Advertisement

Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 705–750 | Cite as

An application of temporal projection to interleaving concurrency

  • Ben Moszkowski
  • Dimitar P. Guelev
Original Article
  • 89 Downloads

Abstract

We revisit the earliest temporal projection operator \({\Pi}\) in discrete-time Propositional Interval Temporal Logic (PITL) and use it to formalise interleaving concurrency. The logical properties of \({\Pi}\) as a normal modality and a way to eliminate it in both PITL and conventional point-based Linear-Time Temporal Logic (LTL), which can be viewed as a PITL subset, are examined, as are stutter-invariant formulas. Striking similarities between the expressiveness of \({\Pi}\) and the standard LTL operator \({\mathcal{U}}\) (‘until’) are briefly illustrated. We also formalise concurrent imperative programming constructs with and without \({\Pi}\), and relate the two approaches. Peterson’s mutual exclusion algorithm is used to illustrate reasoning with \({\Pi}\) about a concrete programming example. Projection with fairness and non-fairness assumptions are both discussed. This all illustrates an approach to the analysis of such concurrent interleaving finite-state systems using temporal logic formulas with projection constructs to reason about correctness properties. Unlike conventional LTL formulas about concurrency which normally largely focus on global time, properties expressed in LTL combined with \({\Pi}\) help to reveal and analyse important differing viewpoints involving global time and the local projected time seen by each individual process. Links between \({\Pi}\) and another standard PITL projection operator, both suitable for reasoning about different time granularities, are demonstrated by showing the two operators to be interdefinable. We briefly look at other (mostly interval-based) temporal logics with similar forms of projection, as well as some related applications and industrial standards.

Keywords

Interleaving concurrency Interval temporal logic Temporal projection Time granularities Stutter invariance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BA06.
    Ben-Ari M (2006) Principles of concurrent and distributed programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, HarlowzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. BBN+10.
    Bäumler S, Balser M, Nafz F, Reif W, Schellhorn G (2010) Interactive verification of concurrent systems using symbolic execution.. AI Commun 23(2–3): 285–307MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. BK08.
    Baier C, Katoen J-P (2008) Principles of model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. BSTR11.
    Bäumler S, Schellhorn G, Tofan B, Reif W (2011) Proving linearizability with temporal logic.. Form Asp Comput 23(1): 91–112MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. CDHK15.
    Cerny E, Dudani S, Havlicek J, Korchemny D (2015) SVA: the power of assertions in systemVerilog, 2nd edn. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  6. CGP99.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Che80.
    Chellas BF (1980) Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Dan99.
    Van Hung D (January 2000) Projections: A technique for verifying real-time programs in DC. Technical report 178, UNU/IIST, Macau, 1999. Also in proceedings of conference on information technology and education, Ho Chi Minh city, VietnamGoogle Scholar
  9. DG08.
    Volker D, Gastin P (2008) First-order definable languages. In: Flum J, Grädel E, Wilke T (eds) Logic and automata: history and perspectives, volume 2 of texts in logic and games. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 261–306Google Scholar
  10. DKH94.
    Duan Z, Koutny M, Holt C (1994) Projection in temporal logic programming. In: Pfennig F (ed) LPAR ’94, volume 822 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 333–344Google Scholar
  11. DKL09.
    Dax C, Klaedtke F, Leue S (2009) Specification languages for stutter-invariant regular properties. In: Liu Z, Ravn AP (eds) 7th International symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA 2009), volume 5799 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 244–254Google Scholar
  12. dRdBH+01.
    de Roever W-P, de Boer F, Hanneman U, Hooman J, Lakhnech Y, Poel M, Zwiers J (2001) Concurrency verification: introduction to compositional and noncompositional methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Dua96.
    Duan Z (1996) An extended interval temporal logic and a framing technique for temporal logic programming. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, Tech. rep. 556Google Scholar
  14. DYK08.
    Duan Z, Yang X, Koutny M (2008) Framed temporal logic programming.. Sci Comput Progr 70(1): 31–61MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. EF06.
    Eisner C, Fisman D (2006) A practical introduction to PSL. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. EF14.
    Eisner C, Fisman D (2015) Temporal logic made practical. http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~fisman/documents/EF_HBMC14.pdf, 2014. Accessed 4 June 2015. In: Clarke EM, Henzinger TA, Veith H (eds) Expected to appear in 2018 in Handbook of model checking. Springer, Cham
  17. EFH+03.
    Eisner C, Fisman D, Havlicek J, McIsaac A, Van Campenhout D (2003) The definition of a temporal clock operator. In: Baeten JCM, Lenstra JK, Parrow J, Woeginger GJ (eds) ICALP 2003, volume 2719 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 857–870Google Scholar
  18. Eme90.
    Allen EE (1990) Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen J (ed) Handbook of theoretical computer science, volume B: formal models and semantics, chapter 16. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam, pp 995–1072Google Scholar
  19. GD02.
    Guelev DP, Van Hung D (2002) Prefix and projection onto state in duration calculus.. Electr Notes Theor Comput Sci 65(6): 101–119CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. GD04.
    Guelev DP, Van Hung D (2004) A relatively complete axiomatisation of projection onto state in the duration calculus.. J Appl Non Class Log 14(1-2): 149–180CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Gel10.
    Gelade W (2010) Succinctness of regular expressions with interleaving, intersection and counting.. Theor Comput Sci 411(31–33): 2987–2998MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gis81.
    Gischer J (1981) Shuffle languages, Petri nets, and context-sensitive grammars.. Commun ACM 24(9): 597–605MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Gis88.
    Gischer J (1988) The equational theory of pomsets.. Theor Comput Sci 61: 199–224MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. God96.
    Godefroid P (1996) Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems: an approach to the state-explosion problem, volume 1032 of LNCS. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Gue04a.
    Guelev DP (2004) A complete proof system for first-order interval temporal logic with projection.. J Log Comput 14(2): 215–249MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Gue04b.
    Guelev DP (2004) Logical interpolation and projection onto state in the duration calculus.. J Appl Non Class Log 14(1–2): 181–208MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. GW91a.
    Godefroid P, Wolper P (1991) A partial approach to model checking. In: 6th Annual symposium on logic in computer science (LICS ’91). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 406–415Google Scholar
  28. GW91b.
    Godefroid P, Wolper P (1991) Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. In: Larsen KG, Skou A (eds) 3rd International workshop on computer aided verification (CAV ’91), volume 575 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 332–342Google Scholar
  29. GW93.
    Godefroid P, Wolper P (1993) Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties.. Form Methods Syst Des 2(2): 149–164CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. HC96.
    Hughes GE, Cresswell MJ (1996) A new introduction to modal logic. Routledge, LondonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. He99.
    He J (1999) A behavioral model for co-design. In: Wing JM, Woodcock J, Davies J (eds) FM’99, vol II, volume 1709 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 1420–1438Google Scholar
  32. HMM83.
    Halpern J, Manna Z, Moszkowski B (1983) A hardware semantics based on temporal intervals. In: Diaz J (ed) ICALP 1983, volume 154 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 278–291Google Scholar
  33. HMN01.
    Hollander Y, Morley M, Noy A (2001) The e language: a fresh separation of concerns. In: Proceedings of TOOLS Europe 2001: 38th internationa’l conference on technology of object-oriented languages and systems, components for mobile computing. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  34. Hol03.
    Holzmann G (2003) The SPIN model checker: primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. IEE10.
    IEEE (2010) Standard for property specification language (PSL), standard 1850–2010. ANSI/IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. IEE11.
    IEEE (2011) Standard for the functional verification language e, standard 1647–2011. ANSI/IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. IEE12.
    IEEE (2012) Standard for systemVerilog—unified hardware design, specification, and verification language, standard 1800–2012. ANSI/IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO86.
    ISO (1986) Standard generalized markup language (SGML): ISO 8879:1986. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  39. ITL.
    ITL web pages. http://www.antonio-cau.co.uk/ITL/. Accessed 8 June 2015
  40. JHC15.
    Jones CB, Hayes IJ, Colvin RJ (2015) Balancing expressiveness in formal approaches to concurrency.. Form Asp Comput 27(3): 475–497MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Jon83.
    Jones CB (October 1983) Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 5(4):596–619Google Scholar
  42. Kel76.
    Keller RM (1976) Formal verification of parallel programs.. Commun ACM 19(7): 371–384MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. KM08.
    Kröger F, Merz S (2008) Temporal logic and state systems. Texts in theoretical computer science (an EATCS series). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. KP87.
    Katz S, Peled D (1987) Interleaving set temporal logic. In: 6th Annual ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC ’87). ACM, New York, pp 178–190Google Scholar
  45. KP90.
    Katz S, Peled DA (1990) Interleaving set temporal logic.. Theor Comput Sci 75(3): 263–287MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. KP92.
    Katz S, Peled DA (1992) Verification of distributed programs using representative interleaving sequences.. Distrib Comput 6(2): 107–120MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Lam83.
    Lamport L (1983) What good is temporal logic? In: Mason REA (ed.) Information Processing 83, pp. 657–668. North-Holland,Google Scholar
  48. Lam02.
    Lamport L (2002) Specifying Systems: The TLA+ language and tools for hardware and software engineers. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. LPZ85.
    Lichtenstein O, Pnueli A, Zuck L (1985) The glory of the past. In: Parikh R (ed) Logics of Programs, volume 193 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 196–218Google Scholar
  50. MG15.
    Moszkowski B, Guelev DP (2015) An application of temporal projection to interleaving concurrency. In: Li X, Liu Z, Yi W (eds) Dependable software engineering: theories, tools, and applications—first international symposium (SETTA 2015), volume 9409 in LNCS. Springer, Cham, pp 153–167Google Scholar
  51. MM84.
    Moszkowski B, Manna Z (1984) Reasoning in interval temporal logic. In: Clarke EM, Kozen D (eds) Proceedings of workshop on logics of programs, Pittsburgh, PA, June, 1983, volume 164 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 371–382Google Scholar
  52. Mor99.
    Morley MJ (1999) Semantics of temporal e. In: Melham TF, Moller FG (eds) Banff’99 higher order workshop: formal methods in computation, Ullapool, Scotland, 9–11 Sept. 1999. Technical Report, Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, pp 138–142Google Scholar
  53. Mos83.
    Moszkowski B (1983) Reasoning about digital circuits. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, June 1983. Technical report STAN–CS–83–970Google Scholar
  54. Mos86.
    Moszkowski B (1986) Executing temporal logic programs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Mos95.
    Moszkowski B (1995) Compositional reasoning about projected and infinite time. In: Proceedings of 1st IEEE internationa’l conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS’95). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 238–245Google Scholar
  56. Mos00.
    Moszkowski B (2000) An automata-theoretic completeness proof for interval temporal logic (extended abstract). In: Montanari U, Rolim J, Welzl E (eds) Proceedings of 27th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming (ICALP 2000), volume 1853 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  57. Mos04.
    Moszkowski B (2004) A hierarchical completeness proof for propositional interval temporal logic with finite time. J Appl Non Class Log 14(1–2):55–104. Special issue on interval temporal logics and duration calculi. Goranko V, Montanari A, guest editorsGoogle Scholar
  58. Mos12.
    Moszkowski B (2012) A complete axiom system for propositional interval temporal logic, with infinite time.. Log Meth Comp Sci 8(3): 10–156MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Mos13.
    Moszkowski B (2013) Interconnections between classes of sequentially compositional temporal formulas.. Inf Process Lett 113(9): 350–353MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Mos14.
    Moszkowski B (2014) Compositional reasoning using intervals and time reversal.. Ann Math Artif Intell 71(1–3): 175–250MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. MP92.
    Manna Z, Pnueli A (1992) The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems: specifications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. NRZ+15.
    Newcombe C, Rath T, Zhang F, Munteanu B, Brooker M, Deardeuff M (2015) How Amazon Web services uses formal methods.. Commun ACM 58(4): 66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OD08.
    Olderog E-R, Dierks H (2008) Real-time systems: formal specification and automatic verification. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. OH83.
    Olderog E-R, Hoare CAR (1983) Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. In: Díaz J (ed) Automata, languages and programming, 10th colloquium (ICALP 1983), volume 154 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 561–572Google Scholar
  65. OH86.
    Olderog E-R, Hoare CAR (1986) Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes.. Acta Inf 23(1): 9–66MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. OWL04.
    OWL-S (2004) Semantic markup for web services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/. Accessed 14 March 2016
  67. PC15.
    Peng F, Chen H (2015) Discovering restricted regular expressions with interleaving. In: Reynold C, Bin C, Zhenjie Z, Ruichu C, Jia X (eds) 17th Asia-Pacific Web conference on web technologies and applications (APWeb 2015), volume 9313 of LNCS. Springer, Cham, pp 104–115Google Scholar
  68. PCM15.
    Peng F, Chen H, Mou X (2015) Deterministic regular expressions with interleaving. In: Leucker M, Rueda C, Valencia FD (eds) 12th International colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing (ICTAC 2015), volume 9399 of LNCS. Springer, Cham, pp 203–220Google Scholar
  69. Pel93.
    Peled D (1993) All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Costas Courcoubetis, (ed), 5th International conference on computer aided verification (CAV ’93), volume 697 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 409–423Google Scholar
  70. Pel96.
    Peled D (1996) Combining partial order reductions with on-the-fly model-checking.. Methods in System Design. 8(1): 39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pet81.
    Peterson GL (1981) Myths about the mutual exclusion problem.. Inf Process Lett 12(3): 115–116CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. PW97.
    Peled D, Wilke T (1997) Stutter-invariant temporal properties are expressible without the next-time operator.. Inf Process Lett 63(5): 243–246MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. STE+14.
    Schellhorn G, Tofan B, Ernst G, Pfähler J, Reif W (2014) RGITL: a temporal logic framework for compositional reasoning about interleaved programs. Ann Math Artif Intell 71(1–3):131–174Google Scholar
  74. Tau06.
    Taubenfeld G (2006) Synchronization algorithms and concurrent programming. Pearson/Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  75. Val91.
    Valmari A (1991) Stubborn sets for reduced state space generation. In: Rozenberg G (ed) Advances in Petri nets 1990, volume 483 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 491–515Google Scholar
  76. Val92.
    Valmari A (1992) A stubborn attack on state explosion.. Form Methods Syst Des 1(4): 297–322CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  77. YD10.
    Yang C, Duan Z (2010) Compositional verification with stutter-invariant propositional projection temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the 14th WSEAS international conference on computers: part of the 14th WSEAS CSCC multiconference—volume I, ICCOMP’10. Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), pp 272–280Google Scholar
  78. ZH04.
    Zhou C, Hansen MR (2004) Duration calculus: a formal approach to real-time systems. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. ZHR91.
    Zhou C, Hoare CAR, Ravn AP (1991) A calculus of durations.. Inf Process Lett 40(5): 269–276MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Department of Algebra and LogicInstitute of Mathematics and InformaticsSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations