reducing ctl live model checking to first order logic
play

Reducing CTL-Live Model Checking to First-Order Logic Validity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 16, 2024 •238 likes •535 views

Reducing CTL-Live Model Checking to First-Order Logic Validity Checking Amirhossein Vakili and Nancy A. Day Cheriton School of Computer Science 24 October 2014 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 1

  1. Reducing CTL-Live Model Checking to First-Order Logic Validity Checking Amirhossein Vakili and Nancy A. Day Cheriton School of Computer Science 24 October 2014 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 1 / 10

  2. Model Checking based on SAT/SMT Solving Safety Property: Is X reachable? Model Checker Model: X YES/NO ..... Fixpoint? SMT solver ..... ..... Focus on safety properties Iteratively calls the solver Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 2 / 10

  3. Our Result: CTL-Live Model Checking as FOL Validity Liveness Property: Is X always reachable? Model: Model Checker X YES/NO ..... Reduction SMT solver ..... ..... Focus on liveness properties Solved by first-order logic deduction techniques (e.g., SMT solvers) No need for abstraction or invariant generation Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 3 / 10

  4. CTL-Live CTL-Live includes CTL connectives that are defined using the least fixpoint operator of mu-calculus. Temporal part ::= π | ϕ 1 ∨ ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 ϕ ::= EX ϕ | AX ϕ | EF ϕ | AF ϕ ::= ϕ 1 EU ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 AU ϕ 2 Propositional part ::= P | ¬ π | π 1 ∨ π 2 π where P is a labelling predicate. Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 4 / 10

  5. CTL-Live CTL-Live includes CTL connectives that are defined using the least fixpoint operator of mu-calculus. Temporal part ::= π | ϕ 1 ∨ ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 ϕ ::= EX ϕ | AX ϕ | EF ϕ | AF ϕ ::= ϕ 1 EU ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 AU ϕ 2 Propositional part ::= P | ¬ π | π 1 ∨ π 2 π where P is a labelling predicate. In CTL-Live AF P ( EF ¬ P ) AU ( AX Q ) Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 4 / 10

  6. CTL-Live CTL-Live includes CTL connectives that are defined using the least fixpoint operator of mu-calculus. Temporal part ::= π | ϕ 1 ∨ ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 ϕ ::= EX ϕ | AX ϕ | EF ϕ | AF ϕ ::= ϕ 1 EU ϕ 2 | ϕ 1 AU ϕ 2 Propositional part ::= P | ¬ π | π 1 ∨ π 2 π where P is a labelling predicate. In CTL-Live Not In CTL-Live AF P ¬ ( AF P ) ( EF ¬ P ) AU ( AX Q ) AG P Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 4 / 10

  7. Symbolic Kripke Structures in FOL ... c = 4 c = 2 c = 0 c = 5 ... initial ... c = 3 c = 6 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 5 / 10

  8. Symbolic Kripke Structures in FOL ... c = 4 c = 2 c = 0 c = 5 ... initial ... c = 3 c = 6 S = { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , .. } state space S 0 ( c ) ⇔ c = 0 initial states c ′ = c + 2 ∨ c ′ = c + 3 N ( c , c ′ ) ⇔ next-state relation Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 5 / 10

  9. Symbolic Kripke Structures in FOL ... c = 4 c = 2 c = 0 c = 5 ... initial ... c = 3 c = 6 S = { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , .. } state space S 0 ( c ) ⇔ c = 0 initial states c ′ = c + 2 ∨ c ′ = c + 3 N ( c , c ′ ) ⇔ next-state relation Notation symbolic ( K ) | = c AF c > 3 [ AF c > 3] = { 0 , 1 , 2 , ... } Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 5 / 10

  10. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  11. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  12. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Y 1 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  13. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Y 1 Y 2 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  14. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Y 3 Y 1 Y 2 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  15. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Y 3 Y 1 Y 2 Y 4 Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  16. Intuition: States Satisfying AF P According to encoding of AF in mu-calculus, [ AF P ] is the smallest set Y that satisfies: (1) ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � (2) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) State Space Y 3 Y 1 Y 2 [ AF P ] Y 4 � [ AF P ] = where Θ = { Y s satisfying (1) , (2) } Y Y ∈ Θ Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 6 / 10

  17. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ Y Y ∈ Θ Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  18. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ iff ∀ Y ∈ Θ • S 0 ⊆ Y Y Y ∈ Θ Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  19. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ iff ∀ Y ∈ Θ • S 0 ⊆ Y Y Y ∈ Θ Higher-order universal quantifier Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  20. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ iff ∀ Y ∈ Θ • S 0 ⊆ Y Y Y ∈ Θ Higher-order universal quantifier First-order logic formula Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  21. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ iff ∀ Y ∈ Θ • S 0 ⊆ Y Y Y ∈ Θ Higher-order universal quantifier First-order logic formula Definition (FOL Validity) Γ | = Φ iff every interpretation that satisfies Γ also satisfies Φ. Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  22. Intuition: Model Checking AF P Model checking is about a subset relation, S 0 ⊆ [ AF P ]: � S 0 ⊆ iff ∀ Y ∈ Θ • S 0 ⊆ Y Y Y ∈ Θ Higher-order universal quantifier First-order logic formula Definition (FOL Validity) Γ | = Φ iff every interpretation that satisfies Γ also satisfies Φ. Description of model ∀ s • P ( s ) ⇒ Y ( s ) + | = S 0 ⊆ Y ∀ s ′ • N ( s , s ′ ) ⇒ Y ( s ′ ) � � symbolic ( K ) ∀ s • ⇒ Y ( s ) Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 7 / 10

  23. Our Result Reduction Procedure: INPUT: symbolic ( K ) : symbolic representation of a Kripke structure. : a CTL-Live formula. ϕ OUTPUT: symbolic ( K ) � CTLL2FOL ( ϕ ) | = S 0 ⊆ ⌈ ϕ ⌉ Theorem (Reduction of CTL-Live Model Checking to FOL Validity) symbolic ( K ) | = c ϕ iff � symbolic ( K ) CTLL2FOL ( ϕ ) | = S 0 ⊆ ⌈ ϕ ⌉ Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 8 / 10

  24. Our Result Reduction Procedure: INPUT: symbolic ( K ) : symbolic representation of a Kripke structure. : a CTL-Live formula. ϕ OUTPUT: symbolic ( K ) � CTLL2FOL ( ϕ ) | = S 0 ⊆ ⌈ ϕ ⌉ Example : ∀ c • S 0 ( c ) ⇔ c = 0 ∀ c , c ′ • N ( c , c ′ ) ⇔ c ′ = c + 2 ∨ c ′ = c + 3 ∀ c • c > 3 ⇒ Y ( c ) ∀ c ′ • N ( c , c ′ ) ⇒ Y ( c ′ ) � � ∀ c • ⇒ Y ( c ) | = S 0 ⊆ Y Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 8 / 10

  25. Our Result Reduction Procedure: INPUT: symbolic ( K ) : symbolic representation of a Kripke structure. : a CTL-Live formula. ϕ OUTPUT: symbolic ( K ) � CTLL2FOL ( ϕ ) | = S 0 ⊆ ⌈ ϕ ⌉ Example : ∀ c • S 0 ( c ) ⇔ c = 0 ∀ c , c ′ • N ( c , c ′ ) ⇔ c ′ = c + 2 ∨ c ′ = c + 3 ∀ c • c > 3 ⇒ Y ( c ) ∀ c ′ • N ( c , c ′ ) ⇒ Y ( c ′ ) � � ∀ c • ⇒ Y ( c ) | = S 0 ⊆ Y Vakili and Day (U. of Waterloo) CTL-Live Model Checking in FOL 24 October 2014 8 / 10

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

Higher-Order Model Checking III: Reducing Model Checking to Type Inference IV: Applications:

Higher-Order Model Checking III: Reducing Model Checking to Type Inference IV: Applications:

Higher-Order Model Checking III: Reducing Model Checking to Type Inference IV: Applications: Verifying Higher-order Functional Programs Luke Ong University of Oxford http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/luke.ong/personal/ http://mjolnir.cs.ox.ac.uk

856 views • 26 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 11: Model checking for Computation Tree Logic Dominic Mulligan Based on previous slides by Alan Mycroft and Mike Gordon Programming, Logic, and Semantics Group University of Cambridge

402 views • 25 slides
The Complexity of First-Order and Monadic Second-Order Logic Revisited Martin Grohe University

The Complexity of First-Order and Monadic Second-Order Logic Revisited Martin Grohe University

The Complexity of First-Order and Monadic Second-Order Logic Revisited Martin Grohe University of Edinburgh (Joint work with Markus Frick) The model-checking problem Model-Checking for a logic L on a class C of structures: Structure A C ,

211 views • 18 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 10: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Dominic

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 10: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Dominic

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 10: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) Dominic Mulligan Based on previous slides by Alan Mycroft and Mike Gordon Programming, Logic, and Semantics Group University of Cambridge Academic year

1.15k views • 48 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 7: Introduction and background Dominic

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 7: Introduction and background Dominic

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking Lecture 7: Introduction and background Dominic Mulligan Based on previous slides by Alan Mycroft and Mike Gordon Programming, Logic, and Semantics Group, University of Cambridge Academic year

972 views • 41 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking But perhaps theres a clever way of

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking But perhaps theres a clever way of

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking But perhaps theres a clever way of compiling one into the other? Both have very different models of time How do they compare? We have seen two widely used temporal logics Relative

510 views • 10 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking 1. You should be able to model simple systems in NuSMV, an LTL

Hoare Logic and Model Checking 1. You should be able to model simple systems in NuSMV, an LTL

Hoare Logic and Model Checking 1. You should be able to model simple systems in NuSMV, an LTL Other interesting books: Model Checking by Clarke, Grumberg, and Peled Principles of Model Checking by Baier and Katoen 3 Course

636 views • 11 slides
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference to

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference to

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward and backward chaining Logic programming Resolution 2 Reasoning in

987 views • 40 slides
Linear logic and higher-order model checking Joint work with Charles Grellois Paul-Andr

Linear logic and higher-order model checking Joint work with Charles Grellois Paul-Andr

Linear logic and higher-order model checking Joint work with Charles Grellois Paul-Andr Mellis CNRS & Universit Paris Diderot Abstraction and Verification in Semantics 23 27 June 2014 Institut Henri Poincar Purpose of this

818 views • 46 slides
Colored intersection types: a bridge between linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles

Colored intersection types: a bridge between linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles

Colored intersection types: a bridge between linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles Grellois (joint work with Paul-Andr e Melli` es) PPS & LIAFA Universit e Paris 7 TYPES conference May 18th, 2015 Charles

549 views • 35 slides
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking See NuSMV homepage to download: http://nusmv.fbk.eu/

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking See NuSMV homepage to download: http://nusmv.fbk.eu/

Hoare Logic and Model Checking Model Checking See NuSMV homepage to download: http://nusmv.fbk.eu/ Was popular in semiconductor industry via Cadence SMV Could handle large models A re-implementation of the SMV model checker: Good

110 views • 10 slides
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward and backward chaining Logic programming Resolution

1.2k views • 46 slides
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference

Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9 Chapter 9 1 Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward and backward chaining Logic programming Resolution

793 views • 48 slides
Temporal Logic and Model Checking Model mathematical structure extracted from hardware or

Temporal Logic and Model Checking Model mathematical structure extracted from hardware or

Temporal Logic and Model Checking Model mathematical structure extracted from hardware or software Temporal logic provides a language for specifying functional properties Model checking checks whether a given property holds

1.56k views • 131 slides
Semantics of linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles Grellois Thse dirige par

Semantics of linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles Grellois Thse dirige par

Semantics of linear logic and higher-order model-checking Charles Grellois Thse dirige par Paul-Andr Mellis et Olivier Serre IRIF Universit Paris Diderot - Paris 7 8 avril 2016 Charles Grellois (IRIF) Semantics of linear logic

710 views • 59 slides
Higher-Order Model Checking and Program Verification Naoki Kobayashi University of Tokyo

Higher-Order Model Checking and Program Verification Naoki Kobayashi University of Tokyo

Higher-Order Model Checking and Program Verification Naoki Kobayashi University of Tokyo Whats This Talk About? Introduction to higher-order model checking (model checking of higher- order recursion schemes) and its applications to

641 views • 40 slides
T H R E AT S TO VA L I D I T Y PMAP 8521: Program Evaluation for Public Service October 7, 2019

T H R E AT S TO VA L I D I T Y PMAP 8521: Program Evaluation for Public Service October 7, 2019

T H R E AT S TO VA L I D I T Y PMAP 8521: Program Evaluation for Public Service October 7, 2019 Fill out your reading report on iCollege! P L A N F O R T O D A Y Potential outcomes The Four Horsemen of Validity Questions! P OT E N T I A

769 views • 55 slides
Towards Interval Techniques The Thermal . . . Thermal Challenge . . . for Model Validation

Towards Interval Techniques The Thermal . . . Thermal Challenge . . . for Model Validation

Measurement Under . . . Approximate Model: . . . How to Solve This . . . Towards Interval Techniques The Thermal . . . Thermal Challenge . . . for Model Validation Thermal Challenge . . . Results Jaime Nava and Vladik Kreinovich Additional

342 views • 20 slides
Intentions & Interfaces Making patterns concrete Udi Dahan The Software Simplist .NET

Intentions & Interfaces Making patterns concrete Udi Dahan The Software Simplist .NET

Intentions & Interfaces Making patterns concrete Udi Dahan The Software Simplist .NET Development Expert & SOA Specialist www.UdiDahan.com email@UdiDahan.com Books, and books, and books, and books Flexibility brings many benefits

641 views • 41 slides
Leaders Dr Mark Merolli Chair, HISA Vic State Committee PhD, B.Physio (Hons) Senior

Leaders Dr Mark Merolli Chair, HISA Vic State Committee PhD, B.Physio (Hons) Senior

Careers for Emerging Clinical Digital Health Leaders Dr Mark Merolli Chair, HISA Vic State Committee PhD, B.Physio (Hons) Senior Lecturer/Research Fellow Career Perspective The University of Melbourne @HISA_HIC #HIC19 Bio

347 views • 8 slides
2.2 Semantics In classical logic (dating back to Aristoteles) there are only two truth

2.2 Semantics In classical logic (dating back to Aristoteles) there are only two truth

2.2 Semantics In classical logic (dating back to Aristoteles) there are only two truth values true and false which we shall denote, respectively, by 1 and 0. There are multi-valued logics having more than two truth values. 73

732 views • 11 slides
Virtual Network Mapping based on Subgraph Isomorphism Detection Jens Lischka, Holger Karl Paderborn

Virtual Network Mapping based on Subgraph Isomorphism Detection Jens Lischka, Holger Karl Paderborn

Virtual Network Mapping based on Subgraph Isomorphism Detection Jens Lischka, Holger Karl Paderborn University 23.09.2009 Jens Lischka 1 VNM Problem VNR 1(t 0 , 10) PN 2 6 7 5 2 5 4 5 G B C 4 15 0 4 5 5 0 5 7

517 views • 20 slides
201ab Quantitative methods Linear model diagnostics. Model assumptions, in order of importance

201ab Quantitative methods Linear model diagnostics. Model assumptions, in order of importance

201ab Quantitative methods Linear model diagnostics. Model assumptions, in order of importance (1) Validity (2) Additivity and linearity (3) Independent errors (4) Normal errors (5) Homoscedastic errors (6) Error in y, not in x Validity

627 views • 31 slides
A Self-correcting Graph Connected Component Algorithm Piyush Sao, Oded Green, Chirag Jain,

A Self-correcting Graph Connected Component Algorithm Piyush Sao, Oded Green, Chirag Jain,

http://hpcgarage.org/ftxs16/ A Self-correcting Graph Connected Component Algorithm Piyush Sao, Oded Green, Chirag Jain, Richard Vuduc The 6 th Workshop on Fault Tolerance for HPC at eXtreme Scale (FTXS) 2016 http://hpcgarage.org/ftxs16/ Piyush

1.02k views • 59 slides

More recommend