VERIFICATION OF PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION IN PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS NAVNEETA NAVEEN PATHAK Parosh Aziz Abdullah, Giorgio Delzanno, Ahmed.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Model Checking Base on Interoplation
Advertisements

Modeling issues Book: chapters 4.12, 5.4, 8.4, 10.1.
Tintu David Joy. Agenda Motivation Better Verification Through Symmetry-basic idea Structural Symmetry and Multiprocessor Systems Mur ϕ verification system.
CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 8: Automata Theoretic Model Checking Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.
Tree Regular Model Checking P. Abdulla, B. Jonsson, P. Mahata and J. d’Orso Uppsala University.
Translation-Based Compositional Reasoning for Software Systems Fei Xie and James C. Browne Robert P. Kurshan Cadence Design Systems.
Introduction to Formal Methods for SW and HW Development 09: SAT Based Abstraction/Refinement in Model-Checking Roberto Sebastiani Based on work and slides.
Planning based on Model Checking Dept. of Information Systems and Applied CS Bamberg University Seminar Paper Svetlana Balinova.
ECE Synthesis & Verification - L271 ECE 697B (667) Spring 2006 Synthesis and Verification of Digital Systems Model Checking basics.
Temporal Logic and the NuSMV Model Checker CS 680 Formal Methods Jeremy Johnson.
1 Partial Order Reduction. 2 Basic idea P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 a1a1 a2a2 a3a3 a1a1 a1a1 a2a2 a2a2 a2a2 a2a2 a3a3 a3a3 a3a3 a3a3 a1a1 a1a1 3 independent processes.
Parosh Aziz Abdulla Pritha Mahata Aletta Nyl é n Uppsala University Downward Closed Language Generators.
From Monotonic Transition Systems to Monotonic Games Parosh Aziz Abdulla Uppsala University.
Merged Processes of Petri nets Victor Khomenko Joint work with Alex Kondratyev, Maciej Koutny and Walter Vogler.
Regular Model Checking Parosh Aziz Abdulla Uppsala University Cooperation with B. Jonsson, M. Nilsson, J. d’Orso.
Having Proofs for Incorrectness
Reduction of Interpolants for Logic Synthesis John Backes Marc Riedel University of Minnesota Dept.
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
SAT and Model Checking. Bounded Model Checking (BMC) A.I. Planning problems: can we reach a desired state in k steps? Verification of safety properties:
Liveness Counter Abstraction Liveness with Counter Abstraction A mir P nueli, J essie X u and L enore Z uck.
Verification of Parameterized Timed Systems Parosh Aziz Abdulla Uppsala University Johann Deneux Pritha Mahata Aletta Nylen.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli.
1 Basic abstract interpretation theory. 2 The general idea §a semantics l any definition style, from a denotational definition to a detailed interpreter.
Abstractions. Outline Informal intuition Why do we need abstraction? What is an abstraction and what is not an abstraction A framework for abstractions.
Formal Verification Group © Copyright IBM Corporation 2008 IBM Haifa Labs SAT-based unbounded model checking using interpolation Based on a paper “Interpolation.
Abstract Interpretation Part I Mooly Sagiv Textbook: Chapter 4.
Pruning techniques for the SAT-based Bounded Model-Checking problem Ofer Shtrichman Weizmann Institute of Science & IBM - HRL.
1 Formal Engineering of Reliable Software LASER 2004 school Tutorial, Lecture1 Natasha Sharygina Carnegie Mellon University.
CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 13: Bounded Model Checking Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Functions and Limits.
Regular Model Checking Ahmed Bouajjani,Benget Jonsson, Marcus Nillson and Tayssir Touili Moran Ben Tulila
Timed UML State Machines Ognyana Hristova Tutor: Priv.-Doz. Dr. Thomas Noll June, 2007.
Linear and Branching Time Safety, Liveness, and Fairness
Linear Algebra Chapter 4 Vector Spaces.
The importance of sequences and infinite series in calculus stems from Newton’s idea of representing functions as sums of infinite series.  For instance,
HAWKES LEARNING SYSTEMS Students Matter. Success Counts. Copyright © 2013 by Hawkes Learning Systems/Quant Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Section 4.2.
DECIDABILITY OF PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC USING FINITE AUTOMATA Presented by : Shubha Jain Reference : Paper by Alexandre Boudet and Hubert Comon.
MCS 312: NP Completeness and Approximation algorithms Instructor Neelima Gupta
Lecture #5 Properties of hybrid systems João P. Hespanha University of California at Santa Barbara Hybrid Control and Switched Systems.
Defining Programs, Specifications, fault-tolerance, etc.
Data Abstractions for the Verification of Web Service Compositions Raman KazhamiakinMarco Pistore DIT, University.
1 Bisimulations as a Technique for State Space Reductions.
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
Lazy Annotation for Program Testing and Verification Speaker: Chen-Hsuan Adonis Lin Advisor: Jie-Hong Roland Jiang November 26,
Propositional Calculus CS 270: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science Jeremy Johnson.
CS 267: Automated Verification Lecture 3: Fixpoints and Temporal Properties Instructor: Tevfik Bultan.
Hwajung Lee. The State-transition model The set of global states = s 0 x s 1 x … x s m {s k is the set of local states of process k} S0  S1  S2  Each.
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
Compositionality Entails Sequentializability Pranav Garg, P. Madhusudan University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Chapter 8: Relations. 8.1 Relations and Their Properties Binary relations: Let A and B be any two sets. A binary relation R from A to B, written R : A.
SAT-Based Model Checking Without Unrolling Aaron R. Bradley.
This Week Lecture on relational semantics Exercises on logic and relations Labs on using Isabelle to do proofs.
Parosh Aziz Abdulla 1, Mohamed Faouzi Atig 1, Zeinab Ganjei 2, Ahmed Rezine 2 and Yunyun Zhu 1 1. Uppsala University, Sweden 2. Linköping University, Sweden.
CS357 Lecture 13: Symbolic model checking without BDDs Alex Aiken David Dill 1.
Quantified Data Automata on Skinny Trees: an Abstract Domain for Lists Pranav Garg 1, P. Madhusudan 1 and Gennaro Parlato 2 1 University of Illinois at.
Bounded Model Checking A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, Y. Zhu, Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs, TACAS’99 Presented by Daniel Choi Provable Software.
Presented by: Belgi Amir Seminar in Distributed Algorithms Designing correct concurrent algorithms Spring 2013.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 19 Recursive Definitions: Context-Free Grammars and Languages Spring
1 Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus Predicate calculus studies the internal structure of sentences where subjects are applied to predicates existentially.
CIS 540 Principles of Embedded Computation Spring Instructor: Rajeev Alur
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Functions and Limits.
Abstraction and Abstract Interpretation. Abstraction (a simplified view) Abstraction is an effective tool in verification Given a transition system, we.
Induction in CEGAR for Detecting Counterexamples
Modeling Mutual Exclusion Algorithms
Propositional Calculus: Boolean Algebra and Simplification
ITEC452 Distributed Computing Lecture 5 Program Correctness
Resolution Proofs for Combinational Equivalence
MA/CSSE 474 More Math Review Theory of Computation
Linear Time Properties
Predicate Abstraction
Presentation transcript:

VERIFICATION OF PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION IN PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS NAVNEETA NAVEEN PATHAK Parosh Aziz Abdullah, Giorgio Delzanno, Ahmed Rezine

AGENDA  INTRODUCTION  PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  TRANSITION SYSTEMS  ORDERING  MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems2

INTRODUCTION  Monotonic Abstraction as a simple and effective method to prove safety properties for Parameterized Systems with linear topologies.  Main idea : Monotonic Abstraction for considering a transition relation that is an over- approximation of the one induced by the parameterized system. 3Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

MODEL CHECKING + ABSTRACTION Infinite-State System Abstraction Finite-State System Model Checking 4Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

AGENDA  INTRODUCTION  PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  TRANSITION SYSTEMS  ORDERING  MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems 5

PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  AIM : To verify correctness of the systems for the whole family of Parameterized Systems. Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems6 P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 PNPN P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 P4P4 PNPN

A parameterized system P is a triple (Q,X, T ), Q - set of local states, X - set of local variables, T - set of transition rules. A transition rule t is of the form: t: [ q | grd → stmt | q´ ] where q, q´ ϵ Q grd → stmt is a guarded command BG grd ϵ B(X) U G(X U Q) stmt : set of assignments DEFINITION 7Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

V LR V L ∃ L t1t1 t6t6 t2t2 t3t3 t4t4 t5t5 Idle State – Initially all processes are in this state Critical State – Eventually a process will enter this state A process moves from Idle to Black state when it wants to access its critical section. Once a process moves from Black to Blue state, it “closes the door” on all processes in Idle state Parameterized System, P = (Q,T) Q = {Green, Black, Blue, Red} and T = {t 1, t 2, t 3. t 4, t 5, t 6 } where t 2, t 5, t 6 – Local transition rules t 1, t 4 – Universal Rules t 3 – Existential Rule 8Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

AGENDA  INTRODUCTION  PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  TRANSITION SYSTEMS  ORDERING  MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION 9Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

TRANSITION SYSTEMS A transition system T is a pair (C, ⇒ ) where, C - (infinite) set of configurations, ⇒ - binary relation on C, ⇒ * - reflexive transitive closure of ⇒ A configuration c ϵ C is a sequence u 1,......, u n of process states. i.e. corresponding to an instance of the system with n processes. 10Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

The word below represents a configuration in an instance of system with 5 processes. t3t3 Valid Transitions t3t3 Invalid Transitions 11Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

12 Initial Configuration Bad Configuration All configurations that have atleast 2 RED processes AIM : Init * Bad ? 12Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

AGENDA  INTRODUCTION  PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  TRANSITION SYSTEMS  ORDERING  MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION 13Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

ORDERING c 1, c 2 – configurations c 1 ≤ c 2 - c 1 is a subword of c 2 e.g. ≤ Upward Closed Configurations Set U of configurations is upward closed, if whenever c ϵ U and c ≤ c´ then c´ ϵ U. c – configuration, ĉ – denotes upward closed set U:= {c´ | c ≤ c´} ĉ contains all configurations larger than c w.r.t. ordering ≤. i.e. c is the generator of U 14Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

Why Upward Closed Sets ? 1.All sets of Bad configurations (which are worked upon) are upward closed. 2.Upward closed sets have an efficient symbolic representation. i.e. For an upward closed set U, there are configurations c 1,....., c n with U = ĉ 1 U......U ĉ n 15Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

16 Coverability Problem for Parameterized Systems To analyze safety properties. PAR-COV Instance Parameterized System, P = (Q,X,T) C F – upward-closed set of configurations Question Init * C F ?

Backward Reachability Analysis 17Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems For a set of configurations, C Use Pre(C) := {c | ∃c´ ϵ C; c → c´ } IDEA : i.Start with set of bad upward-closed configurations. ii.Apply function Pre repeatedly generating sequence U 0, U 1, U 2,.... where U 0 := Bad, and U i+1 := U i + Pre(U i ) for all i ≥ 0 Observation : set U i characterizes set of configurations from which set Bad is reachable within i steps

18 MONOTONICITY Monotonicity implies that upward closedness is preserved through the application of Pre. Consider: U – upward closed set, c 1 – member of Pre(U) and c 2 ≥ c 1 By Monotonicity, it can be proved that c 2 is also a member of Pre(U) Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems

19 AGENDA  INTRODUCTION  PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS  TRANSITION SYSTEMS  ORDERING  MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION

MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems20 An abstraction that generates over-approximation of the transition systems. The abstract transition system is monotonic. Hence, allowing one to work with upward closed sets. c1c1 c1c1 c1´c1´ c1´c1´ ≥ c2c2 c2c2 A

c 1 = = c 3 21 Local transitions are monotonic! Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems t2t2 Consider the local transition, Configuration c 2 = c 2 = c 4 This leads to c 4 ≥ c 2 and also maintains c 3 ≤ c 4. t2t2

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems22 Existential transitions are monotonic! t3t3 t3t3 Consider the existential transition: c 1 = = c 3 Configuration, c 2 = c 2 = = c 4 Leading to c 4 ≥ c 3

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems23 Non-monotonicity of Universal transitions Consider the following Universal transition: c 1 = = c 3 t 4 can be applied to c 1 as all process in the left context of the active process satisfy the condition of transition. Now consider c 2 = c 1 ≤ c 2 But t 4 is not enabled from c 2 since the left context of the active process violates the conditions of transition. t4t4

1.Work with Abstract transition relation → A. 2. → A is an monotonic abstraction (over-approximation) of the concrete relation →. 3.When t is universal, we have: c 1 → A c 2 iff c 1 ´ → c 2 for some c 1 ´ ≤ c 1 i.e. → A Since ≤ → Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems24 Solution! t t t4t4 t4t4

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems25 Since,  c 1 ≤ c 2  c 1 → A c 3 implies c 2 → A c 3 Hence, Abstract transition relation is Monotonic, w.r.t. Universal Transitions. The Abstract transition relation is and over-approximation of the original transition relation ↓↓ If a safety property holds in the abstract model, then it will also hold in the concrete model. Solution.....

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems26 Coverability Problem for Approximate Systems APRX-PAR-COV Instance Parameterized System, P = (Q,X,T) C F – upward-closed set of configurations Question Init * A C F ?

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems27 A = ( U 1 ) 1 reflects the approximation of universal quantifiers Since ⊆ A A negative answer to APRX-PAR-COV implies a negative answer to PAR-COV.

CONCLUSION Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems28

Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems29  Introduction to our topic.  Overview of Parameterized Systems using a simple example.  (Infinite) Transition Systems arising from parameterized systems.  Introduced Ordering on the set of configurations.  Definiton and explanation of Monotomic Abstraction; based on the parameterized systems example.

Thank you for your attention. Monotonic Abstraction in Parameterized Systems30