K.G. Larsen, B. Steen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition sytems. In Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS'95, volume 1019 of LNCS, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....logic is most adequate. Combination of Theorem Proving and Model Checking. In recent years, abstraction techniques have been proposed in order to integrate theorem proving and model checking in such a way, that more than just the sum of the parts is obtained [CGL92, LGS 95, Kur87, DGG97, SLW95, Wol86] The idea is to reduce the original system to a smaller model via interactive proof techniques. In a second step, the smaller system is analyzed using automatic tools. Usually, the smaller system is obtained by partitioning the original state space via a structure preserving function ....

....checking. The advantages of each approach are well known: model checking is automatic but limited to systems of relatively small finite state space, theorem proving requires user interaction but can deal with arbitrary systems. Abstraction techniques [CGL92, LGS 95, GL93, Mer97, Kur87, DGG97, SLW95, Wol86, MN95, HS96] promise to integrate the two approaches: in a first step, the original system C is reduced to a smaller model A. If C is large or infinite, this step will in general require interactive proof techniques. In a second step, the smaller system A is analyzed using automatic ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

B. Steffen, K.G. Larsen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

....hypotheses. 6 This is not a formal result; in fact, the size of S, and still more the sizes of I and V depend on the kind of notations used to write them. Canonical forms exist, but their use often leads to longer formulas than more specific notation. 7 This problem has been formalized in [21]. 6 3 A classification algorithm 3.1 Introduction We have seen that, except for small, abstract programs, the number of assertions in an invariant can be large. However, each assertion is rather short and mentions only few program variables and, similarly, each program transition alters only ....

....so only small concurrent systems can be realistically checked in this way. Nevertheless, good results can be obtained with a little interaction between the theorem prover and the user (see e.g. 23] It is also possible to combine finite state methods with automated theorem proving (see e.g. [21, 22]) ....

K. Larsen, B. Steffen and C. Weise, A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transitions systems, Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci. 1019 (1995) 17-40.

....leading away from it for every possible action in L. Following any of the transitions we have added, the process evolves to Omega (this is in fact a relatively standard technique in process algebra which is used to enable parts of specifications to be extended when refining, see for example [LSW94]) Using the fact that any behaviour reduces Omega Gamma these two processes are now related in the way we wish; with the addition of undefined behaviour Buf2 is both a reduction and a subtype of Buf1 . To justify this, firstly observe that the traces of T (Buf2 ) and T (Buf1 ) we will define ....

K.G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. Technical Report RS-94-47, University of Aarhus, 1994.

....Theorem proving, however, is in a sense complementary: it requires user interaction but can deal with systems of arbitrary size. Abstractions provide conditions that ensure the correctness of such simplifications, and so abstraction techniques [CGL92, LGS 95, GL93, Ml98b, Mer97, Kur87, DGG97, SLW95, Wol86, MN95, HS96] promise to combine the advantages of both approaches. Within the project Quest we decided to support abstractions related to certain properties, this gives us a very powerful tool for reducing complex systems, to their critical core. First we will propose a customized ....

B. Steffen, K.G. Larsen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40. Springer-Verlag, 1995. 131

....from binary consistency when we wish to extend the functionality of only one of the original specifications. Well a possible approach to this is to adapt the original specifications using undefined behaviour and to do away with extension. This is an approach that has been used elsewhere [9] [35] in order to enable functionality extension in process algebra refinement methods. To illustrate this approach, consider the following simple specification: P : a; B [ b; B 0 30 as it stands P will initially refuse any action other than a or b. In addition, any specification, Q say, that ....

K.G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. Technical Report RS-94-47, University of Aarhus, 1994.

....is made between required and allowed transitions. Bisimulation equivalence is then generalised to a refinement relation that ensures that the more concrete specification requires more and allows less. It is also possible to define the equivalent of logical conjunction operationally in this model [LSW95]. In fact, it has been shown that the specification technique thus obtained is as expressive as a restricted version of HML [BL92] The restriction is caused by the inability to adequately express disjunction. However, modal transition systems can be extended with disjunction in the same way we ....

K.G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In E. Brinksma, editor, TACAS'95, LNCS 1019, pages 17--40, 1995.

....Theorem proving, however, is in a sense complementary: it requires user interaction but can deal with systems of arbitrary size. Abstractions provide conditions that ensure the correctness of such simplifications, and so abstraction techniques [CGL92, LGS 95, GL93, Ml98b, Mer97, Kur87, DGG97, SLW95, Wol86, MN95, HS96] promise to combine the advantages of both approaches. Within the project Quest we decided to support abstractions related to certain properties, this gives us a very powerful tool for reducing complex systems, to their critical core. First we will propose a customized ....

B. Steffen, K.G. Larsen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40. Springer-Verlag, 1995. 97

....have been reported in the literature (see e.g. 14,27,28] Best experiments correspond to non trivial, but rather 6 In the example above, only one hypothesis out of seven was needed, plus a few additional assertions induced by the propositional coding. 7 This problem has been formalized in [22]. short programs and properties. In fact, such provers can deal with far deeper mathematical formulas than verification conditions, but they are not able to deal quickly with very long formulas, for an obvious reason. Even in the pure propositional case, the validity problem is NP complete, so ....

....so only small concurrent systems can be realistically checked in this way. Nevertheless, good results can be obtained with a little interaction between the theorem prover and the user (see e.g. 24] It is also possible to combine finite state methods with automated theorem proving (see e.g. [22,23]) ....

K. Larsen, B. Steffen and C. Weise, A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transitions systems, in : Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 1019 (Springer, Berlin, 1995) 17-40.

....distributed systems: theorem proving and model checking. The advantages of each approach are well known: model checking is automatic but limited to systems of relatively small finite state space, theorem proving requires user interaction but can deal with arbitrary systems. Abstraction techniques [4, 12, 18, 9, 5, 25] promise to integrate the two approaches: in a first step, the original system C is reduced to a smaller model A. If C is large or infinite, this step will in general require interactive proof techniques. In a second step, the smaller system A is analyzed using automatic tools. Usually, the ....

....specifications. From a practical point of view, however, we argue that it is more adequate to treat safety aspects with explicit automata and to use temporal formulas merely for liveness conditions. Orthogonal to our theory are approaches that deal with data abstraction and data independence [25, 26]. They would correspond to a notion of action refinement, just like our abstraction theory corresponds to state refinement. Up to our knowledge, however, such notions do not exist for I O automata. Further work should investigate how interface refinement available for other formalisms, e.g. for ....

B. Steffen, K. Larsen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

....The main disadvantage of his method is that the algorithm is exponential in the size of the assumptions about the environment. Other methods try to avoid the state explosion problem using preorders for verification [GoW91, Pel93, Val93] where unnecessary interleavings of actions are suppressed. In [LSW94] a constraint oriented state based proof methodology for concurrent software systems is presented which exploits compositionality and abstraction for the reduction of the (possibly infinite) verification problem under consideration. There, Modal Transition Systems are used for fine granular, loose ....

Larsen, K. G., Steffen, B. and Weise, C.: A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994. S. Graf et al.

....where total refinements ( implementations) will exhibit such desired properties. The aim of this paper is to present a uniform way of describing, abstracting, and analyzing systems from three different points of view: the ordinary labeled Kripke structures, the modal transition systems found in [LT88, Lar89, LSW95], and interval transition systems a special case of the probabilistic specifications in [JL91] The latter models have transitions of the form s a [x;y] s 0 . Intuitively, x is the guaranteed (minimal) likelihood of the transition s a s 0 to occur; dually, y expresses the ....

K. G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A Constraint Oriented Proof Methodology based on Modal Transition Systems. In Proceedings 1st Workshop Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40, 1995.

....refinements ( implementations) will exhibit such desired properties. The aim of this paper is to present a uniform way of describing, abstracting, and analyzing systems from three different points of view: the ordinary labeled Kripke structures, the modal transition systems found in [LT88, Lar89, LSW95] and interval transition systems a special case of the probabilistic specifications in [JL91] The latter models have transitions of the form s a [x;y] s 0 . Our chief interpretation of such transitions is that x is a greatest lower bound guar2 antee of the transition s a s 0 ....

K. G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A Constraint Oriented Proof Methodology based on Modal Transition Systems. In Proceedings 1st Workshop Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17--40, 1995.

....a distributed system potentially increases exponentially in the number of its parallel components. To overcome this problem techniques have been developed in order to avoid the construction of the complete state graph (cf. BFH90, CLM89, CR94, CS90b, DGG93, Fer88, GL93, GP93, Jos87, KM89, Kru89, LSW94, LT88, LX90, Pnu90, SG89, SG90, Val93, Wal88, Win90, WL89] In this paper we present a method for the compositional minimization of finite state distributed systems, which is practically motivated by the following observation: For the verification of a system it is usually sufficient to ....

....The main disadvantage of his method is that the algorithm is exponential in the size of the assumptions about the environment. Other methods try to avoid the state explosion problem using preorders for verification [GP93, GW91, Val93] where unnecessary interleavings of actions are suppressed. In [LSW94] a constraint oriented state based proof methodology for concurrent software systems is presented which exploits compositionality and abstraction for the reduction of the (possibly infinite) verification problem under consideration. There, Modal Transition Systems are used for fine granular, ....

K. G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994.

....which must be proved in a separate step. However, this algorithm is exponential in the size of the assumptions. Other methods try to avoid the state explosion problem using preorders [GW91, Pel93, Val93] where unnecessary interleavings of actions are eliminated during the construction. In [LSW94] a constraint oriented state based proof methodology is presented which exploits compositionality and abstraction for the reduction of the (possibly infinite) verification problem under consideration. There, Modal Transition Systems are used for fine granular, loose state based specifications of ....

K. G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994.

....to a small finite size. After the reduction process, the resulting simplified problems can hopefully be solved automatically. In the example we used the verification tool Epsilon ( CGL93] to establish the required refinements. Further application examples of our method can be found in [LSW95a, LSW95b]. Our proof methodology is not complete, i.e. there is neither a guarantee for the existence of a finite state reduction nor a straightforward method for finding the right amount of separation for the success of the subsequent steps or the adequate abstraction for the final verification. Still, ....

....prover Isabelle ( Pau94] to verify these conditions. Note that the problem with these conditions is that although they are simple, in general they involve infinite sets. Beside the specification and verification of the RPC Memory Problem, additional case studies of our method can be found in [LSW95a] and [LSW95b] Despite further case studies and the search for good heuristics for proof obligation separation and abstraction, we are investigating the limits of tool support during the construction of constraint based specifications and the application of the three reduction steps. Whereas ....

K.G. Larsen, B. Steffen, C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. in: Proceedings 1st Workshop Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1019, Springer Verlag 1995, S. 17--40.

....of a distributed system potentially increases exponentially in the number of its parallel components. To overcome this problem techniques have been developed in order to avoid the construction of the complete state graph (cf. BFH90, CLM89, CR94, CS90b, DGG93, Fer88, GL93, Jos87, KM89, Kru89, LSW94, LT88, LX90, Pel93, Pnu90, SG89, SG90, Vaa90, Val93, Wal88, Win90, WL89] In this paper we present Correspondence and offprint requests to: Gerald Luttgen. 2 S. Graf, B. Steffen, and G. Luttgen a method for the compositional minimisation of finite state distributed systems , which is ....

....The main disadvantage of his method is that the algorithm is exponential in the size of the assumptions about the environment. Other methods try to avoid the state explosion problem using preorders for verification [GW91, Pel93, Val93] where unnecessary interleavings of actions are suppressed. In [LSW94] a constraintoriented state based proof methodology for concurrent software systems is presented which exploits compositionality and abstraction for the reduction of the (possibly infinite) verification problem under consideration. There, Modal Transition Systems are used for fine granular, loose ....

K. G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994.

No context found.

K.G. Larsen, B. Steen, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition sytems. In Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS'95, volume 1019 of LNCS, 1995.

No context found.

LNCS 663. 34 #LSW94# K. G. Larsen, B. Ste#en, and C. Weise. A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In BRICS Notes 94-6, December 1994.

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