Toward diagrammability and efficiency in event-sequence languages

Many industrial verification teams are developing suitable event-sequence languages for hardware verification. Such languages must be expressive, designer friendly, and hardware specific, as well as efficient to verify. While the formal verification community has formal models for assessing the efficiency of an event-sequence language, none of these models also accounts for designer friendliness. We propose an intermediate language for event sequences that addresses both concerns. The language achieves usability through a correlation to timing diagrams; its efficiency arises from its mapping into deterministic weak automata. We present the language, relate it to existing event-sequence languages, and prove its relationship to deterministic weak automata. These results indicate that timing diagrams can become more expressive while remaining more efficient for symbolic model checking than LTL.

[1]  Ekkart Rudolph,et al.  Message Sequence Chart (MSC) - A Survey of the new CCITT Language for the Description to Traces within Communications Systems , 1992, FBT.

[2]  Louise E. Moser,et al.  A real-time interval logic and its decision procedure , 1993, FSTTCS.

[3]  David Harel,et al.  LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[4]  M. Maidi.  The common fragment of CTL and LTL , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  Freedom, weakness, and determinism: from linear-time to branching-time , 1998, Proceedings. Thirteenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36226).

[6]  Kathi Fisler.  An Event Sequence Language and its Relationship to Weak Automata , 2003 .

[7]  Kedar S. Namjoshi,et al.  Efficient Decompositional Model Checking for Regular Timing Diagrams , 1999, CHARME.

[8]  Zohar Manna,et al.  Specification and verification of concurrent programs by A∀automata , 1987, POPL '87.

[9]  Monika Maidl,et al.  The Common Fragment of CTL and LTL , 2000, FOCS.

[10]  Kavita Ravi,et al.  Efficient Decision Procedures for Model Checking of Linear Time Logic Properties , 1999, CAV.

[11]  Dimitra Giannakopoulou,et al.  Fluent model checking for event-based systems , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[12]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  Branching vs. Linear Time: Final Showdown , 2001, TACAS.

[13]  Kedar S. Namjoshi,et al.  Visual Specifications for Modular Reasoning about Asynchronous Systems , 2002, FORTE.

[14]  Avner Landver,et al.  The ForSpec Temporal Logic: A New Temporal Property-Specification Language , 2002, TACAS.

[15]  Alan J. Hu,et al.  High-Level specification and automatic generation of IP interface monitors , 2002, DAC '02.

[16]  Eduard Cerny,et al.  Hierarchical Annotated Action Diagrams , 1998 .

[17]  Kathi Fisler,et al.  Timing Diagrams: Formalization and Algorithmic Verification , 1999, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[18]  Bernhard Josko,et al.  A Visual Fomalism for Real-Time Requirement Specifications , 1997, ARTS.

[19]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Words, Proofs and Diagrams , 2002 .

[20]  Marsha Chechik,et al.  Events in linear-time properties , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[21]  Ganesh Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Live sequence charts applied to hardware requirements specification and verification , 2005, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[22]  J. Cheney,et al.  A sequent calculus for nominal logic , 2004, LICS 2004.