Changeset 101 for papers/FDL2012/FDL2012.tex
- Timestamp:
- Jul 19, 2012, 11:44:48 AM (12 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
papers/FDL2012/FDL2012.tex
r95 r101 32 32 \newcommand{\remark}[2]{\textcolor{blue}{#1: #2}} 33 33 34 34 %\vspace*{-15mm} 35 35 \title{ An efficient refinement strategy exploiting component properties in a CEGAR process} 36 %\name{Syed Hussein S. ALWI, C\'{e}cile BRAUNSTEIN and Emmanuelle ENCRENAZ}36 \name{Syed Hussein S. ALWI, C\'{e}cile BRAUNSTEIN and Emmanuelle ENCRENAZ} 37 37 % \thanks{This work was supported by...}} 38 %\address{Universit\'{e} Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, \\39 %LIP6-SOC (CNRS UMR 7606), \\40 %4, place Jussieu, \\41 %75005 Paris, FRANCE. }42 \name{Removed for blind review}43 \address{ }38 \address{Universit\'{e} Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, \\ 39 LIP6-SOC (CNRS UMR 7606), \\ 40 4, place Jussieu, \\ 41 75005 Paris, FRANCE. } 42 %\name{Removed for blind review} 43 %\address{ } 44 44 45 45 \begin{document} … … 49 49 50 50 \begin{abstract} 51 Embedded systems are usually composed of several components and in practice, these components generally have been independently verified to ensure that they respect their specifications before being integrated into a larger system. Therefore, we would like to exploit the specification (i.e. verified CTL properties) of the components in the objective of verifying a global property of the system. A complete concrete system may not be directly verifiable due to the state explosion problem, thus abstraction and eventually refinement process are required. In this paper, we propose a technique to select properties in order to generate a good abstraction and reduce refinement iterations. We have conducted several preliminary experimentations which show sthat our approach is promising in comparison to other abstraction-refinement techniques implemented in VIS \cite{ucberkeley96vis}.51 Embedded systems are usually composed of several components and in practice, these components generally have been independently verified to ensure that they respect their specifications before being integrated into a larger system. Therefore, we would like to exploit the specification (i.e. verified CTL properties) of the components in the objective of verifying a global property of the system. A complete concrete system may not be directly verifiable due to the state explosion problem, thus abstraction and eventually refinement process are required. In this paper, we propose a technique to select properties in order to generate a good abstraction and reduce refinement iterations. We have conducted several preliminary experimentations which show that our approach is promising in comparison to other abstraction-refinement techniques implemented in VIS \cite{ucberkeley96vis}. 52 52 \end{abstract} 53 53 … … 90 90 which is well adapted for compositional embedded systems. This verification 91 91 technique is compatible and suits well in the natural development process of 92 complex systems. Our preliminary experimental results show san interesting93 performance in terms of duration of abstraction generation and the number of refinement iteration. Fu thermore, this technique enables us to overcome repetitive counterexamples due to the presence of cycles in the system's graph.92 complex systems. Our preliminary experimental results show an interesting 93 performance in terms of duration of abstraction generation and the number of refinement iteration. Furthermore, this technique enables us to overcome repetitive counterexamples due to the presence of cycles in the system's graph. 94 94 95 95 Nevertheless, in order to function well, this refinement technique requires a 96 complete specification of every components of the concrete model. Futhermore,96 well constituted specification of every components of the concrete model. Furthermore, 97 97 it may be possible that none of the properties available is capable of 98 98 eliminating the counterexample which is probably due to an incomplete … … 100 100 local properties. In this case, other refinement techniques such as the 101 101 refinement by eliminating the counterexample only, or the identification of a 102 good set of local properties to be integr eted simultaneously, should be considered.102 good set of local properties to be integrated simultaneously, should be considered. 103 103 We are currently investigating other complementary techniques to overcome these particular cases. 104 A complementary approach consists in improving the specification of the 105 model~: at the component level, or for groups of components. The work of 106 Kroening \cite{pwk2009-date} could help us in this direction. 104 The work of Kroening \cite{pwk2009-date}, for example, could also help us in improving the specification of the 105 model: at the component level, or for groups of components. 107 106 108 %footnote for Table 1 109 \footnotetext[1]{Computed on a calculation server: 2x Xeon X5650, 72Go RAM} 107 %A complementary approach consists in improving the specification of the 108 %model~: at the component level, or for groups of components. The work of 109 %Kroening \cite{pwk2009-date} could help us in this direction. 110 111 112 110 113 111 114 %\begin{thebibliography} … … 118 121 %\end{thebibliography} 119 122 120 123 %footnote for Table 1 124 \footnotetext[1]{Computed on a calculation server: 2x Xeon X5650, 72Go RAM} 121 125 122 126 \end{document}
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.