ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Incremental CTL model checking using BDD subsetting
Full text PdfPdf (321 KB)
Source Annual ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 35th annual Design Automation Conference table of contents
San Francisco, California, United States
Pages: 457 - 462  
Year of Publication: 1998
ISBN:0-89791-964-5
Authors
Abelardo Pardo  Mentor Graphics Corporation, 267 Boston Road, Suite 2, Billerica, MA
Gary D. Hachtel  University of Colorado, ECEN Campus Box 425, Boulder, CO
Sponsors
SIGDA: ACM Special Interest Group on Design Automation
EDAC : Electronic Design Automation Consortium
IEEE-CS : Computer Society
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 24,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/277044.277171
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

An automatic abstraction/refinement algorithm for symbolic CTL model checking is presented. Conservative model checking is thus done for the full CTL language-no restriction is made to the universal or existen tial fragments. The algorithm begins with conserv ativ everification of an initial abstraction. If the conclusion is negativ e,it deriv es a “goal set” of states which require further resolution. It then successiv ely refines, with respect to this goal set, the appro ximations made in the sub-formulas, until the giv en form ula is v erified or computational resources are exhausted. This method applies uniformly to the abstractions based in over-appro ximation as well as under-approximations of the model. Both the refinement and the abstraction procedures are based in BDD-subsetting. Note that refinement procedures which are based on error traces, are limited to over-appro ximation on the universal fragment (or for language con tainment), whereas the goal set method is applicable to all consisten t appro ximations, and for all CTL formulas.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
4
5
 
6
 
7
P. Kelb, D. Dams, and R. Gerth. Practical symbolic model checking of the full p-calculus using compositional abstractions. Technical Report 95-31, Department of Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, 1995.
 
8
9
 
10
 
11
Thomas Lindner. Case Study "Production Cell": A Comparative Study in Formal Software Development, chapter 2, pages 9,21. FZI, 1994.
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15


Collaborative Colleagues:
Abelardo Pardo: colleagues
Gary D. Hachtel: colleagues