Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assumption–Commitment Support for CSP Model Checking

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a simple formulation of Assumption–Commitment reasoning using CSP (Communicating Sequential Processes). An assumption–commitment style property of a process SYS takes the form \(COM \sqsubseteq SYS \| ASS \), for ‘assumption’ and ‘commitment’ processes ASS and COM. We describe proof rules that allow derivation of assumption–commitment style properties of a composite system from such properties of its components, given appropriate side conditions. Most of the rules have a superficially appealing ‘homomorphic’ quality: the overall assumption and commitment processes are composed similarly to the overall system. We also give a ‘non-homomorphic’ rule that corresponds quite well to classical assumption–commitment rules. Antecedants and side conditions can be expressed as refinements and checked separately by the refinement-style model checker FDR. Examples illustrate application of our theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd: Failures-Divergence Refinement: FDR 2 User Manual (1992)

  2. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Kay, A., Reed, J.N.: A rely and guarantee method for timed CSP: a specification and design of a telephone exchange. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 19(6), 625–639 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Misra, J., Chandy, K.M.: Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 7(7), 417–426 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Pandya, P.K.: Some comments on the assumption–commitment framework for compositional verification of distributed programs. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Stepwise Refinment of Distributed Systems: Models, Formalisms, Correctness. Proceedings of REX Workshop, Mook, The Netherlands. LNCS 430, pp. 622–640. Springer, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pasareanu, C., Dwyer, M.B., Huth, M.: Assume–guarantee model checking of software: a comparative case study. In: Dams, D., Gerth, R., Leue, S., Massink, M. (eds.) Theoretical and Practical Aspects of SPIN Model Checking, 5th and 6th International SPIN Workshops, Trento, Italy, July 5, 1999, Toulouse, France, September 21 and 24 1999, Proceedings. LNCS 1680, pp. 168–183. Springer, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Roever, W.-P., de Boer, F., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scattergood, J.B.: Tools for CSP and Timed CSP. DPhil thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory (1998)

  10. Schneider, S., Treharne, T., Evans, N.: Chunks: component verification in CSP||B. In: Romijn, J., Smith, G., van de Pol, J. (eds.) Integrated Formal Methods. LNCS 3771, pp. 89–108. Springer, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Shankar, N.: Lazy compositional verification. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) Compositionality: The Significant Difference, Proceedings of the International Symposium COMPOS ‘97, Malente, Germany, September 7–12, 1997. LNCS 1536, pp. 541–564. Springer, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stølen, K., Dederichs, F., Weber, R.: Specification and refinement of networks of asynchronously communicating agents using the assumption / commitment paradigm. Form. Asp. Comput. 8(2), 127–161 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou, C.: Weakest environment of communicating processes. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) Proceedings of NCC ‘82, Houston. AFIPS, Houston (1982)

  14. Zwiers, J.: Compositionality, Concurrency and Partial Correctness—Proof Theories for Networks of Processes, and Their Relationship. LNCS 321. Springer, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. QinetiQ, Malvern Technology Centre, St Andrew’s Road, Malvern, UK

    Nick Moffat

  2. Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd., Oxford, UK

    Michael Goldsmith

  3. Worcester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Michael Goldsmith

Authors
  1. Nick Moffat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Goldsmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Moffat.

Additional information

The first author was supported in part by the UK Department of Trade and Industry project EVoCS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moffat, N., Goldsmith, M. Assumption–Commitment Support for CSP Model Checking. J Autom Reasoning 41, 365–398 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9111-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9111-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation