi:10.1109/lics.2002.1029814

Cited by 93 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A result which is related to our work is the definition of more expressive tree-like counterexamples for Kripke Structures and CTL; such counterexamples are used as a support to guide a refinement technique [4]. The main difference with respect to our approach is that a tree-like counterexample is in its entirety a proof that the formula is not satisfied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We write false for ¬true and ϕ ∨ ϕ for ¬(¬ϕ ∧ ¬ϕ [4,10] are defined as non-linear structures related to the original model M. In our approach, M is an LTS and ϕ is an ACTL formula. Further, we formally define linear witnesses and counterexamples for an ACTL formula over an LTS; richer forms of witnesses and counterexamples are not directly addressed in this paper.…”

Section: Definition 3 (Action Computation Tree Logic)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [4], it has been recognized that for practical end-applications not all witnesses and counterexamples are usable. For example, the whole LTS is always a witness or a counterexample.…”

Section: Witness and Counterexample Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the whole LTS is always a witness or a counterexample. Following the interpretation of [4], a viable class of witnesses (counterexamples) V meets the criteria of: -Completeness. Every reason of validity (failure), which is important for end-application, can be explained by a witness (counterexample) in V. -Intelligibility.…”

Section: Witness and Counterexample Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, only for certain kinds of formulae a computation path is able to explain completely the reason of satisfaction or missed satisfaction. Only recently, a greater interest was raised on the study of the relations between the formulae and their counterexamples, on one side looking for richer forms, such as tree-like counterexamples [4] or proof-like counterexamples [10], on the other side establishing the subsets of the logics whose formulae guarantee linear computation paths as counterexamples which completely explain the failure [1,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Witness and Counterexample Automata for ACTL

Meolic

Fantechi

Gnesi

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Witnesses and counterexamples produced by model checkers provide a very useful source of diagnostic information. They are usually returned in the form of a single computation path along the model of the system. However, a single computation path is not enough to explain all reasons of a validity or a failure. Our work in this area is motivated by the application of action-based model checking algorithms to the test case generation for models formally specified with a CCS-like process algebra. There, only linear and finite witnesses and counterexamples are useful and for the given formula and model an efficient representation of the set of witnesses (counterexamples) explaining all reasons of validity (failure) is needed. This paper identifies a fragment of action computation tree logic (ACTL) that can be handled in this way. Moreover, a suitable form of witnesses and counterexamples is proposed and witness and counterexample automata are introduced, which are finite automata recognizing them. An algorithm for generating such automata is given.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition 3 (Action Computation Tree Logic)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [4], it has been recognized that for practical end-applications not all witnesses and counterexamples are usable. For example, the whole LTS is always a witness or a counterexample.…”

Section: Witness and Counterexample Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Witness and Counterexample Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Witness and Counterexample Automata for ACTL

Meolic

Fantechi

Gnesi

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing with model checkers: a survey

Fraser

Wotawa

Ammann

2008

Software Testing Verif & Rel

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.About a decade after the initial proposal to use model checkers for the generation of test cases we take a look at the achievements in this field of research. Model checkers are formal verification tools, capable of providing counterexamples to violated properties. Normally, these counterexamples are meant to guide an analyst when searching for the root cause of a property violation. They are, however, also very useful as test cases. Many different approaches have been presented, many problems have been solved, yet many issues remain. This survey paper reviews the state of the art in testing with model checkers.

show abstract