The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs
Abstract
Symbolic Model Checking [3,14] has proven to be a powerful technique for the verification of reactive systems.BDDs [2] have traditionally been used as a symbolic representation of the system.In this paper we show how boolean decision procedures, like Stålmarck's Method [16] or the Davis & Putnam Procedure [7], can replace BDDs.This new technique avoids the space blow up of BDDs, generates counterexamples much faster, and sometimes speeds up the verification.In addition, it produces counterexamples of minimal length.We introduce a bounded model checking procedure for LTL which reduces model checking to propositional satisfiability.We show that bounded LTL model checking can be done without a tableau construction.We have implemented a model checker BMC, based on bounded model checking, and preliminary results are presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation
Bryant (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Computers · doi:10.1109/tc.1986.1676819 · Cited by 8,891
Symbolic model checking: 1020 States and beyond
Burch, J. R., Clarke, E. M., McMillan, K. L., Dill, D. L., & Hwang, L. J. (1992) · Information and Computation · doi:10.1016/0890-5401(92)90017-a · Cited by 2,703
A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory
Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/321033.321034 · Cited by 2,647
Model checking and abstraction
Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., & Long, D. E. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/186025.186051 · Cited by 1,211
The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics
Sistla, A. P., & Clarke, E. M. (1985) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3828.3837 · Cited by 1,095
Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem
McMillan, K. L. (1992) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 979
Pushing the envelope: planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search
Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1996) · Cited by 830
Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification
Lichtenstein, O., & Pnueli, A. (1985) · ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) · doi:10.1145/318593.318622 · Cited by 621
SATO: An efficient propositional prover
Zhang, H. (1997) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-63104-6_28 · Cited by 515
Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching Time Temporal Logic
Clarke, E. M., & Emerson, E. A. (2018) · doi:10.1184/r1/6604769 · Cited by 359
Cited by
Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2004) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37 · Cited by 2,629
A Tool for Checking ANSI-C Programs
Clarke, E., Kroening, D., & Lerda, F. (2004) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24730-2_15 · Cited by 1,408
The Quest for Efficient Boolean Satisfiability Solvers
Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45657-0_2 · Cited by 279
A general approach to network configuration verification
Beckett, R., Gupta, A., Mahajan, R., & Walker, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication · doi:10.1145/3098822.3098834 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clark, E., & Zhu, Y.
- Publisher
- Defense Technical Information Center
- Published
- 1999-01-04
- OpenAlex
- W4231640108
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 12
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.21236/ada360973
- The paper
- Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clark, E., & Zhu, Y. (1999). Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada360973
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
