Cleaveland, R., J. Parrow and B. Steffen. "The Concurrency Workbench." In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for FiniteState Systems, 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, pp. 24--37. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....with prefix [1] 5 Conclusion We have presented the first program for the verification of a new security property of protocols, namely bisimulation based admissible interference or BNAI. Its advantages over general purpose process analysis tools like the Edinburgh Concurrency Workbench (CWB) [3] are applicationspecific diagnostics (nested simulation failures are listed in logical order and related to the outermost BNAI property) graphic output, and a new version applicable to infinitestate processes. The implementation language Objective Caml also provides performance advantages: a ....

R. CLEAVELAND, J. PARROW, AND B. STEFFEN, The concurrency workbench, in Automatic Verification of Finite State Systems, J. Sifakis, ed., Lect. Notes in Comput. Science 407, 1989, pp. 24--37.

....formal verification of hardware components. Many prototipal verification environments are currently available which can be used to automatically verify behavioural and logical properties of reactive and concurrent systems specified by means of process algebrae. Most of these environments (e.g. [9, 10, 17, 11, 4]) use finite state systems to model the systems under investigation and formulae of temporal logics to express properties [19, 26] Usually, given a system, a so called generation phase , based on the operational semantics of the language, allows the corresponding LTS to be derived. When real ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench, in Proc. of Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, LNCS 407, pp. 24-37, 1990.

....paper describes a proof tool specially designed to assist equational reasonings in process algebras. It has been gradually recognized that computer assistance is essential for the analysis of concurrent systems. There already exit a number of proof tools, among them are the Concurrency Workbench [CPS 89] TAV [GLZ 89] and Auto [BRSV 89] Most of these tools are behaviourally based and perform proofs automatically. They interpret processes as labelled transition systems and proofs are established by automatically searching the resulting spaces. Automatic proof tools suffer from the state ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J. and Steffen, B., "The Concurrency Workbench", Proc. of the Workshop on Automated Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, LNCS 407, 1989.

....is analogous to a closure process, but is trivial to construct. In addition, the result holds even if the transition graph of the template process is not finite, provided that it is finite branching. If it is finite, then an automated tool such as SMV [McMillan 92] or the Concurrency Workbench [CPS 89] can be used to model check the desired property for the small ring. This check can be done in time polynomial in the size of a process. An interesting problem to consider is whether there are conditions under which a similar result holds for systems with multiple valued tokens. The simplicity ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B. The Concurrency Workbench. In J.Sifakis (ed), Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 407.

....a suitable behavioural relationship between an implementation and its specification. A number of equivalences has been proposed in the literature (for an overview see [vG90, vG92] and several automated tools support verification for finite state systems based on such equivalences (e.g. LMV88, CPS89, GLZ89, RRSV87] This work has been supported by the Danish Basic Research Foundation project BRICS and the ESPRIT Basic Research Action 7166, CONCUR2. Basic Research in Computer Science, Centre of the Danish National Research Foundation. However, for a tool to be of real assistance during ....

....two systems are found not to be equivalent, one may explain why by giving a formula satisfied by one but not the other. Algorithms for generating distinguishing formulae for finite state systems has been described in [Hil87, Cle90, Kor91, CC92, Pol92] and implemented in at least two tools [GLZ89, CPS89] During the last few years a number of real time process algebras has been introduced in order to handle quantitative aspects of processes [DS89, Wan90, NRSV90, BB89, Che91] In addition a number of time sensitive and time abstracting (bi)simulation equivalences and preorders has been ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. Technical report, LFCS, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1989.

....in nite state space in the following two cases: an in nite number of processes is created the mailbox of a process grows in nitely The rst case is a standard problem for model checkers, which we do not try to solve with more restrictive abstractions here. Like in the concurrency work bench [CPS90], the veri cation process does not terminate in this case. The user has to know, that only a nite number of processes may be spawned. We have not de ned an abstraction here, because we think that it would damage too much, to prove interesting properties. The second cause of an in nite state ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steen. The concurrency workbench. In J. Sifakis, editor, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Automatic Verication Methods for Finite State Systems, volume 407 of LNCS, pages 24-37, Berlin, June 1990. Springer.

....cutoff is analogous to a closure process, but is trivial to construct. In addition, the result holds even if the transition graph of the template process is not finite, provided that it is finite branching. If it is finite, then an automated tool such as SMV [McM92] or the Concurrency Workbench [CPS 89] can be used to model check the desired property for the small ring. This check can be done in time polynomial in the size of a process. An interesting problem to consider is whether there are conditions under which a similar result holds for systems with multiple valued tokens. The simplicity of ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B. The Concurrency Workbench. In J.Sifakis (ed), Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems , Springer-Verlag, LNCS 407.

....In an interesting case study [Walk89] several mutual exclusion algorithms were analyzed. The systems were first modelled with CCS, translated to lts, some properties were then expressed in modal logic and subsequently verified using a model checker available in the Concurrency Workbench [ClPS89]. In addition to a safety property mutual exclusion also a liveness property if an entry to the critical section is requested it is always eventually granted was studied in [Walk89] There the lts s were minimized with respect to observation equivalence [Miln89] which does not preserve the ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., and Steffen, B.: The Concurrency Workbench. In Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pp 11--23, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, Springer-Verlag, 1989.

....cutoff is analogous to a closure process, but is trivial to construct. In addition, the result holds even if the transition graph of the template process is not finite, provided that it is finite branching. If it is finite, then an automated tool such as SMV [McM92] or the Concurrency Workbench [CPS 89] can be used to model check the desired property for the small ring. This check can be done in time polynomial in the size of a process. An interesting problem to consider is whether there are conditions under which a similar result holds for systems with multiple valued tokens. The simplicity ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B. The Concurrency Workbench. In J.Sifakis (ed), Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 407.

.... environments are now available which can be used to verify properties of reactive systems, specified by means of terms belonging to process algebrae and modelled by means of finite state Labelled Transition Systems (automata) with respect to behavioural relations and logical properties [4, 9, 28, 38, 20, 18]. Recently a new verification environment, JACK, 10] was defined to deal with reactive sytems. The purpose of JACK is to provide a general environment that offers a series of functionalities, ranging from the specification of reactive systems to the verification of 2. Background 2 behavioural ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pages 24--37. LNCS, 1989.

....predicates) which are abstract enough to reason on programs and their execution. Process algebras (like as CCS) are formalisms well suited to reason about parallel computations: many properties have been defined on them and a wide set of verification methodologies exist, based on their semantics [11, 19]. Thus, in order to use these models to reason about OR parallel Prolog executions, we give a process interpretation of ORparallel Prolog execution using CHOCS (Calculus of Higher Order Communicating Systems) 24] an extension of CCS, allowing processes to be sent and received as messages. The ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench. In Proc. of Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, volume 407 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

....of such an approach heavily depends on the availability of simple and appealing supporting tools. Our e ort goes in two directions, on one side we are investing on automating our approach and we would also like to take advantage of other existing environments and possibly integrate with them, e.g. [13, 10], on the other we are involved in more experimentation. The latter is not an easy job. Experimenting our approach requires the existence of a correct architectural descrip9 tion and a running implementation. The case study presented here could be carried out since the project was entirely managed ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, B. Steen. The Concurrency Workbench. ACM Toplas 15(1), pp. 36-72, 1993.

....predicates) which are abstract enough to reason on programs and their execution. Process algebras (like as CCS) are formalisms well suited to reason about parallel computations: many properties have been defined on them and a wide set of verification methodologies exist, based on their semantics [11, 19]. Thus, in order to use these models to reason about OR parallel Prolog executions, we give a process interpretation of OR parallel Prolog execution using CHOCS (Calculus of Higher Order Communicating Systems) 24] an extension of CCS, allowing processes to be sent and received as messages. ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench. In Proc. of Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, volume 407 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

....types are also under development and will be combined with TIV by the end of 1997. There are several tools supporting verification of LOTOS specifications: Lite toolset [7] CADP toolset [6] and so on. In designing TIV, we have adopted the interactive verification model of Concurrency Workbench [2] or Concurrency Factory instead of above tools since interactivity and flexibility were what we have aimed at in developing of our toolset. For this purpose, TIV provides a proof language, called PAL (Proof Assistant Language) to assist users in carrying out verifications. PAL includes constructs ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In J. Sifakis, editor, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Automatic Verficiation Methods for Finite State Systems, number 407 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 24--37. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

.... proof that it is a simulation relation (for example, Milner s simulations, Lam and Shankar s protocol projections [LS84] the possibilities mappings of Lynch and Tuttle [LT87] Klarlund and Schneider s invariants [KS89] and the progress measures of Klarlund [Kla90] The Concurrency Workbench [CPS89] is one of several programs that test for simulation preorder between automata. However, none of these can handle large state spaces or liveness properties. For liveness and fairness properties, we are interested in defining simulation relations on Buchi automata (finite automata that accept ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, B. Steffen, "The Concurrency Workbench", Proceedings of the International Workshop on Automatic Verification of Finite State Systems, June 1989, LNCS 407, J. Sifakis (ed.), Springer-Verlag 1989, pp. 24--37.

....future times, they have exactly the same set of nondeterministic choices available. Bisimulation is a meaningful notion in many settings beyond process algebra (e.g. 34,30] It admits several powerful proof methods, and protocol5 verification environments based on bisimulation have been built [16]. Furthermore, bisimulation of n state, m transition processes can be computed in O(m lg n) time [39] making verification of even relatively large protocols a viable possibility. 1 Such a possibility has been realized by Fernandez, who extended the algorithm found in [39] to work with more than ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The Concurrency Workbench. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automated Verification Methods for Finite State Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1989. LNCS 407; to appear in ACM TOPLAS.

....constructed interactively, giving users the freedom to control the proof processes. 1 Introduction It has been gradually recognized that computer assistance is essential for the analysis of concurrent systems. There are already a number of proof tools, among them are the Concurrency Workbench [CPS 89] TAV [GLZ 89] and Auto [BRSV 89] Most of these tools are behaviourally based and perform proofs automatically. They interpret processes as labelled transition systems and proofs are established by automatically searching the resulting spaces. More recently, efforts have been devoted to ....

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J. and Steffen, B., "The Concurrency Workbench", Proc. of the Workshop on Automated Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, LNCS 407, 1989.

....relation which contains them. Example 7 of section 2.4 and example 1 of section 2.6 exemplify this proof technique. In the case that processes are finite state this can be done automatically. There is a variety of tools which include this capability including the Edinburgh Concurrency Workbench [25] which exploits efficient algorithms for checking bisimilarity between finite state processes, as developed in [41] Alternatively equivalence proofs can utilize conditional equational reasoning. There is an assortment of algebraic, and semi algebraic, theories of processes depending on the ....

Cleaveland, R, Parrow, J, and Steffen, B. (1989). The concurrency workbench. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 407, 24-37.

....verification time is considerably reduced. Even for n = 10, the proof ends in ten seconds. 5.2 Mutual exclusion In this section, we show the results of verifying various mutual exclusion algorithms. Algorithms are taken from [15] in which the algorithms are verified on the Concurrency Workbench[7]. We reformulate the algorithms in CSP and check their correctness. We verify six algorithms: algorithms due to Peterson, Dekker, Dijkstra, Knuth, Hyman, and Lamport. All the algorithms consist of two processes with some initial assignment commands. They all use shared variables to achieve mutual ....

....algorithm with some optimization techniques. Independently of us, he mentions the use of database. Winskel[16] proposes a local model checker in the modal nu calculus, which is the dual of the modal mu calculus. The local model checking algorithm has been implemented in Concurrency Workbench[7] by Cleaveland et al. The main difference between Concurrency Workbench and our system is that we employ CSP as its target language, which has internal states (variables) Thus, our system can be viewed as implementing the model checker for a static version of value passing CCS. Clarke et al. 4] ....

Cleaveland, R., J. Parrow, and B. Steffen "The Concurrency Workbench," Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, pp. 24--37 (1989).

....partial decision procedure. This is because the problem might be as well undecidable, our heuristics may fail, or because there may be theorems for which there is not a proof expressed as a veri cation plan. These features are not shared by many of the related approaches. The Concurrency Workbench [16], TAV [23] and the FC2Tools package [6] including other toolsets where these have been embedded, e.g. JACK [5] support automatic, equivalence based veri cation of FSSs, speci ed as process algebra terms. These tools are all restricted to a very simple language. Value passing, even if con ned ....

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow and B. Steen. The concurrency workbench. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Automatic Verication Methods for Finite State Systems. LNCS, Vol. 7, pages 24-37, Springer-Verlag, June 1990.

....input formalisms, 2 on their specific functionalities, and on their possible interfaces. The conclusion contains a tentative comparison of the tools, and the annex contains a list of addresses where one can get more information on the tools. 2 The Concurrency Workbench The Concurrency Workbench [12, 13] is an extensible tool for verifying systems written in CCS. It is developed in collaboration by University of Edinburg, University of Sussex, North Carolina State University, and the Swedish Institute for Computer Science (SICS) In contrast with other process algebra tools [3, 36] which ....

R. J. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite-State Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

No context found.

Cleaveland, R., J. Parrow and B. Steffen. "The Concurrency Workbench." In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for FiniteState Systems, 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, pp. 24--37. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

....to be deemed correct when they provide at least the behavior stipulated by a partial process specification. Formulas, on the other hand, allow one to establish whether specific properties hold of implementations. In the case of finite state processes, these techniques may be automated [BSV, CES, CPS1, CPS2, Fe, MSGS, RRSV]. In this paper we present a linear time model checking algorithm for a variant of the modal mucalculus [Ko, Sti, PS] and illustrate how it may be used to compute behavioral preorders efficiently. The latter result relies on the fact that the logic is expressive enough to characterize processes ....

....formula [AC] ffl may be used to compute preorders between processes. The resulting preorder checker, which works by constructing characteristic formulas, is linear in the product of the sizes of the argument processes. This also improves on the known complexity results about preorder checking ([CPS1, CPS2]) The remainder of the paper develops as follows. The next section presents our process model (transition systems) and logic. The section following then describes our model checking algorithm, while Section 4 details the application of this algorithm to the computation of equivalences and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J. and Steffen, B. "The Concurrency Workbench." In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite-State Systems, 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, pp. 24--37. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

No context found.

R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow and B. Steffen, `The concurrency workbench', in J. Sifakis, ed., Automatic Verification of Finite State Systems, Springer-Verlag LNCS, 407, pp 24--37, 1989.

No context found.

R. J. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite-State Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC