Bitstate Hashing

Bitstate Hashing

Presented by Yunho KimProvable Software Lab, KAIST

Contents

Bitstate Hashing, Yunho Kim, Provable Software Lab, KAIST 2/30

• Introduction

• Bitstate hashing

• Multi-bit hashing

• Analysis

• Conclusion

• Explicit model checking problem is reduced to the reachability problem in a state graph

• Explicit model checker enumerate and explore all the states to solve the reachability problem

• To prevent the re-exploration of previously vis-ited states, all the states visited are stored in memory

Introduction


• To enable fast lookup of states, the states are stored in a hash table– Each item in the table and the list is a pointer to a corre-

sponding state

Introduction


hash(s)s

0

h-1

Sorted linked list

• All the states should be stored in another memory storage for resolving hash conflicts– If not so, search algorithm allows false positive

• The effective way to handle large state space is required for scalability

• Mainly two approaches– Reduce the number of states to check

• Partial order reduction, statement merging– Reduce the amount of memory needed to store visited states

• Loseless method: collapse compression, minimized automaton• Lossy method: bitstate hashing, hash compact

Introduction


• Bitstate hashing uses a bit to store a state– The value 1 in a entry indicates that the state is visited

• Each entry in a standard hash table can have ‘sizeof(pointer) £ 8’ bitstate hash entries

Bitstate Hashing


hash(s)s

0

(sizeof(pointer) £ 8 £ h) - 1

Sorted linked list

• Model checking using bitstate hashing is not sound– If hash(s2) = hash(s3) and s2 is visited, s3 is also considered

as a visited state and s6, the violated state, is not reachable

• The main issue of bitstate hashing is to estimate and max-imize its coverage

Bitstate Hashing


S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

• m: the size of a hash table in bits• Assume that hash function is uniformly distributed

• After inserting r states to the hash table, the probability that a specific bit of the hash table is still 0 is

• The probability of a false positive at (r+1)th state is

• The expected number of omissions when attempting to add n distinct states is

Bitstate Hashing


p= (1¡ 1m )r

1¡ p= 1¡ (1¡ 1m )r

P n¡ 1i=0 (1¡ (1¡ 1

m )i )

Bitstate Hashing


• Bitstate hashing has more coverage than exhaus-tive search does with a given fixed amount of memory

2 8 32 128 512 2048

8192327

68131

072524

288

209715

2

838860

8

335544

32

134217

728

536870

912

214748

3648

858993

4592

343597

38368

0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.01%0.10%1.00%

10.00%100.00%

Bitstate hashing compared with exhastive search

ExhaustiveBitstate

Maximum amount of memory (bits)

Expe

cted

cov

erag

e

s: the size of state 320bitsn: the number of states 219

• Original bitstate hashing uses a bit to represent the state is visited or not

• Multi-bit hashing uses multiple independent hash func-tions to minimize hash conflicts – If all the positions from hash functions are set to 1, then

hash conflict occurs

Multi-bit Hashing


s1

h1(s1)=1h

2(s1)=3

0 9

s2

h1(s2)=3h

2(s2)=6

Not conflict Conflict

• m: the size of a hash table in bits• k: the number of independent hash functions used• Assume that all hash functions are uniformly distributed

• After inserting r states, the probability that a specific bit is still 0 is

• The probability of a false positive at (r+1)th states is

Multi-bit Hashing


p= (1¡ 1m )kr

(1¡ p)k = (1¡ (1¡ 1m )kr )k

• m: the size of a hash table in bits• k: the number of independent hash functions used

• The expected number of omissions when attempting to add n distinct states is

• To obtain the best coverage for a fixed m and n, we have to choose appropriate value of k

• The estimate for the best value of k is derived

Multi-bit Hashing


P n¡ 1i=0 (1¡ (1¡ 1

m )ki )k

mn ¢ln2

Multi-bit Hashing


• Multi-bit hashing uses two or more independent hash functions to minimize hash conflicts – It means multi-bit hashing is used to maximize coverage

From Fast and Accurate Bitstate Verification for SPINby Peter C. Dillinger and Panagiotis Manoliosin SPIN 2004

m: 1MB = 223 bitsn: 626,211

Multi-bit Hashing


• Using two independent hash functions for a state is inade-quate for efficiency– The case k=2 takes twice time compared with k=1 for hash

calculation

• Instead, We use double hashing scheme used for hash reso-lution– It shows as good coverage as independent hash functions does

Multi-bit Hashing


Double hash algorithmInputa, b: hash functiond: input valuem: the size of hash tablek: the number of hash functions usedOutputf: array of bit positions

Procedure1 x := a(d)%m2 y := b(d)%m3 f[0] := x4 i := 15 while i < k6 x := (x+y)%m7 f[i] := x8 i := +1

In SPIN, the values of a(d) and b(d) are calcu-lated from Jenkins’ hash function

Multi-bit Hashing


Triple hashing algorithm extended from double hashing al-gorithmInputa, b, c: hash functiond: input valuem: the size of hash tablek: the number of hash functions used

Outputf: array of bit positionsProcedure1 x, y, z := a(d)%m, b(d)%m, c(d)%m2 f[0] := x3 i := 14 while i < k5 x := (x+y)%m6 f[i] := x7 Y := (y+z)%m8 i := i+1

In SPIN, the values of a(d), b(d), and c(d) are calculated from Jenk-ins’ hash function

Multi-bit Hashing


• Experimental results• n = 606,211, m = 224 bits, k=21

Implementa-tion

Coverage (%) Average running time(s)

Independent 93.281 19.88Double Hash-

ing92.793 4.43

Multi-bit Hashing


• Experimental results• n = 606,211, m = 224 bits,

Implementa-tion

Hash func-tions k

Average running time(s)

Double 21 3.78Triple 21 3.84

Double 20 3.61Triple 20 3.73

Independent 21 19.88

Multi-bit Hashing


• Experimental results• n = 606,211, m = 3 £ 8 M bits, k = 30

Implementa-tion

Coverage (%)

Double 97.5Triple 99.99

Conclusion


• Bitstate hashing can give a good coverage in a fixed amount of memory

• Model checking using bitstate hashing is not sound but does not generate an infeasible coun-terexample

• Multi-bit hashing using triple hashing scheme can provide good coverage efficiently

Reference


• The SPIN Model Checkerby Gerard J. HolzmannAddison –Wesley, 2004

• An Analysis of Bitstate Hashingby Gerard J. Holzmannin FMSD 1998

• Fast and Accurate Bitstate Verification for SPINby Peter C. Dillinger and Panagiotis Manolios

in SPIN 2004

Bitstate Hashing

Documents

Transcript of Bitstate Hashing