Synthesis from component libraries

Synthesis

Abstract

Synthesis is the automated construction of a system from its specification. In the classical temporal synthesis algorithms, it is always assumed the system is “constructed from scratch” rather than “composed” from reusable components. This, of course, rarely happens in real life. In real life, almost every non-trivial commercial system, either in hardware or in software system, relies heavily on using libraries of reusable components. Furthermore, other contexts, such as web-service orchestration, can be modeled as synthesis of a system from a library of components. In this work, we define and study the problem of LTL synthesis from libraries of reusable components. We define two notions of composition: data-flow composition, for which we prove the problem is undecidable, and control-flow composition, for which we prove the problem is 2EXPTIME-complete. As a side benefit, we derive an explicit characterization of the information needed by the synthesizer on the underlying components. This characterization can be used as a specification formalism between component providers and integrators.

Keywords

LTL synthesis Components Linear temporal logic Automata Composition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Church, A.: Logic, arithmetics, and automata. In: Proceedings of International Congress of Mathematicians, 1962, pp. 23–35. Institut Mittag-Leffler (1963)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proceedings of 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 179–190 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sifakis, J.: A framework for component-based construction extended abstract. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2005), pp 293–300. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alonso G., Casati F., Kuno H.A., Machiraju V.: Web Services—Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Mecella, M.: Automatic composition of e-services that export their behavior. In: ICSOC, pp. 43–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sardiña, S., Patrizi, F., Giacomo, G.D.: Automatic synthesis of a global behavior from multiple distributed behaviors. In: AAAI, pp. 1063–1069 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Büchi J., Landweber L.: Solving sequential conditions by finite-state strategies. Trans. AMS 138, 295–311 (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rabin M.: Automata on infinite objects and Church’s problem. American Mathematical Society, New York (1972)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In: Proceedings of 31st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 746–757 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Safraless decision procedures. In: Proceedings of 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp 531–540 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishnamurthi, S., Fisler, K.: Foundations of incremental aspect model-checking. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methods 16(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Alfaro L., Henzinger T.: Interface-based design. In: Broy, M., Grünbauer, J., Harel, D., Hoare, C. (eds) Engineering Theories of Software-Intensive Systems. NATO Science Series: Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, vol. 195. pp. 83–104. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gabbay, D., Pnueli, A., Shelah, S., Stavi, J.: On the temporal analysis of fairness. In: Proceedings of 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 163–173 (1980)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muller D., Schupp P.: Alternating automata on infinite trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 54, 267–276 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muller, D., Saoudi, A., Schupp, P.: Alternating automata, the weak monadic theory of the tree and its complexity. In: Proceedings of 13th International Colloqium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 226, pp. 275–283. Springer, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hopcroft J., Ullman J.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nain, S., Vardi, M.Y.: Branching vs. linear time: semantical perspective. In: 5th international symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4762, pp. 19–34. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke E., Grumberg O., Peled D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Apt K., Kozen D.: Limits for automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 22(6), 307–309 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosner, R.: Modular Synthesis of Reactive Systems. PhD thesis, Weizmann Institute of Science (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vardi M., Wolper P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. Inf. Comput. 115(1), 1–37 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T.: Automata, logics, and infinite games: a guide to current research. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2500. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations