Model Checking of of Timed Systems Rajeev Alur University of Pennsylvania

1

Model Checking ofof Timed Systems

Rajeev Alur

University of Pennsylvania

2

Model Checker

AdvantagesAutomated formal verification, Effective debugging tool

Traditional: Finite-state systems (Boolean vars)Enumerative search with reduction heuristics: Spin, MurphiSymbolic search using BDDs: SMV, Cospan, VIS, Mocha

Hybrid and Real-Time SystemsContinuous variables make state-space infiniteTimed automata: Decidability results, Efficient symbolic data

structures

model

temporalproperty

yes

error-trace

3

Talk Outline

Timed Automata: Syntax and Semantics Specification Logic: Timed CTL Decidability: Region-based partitioning Efficient Implementation: Zones and DBMs

UPPAAL (www.docs.uu.se/docs/rtmv/uppaal)Talk draft: Thanks to Kim Larsen and Paul

Pettersson

4

UPPAAL

5

Off Light Brightpress? Press?

press?

Press?

WANT: if press is issued twice quickly then the light will get brighter; otherwise the light is turned off.

Timed AutomataIntelligent Light Control

6

Timed AutomataIntelligent Light Control

Off Light Bright

Solution: Add real-valued clock x

X:=0X<=3

X>3

press? Press?

press?

Press?

7

Timed Automata

n

m

a

(Alur & Dill 1990)

Clocks: x, y

x<=5 & y>3

x := 0

Guard Boolean combination of comparisons withinteger bounds

ResetAction performed on clocks

( n , x=2.4 , y=3.1415 ) ( n , x=3.5 , y=4.2415 )

e(1.1)

Transitions

( n , x=2.4 , y=3.1415 ) ( m , x=0 , y=3.1415 )

a

State ( location , x=v , y=u ) where v,u are in R

Actionused

for synchronization

8

n

m

a

Clocks: x, y

x<=5 & y>3

x := 0

Transitions

( n , x=2.4 , y=3.1415 ) ( n , x=3.5 , y=4.2415 )

e(1.1)

( n , x=2.4 , y=3.1415 )

e(3.2)

x<=5

y<=10

LocationInvariants

g1g2 g3

g4

Invariants ensure progress!!

Timed Safety Automata Timed Automata + Invariants

(Henzinger et al, 1992)

9

Clock Constraints

What can you express: Constant lower and upper bounds on delays

Why the restricted syntax: slight generalizations (e.g. allowingx=2y) lead to undecidable model checking problems

10

Timed (Safety) Automata

11

Light Switch

Switch may be turned on whenever at least 2 time units has elapsed since last “turn off”

Light automatically switches off after 9 time units.

push

pushclick

12

Semanticsclock valuations:state:Semantics of timed automata is a

labeled transition systemwhere

action transition

delay Transition

)(),( CVvandLlwherevl

})(|),({ LlandCVvvlS

0:)( RCvCV

),( S

0')')((

),(),(

RddwheneverdvlInv

iffdvlvl d

g a rl l’

)')('(][')(

)','(),(

vlInvandrvvandvg

iffvlvl a

13

Semantics: Example

...)9,0,()9),3(9,(

)3,3,(),0,(

),()0,(

)5.3,()0,(

)3(93

5.3

yxoffyxon

yxonyxon

yxonyxon

yxoffyxoff

click

push

push

push

pushclick

9y

14

Timed Automata in UPPAAL

Communicating Timed Safety Automata+ urgent actions+ urgent locations (i.e. zero-delay locations)+ committed locations (i.e. zero-delay and atomic locations)+ data-variables (integers with bounded domains)+ arrays of data-variables+ guards and assignments over data-variables and arrays...

Larsen et al, 1996

15

TCTL = CTL + Time

inz

clocksformulaDz

nspropositioautomicAPp

,,

,,

constraints over formula clocks and automata clocks

“freeze operator” introduces new formula clock z

E[ U ], A[ U ] - like in CTL

No EX

Alur, Courcoubetis, Dill, 1991

16

Derived Operators

Along any path holds continuously until within 7 time units

becomes valid.

=

=

The property becomes valid within 5 time units.

17

TCTL Semanticss - location

w - formula clock valuation

PM(s) - set of paths from s

Pos() - positions in ,i) - elapsed time

(i,d) <<(i’,d’) iff (i<j) or ((i=j) and (d<d’))

18

Timeliness Properties

receive(m) occurs within 5 time units after send(m)

receive(m) occurs exactly 11 time units after send(m)

putbox occurs periodically (exactly) every 25 time units

(note: other putbox’s may occur in between)

19

A1 B1 CS1V:=1 V=1

A2 B2 CS2V:=2 V=2

Init V=1

2´

VCriticial Section

Fischer’s ProtocolA simple MUTEX Algorithm

21 CSCS AG

20

A1 B1 CS1V:=1 V=1

A2 B2 CS2V:=2 V=2

Init V=1

2´

VCriticial Section

Fischer’s ProtocolA simple MUTEX Algorithm

Y<1

X:=0

Y:=0

X>1

Y>1

X<1

12

212

21

CS

CSCS

CSCS

EF

AF

AG

21

Infinite State Space?

22

RegionsFinite partitioning of state space

x

y ”Desired equivalence”

.properties

samesatisfy and

or

automata. timed

any of locationany for

iff

(l,w')(l,w)

l

w'lBehwl Behww ),(),('

1 2 3

1

2

'ww

23

RegionsFinite partitioning of state space

x

y Definition

max

'

n

nxxnx

w'www

jii

where

and

form the

of conditions same exact the

satisfy and iff

An equivalence class (i.e. a region)in fact there is only a finite number of regions!!

1 2 3

1

2

24

RegionsFinite partitioning of state space

x

y

An equivalence class (i.e. a region)

Successor regions, Succ(r)

r

1 2 3

1

2

Resetregions

{y}r

{x}r

25

Properties of Regions

The region equivalence relation is a time-abstract bisimulation: Action transitions: If w v and (l,w) -a-> (l’,w’)

for some w’, then v’ w’ s.t. (l,v) -a-> (l’,v’) Delay transitions: If w v then for all real

numbers d, there exists d’ s.t. w+d v+d’ If w v then (l,w) and (l,v) satisfy the

same TCTL formulas

26

Region graph of a simple timed automata

27

Fischers again A1 B1 CS1V:=1 V=1

A2 B2 CS2V:=2 V=2Y<1

X:=0

Y:=0

X>1

Y>1

X<1

21 CSCS AG

A1,A2,v=1

A1,B2,v=2

A1,CS2,v=2

B1,CS2,v=1

CS1,CS2,v=1

Untimed case

A1,A2,v=1x=y=0

A1,A2,v=10 <x=y <1

A1,A2,v=1x=y=1

A1,A2,v=11 <x,y

A1,B2,v=20 <x<1

y=0

A1,B2,v=20 <y < x<1

A1,B2,v=20 <y < x=1

y=0

A1,B2,v=20 <y<1

1 <x

A1,B2,v=21 <x,y

A1,B2,v=2y=11 <x

A1,CS2,v=21 <x,y

No further behaviour possible!!

Timed case

PartialRegion Graph

28

Roughly speaking....

Model checking a timed automata against a TCTL-formula amounts to

model checking its region graph against a CTL-formula

Model checking a timed automata against a TCTL-formula amounts to

model checking its region graph against a CTL-formula

29

Problem to be solved

Model Checking TCTL is PSPACE-complete

30

ZonesSymbolic computation

State(n, x=3.2, y=2.5 )

x

y

x

y

Symbolic state (set)(n, )

Zone:conjunction ofx-y<=n, x<=>n

3y4,1x1

31

Symbolic Transitions

n

m

x>3

y:=0

x

ydelays to

x

y

x

y conjuncts to

x

y

projects to

1<=x<=41<=y<=3

1<=x, 1<=y-2<=x-y<=3

3<x, 1<=y-2<=x-y<=3

3<x, y=0

Thus (n,1<=x<=4,1<=y<=3) =a => (m,3<x, y=0)

a

32

Forward Rechability

Passed

WaitingFinal

Init

INITIAL Passed := Ø; Waiting := {(n0,Z0)}

REPEAT - pick (n,Z) in Waiting - if for some Z’ Z (n,Z’) in Passed then STOP - else (explore) add

{ (m,U) : (n,Z) => (m,U) } to Waiting; Add (n,Z) to Passed

UNTIL Waiting = Ø or Final is in Waiting

Init -> Final ?

33

Forward Rechability

Passed

Waiting Final

Init

n,Z

INITIAL Passed := Ø; Waiting := {(n0,Z0)}

REPEAT - pick (n,Z) in Waiting - if for some Z’ Z (n,Z’) in Passed then STOP - else (explore) add

{ (m,U) : (n,Z) => (m,U) } to Waiting; Add (n,Z) to Passed

UNTIL Waiting = Ø or Final is in Waiting

n,Z’

Init -> Final ?

34

Forward Rechability

Passed

Waiting Final

Init

n,Z

INITIAL Passed := Ø; Waiting := {(n0,Z0)}

REPEAT - pick (n,Z) in Waiting - if for some Z’ Z (n,Z’) in Passed then STOP - else /explore/ add

{ (m,U) : (n,Z) => (m,U) } to Waiting; Add (n,Z) to Passed

UNTIL Waiting = Ø or Final is in Waiting

n,Z’

m,U

Init -> Final ?

35

Forward Rechability

Passed

Waiting Final

Init

INITIAL Passed := Ø; Waiting := {(n0,Z0)}

REPEAT - pick (n,Z) in Waiting - if for some Z’ Z (n,Z’) in Passed then STOP - else /explore/ add

{ (m,U) : (n,Z) => (m,U) } to Waiting; Add (n,Z) to Passed

UNTIL Waiting = Ø or Final is in Waiting

n,Z’

m,U

n,Z

Init -> Final ?

36

Bellman 1958, Dill 1989

x<=1y-x<=2z-y<=2z<=9

x<=1y-x<=2z-y<=2z<=9

x<=1y-x<=2y<=3z-y<=2z<=7

x<=1y-x<=2y<=3z-y<=2z<=7

D1

D2

When are two sets of constraints equivalent?

x x

0 y

z

1 2

29

ShortestPath

Closure

ShortestPath

Closure

0 y

z

1 2

25

0

x

y

z

1 2

27

0

x

y

z

1 2

25

3

3 3

Graph

Graph

Canonical Dastructures for ZonesDifference Bounded Matrices

37

Difference Bounds Matrices

Matrix representation of constraints (bounds on a single clock or difference betn 2 clocks)

Reduced form obtained by running all-pairs shortest path algorithm

Reduced DBM is canonical Operations such as reset, time-successor,

inclusion, intersection are efficientPopular choice in timed-automata-based

tools

38

Summary

Applications of Uppaal and KronosPhilips bounded retransmission protocolAsynchronous circuits (STARI communication)Timing analysis of Esterel+C code

Research theme 1: Efficient representation of Clock constraints + Boolean constraints

Research theme 2: Automatic abstractions of complex dynamics by timed automata