Advertisement

Validation of the ABZ landing gear system using ProB

  • Lukas Ladenberger
  • Dominik Hansen
  • Harald Wiegard
  • Jens Bendisposto
  • Michael Leuschel
ABZ 2014

Abstract

In this article, we present our formalization of the ABZ landing gear case study in Event-B. The development was carried out using the Rodin platform and mainly used superposition refinement to structure the specification. To validate the model, we complemented proof with animation and model checking. For the latter, we used the ProB animator and model checker. Graphical representation of the model turned out to be crucial in the development and validation of the model; this was achieved using the visualization features provided by ProB and BMotion Studio. In addition, we discuss the positive and negative aspects of the Event-B language and tools which we encountered while working on the ABZ case study.

Keywords

Formal methods B-method Validation Toolchain Visualization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stefan Hallerstede for various discussions and support in developing the formal Event-B model. Finally, we are thankful to anonymous referees for their useful feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-book: Assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S.: An open extensible tool environment for Event-B. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) Proceedings ICFEM’06, LNCS 4260, pp. 588–605. Springer-Verlag (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendisposto, J.: Directed and Distributed Model Checking of B-Specifications. Dissertation, University of Düsseldorf (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bert, D., Potet, M.-L., Stouls, N.: Genesyst: A tool to reason about behavioral aspects of B event specifications. application to security properties. In ZB 2005, pages 299–318 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boniol, F., Wiels, V.: The Landing Gear System Case Study. In: ABZ Case Study. Communications in Computer Information Science, vol. 433. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börger, E.: Abstract State Machines. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouton, T., de Oliveira, D.C.B., Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P.: Verit: an open, trustable and efficient smt-solver. In: Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) Proc. Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 151–156. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cansell, D., Méry, D., Rehm, J.: Time constraint patterns for event B development. In: Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O. (eds.) B 2007: Formal Specification and Development in B, 7th International Conference of B Users, Besançon, France, January 17–19, 2007, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4355 pp. 140–154. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahlström, E., Dengler, P., Grasso, A., Liley, C., McCormack, C., Schepers, D., Watt, J.: Scalable vector graphics (svg) 1.1. World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation, vol. 16 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Moura, L.M., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient smt solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS, LNCS 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deharbe, D., Fontaine, P., Guyot, Y., Voisin, L.: Smt solvers for rodin. In: Proceedings ABZ’2012, LNCS. Springer (to appear)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gmehlich, R., Grau, K., Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M., Lösch, F., Plagge, D.: On fitting a formal method into practice. In: Qin, S., Qiu, Z. (eds.) Proceedings ICFEM’2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6991, pp. 195–210. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallerstede, S., Jastram, M., Ladenberger, L.: A method and tool for tracing requirements into specifications. Sci. Comput. Program. 82, 2–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M.: Constraint-based deadlock checking of high-level specifications. TPLP 11(4–5), 767–782 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen, D., Ladenberger, L., Wiegard, H., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Validation of the ABZ Landing Gear System using ProB. In: ABZ 2014: The Landing Gear Case Study, pp. 66–79. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoang, T.S., Abrial, J.: Event-b decomposition for parallel programs. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) Abstract State Machines, Alloy, B and Z, Second International Conference, ABZ 2010, Orford, QC, Canada, February 22–25, 2010. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5977, pp. 319–333. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koenig, D., Glover, A., King, P., Laforge, G., Skeet, J.: Groovy in action, vol. 91. Manning (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krings, S., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Turning failure into proof: evaluating the prob disprover. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop about Sets and Tools (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladenberger, L.: BMotion Studio for ProB Project Website. http://stups.hhu.de/ProB/w/BMotion_Studio, (May 2015)
  21. 21.
    Ladenberger, L., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Visualising Event-B models with B-Motion Studio. In: Proceedings FMICS’2009, LNCS 5825, pp. 202–204. Verlag (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ladenberger, L., Dobrikov, I., Leuschel, M.: An approach for creating domain specific visualisations of csp models. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Salan, G. (eds.) HOFM 2014, LNCS (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamport, L.: Real-time model checking is really simple. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W.J. (eds.) Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods, 13th IFIP WG 10.5 Advanced Research Working Conference, CHARME 2005, Saarbrücken, Germany, October 3–6, 2005, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3725, pp. 162–175. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.J.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10(2), 185–203 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ligot, O., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Debugging event-b models using the prob disprover plug-in. Proceedings AFADL 7 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plagge, D., Leuschel, M.: Seven at a stroke: LTL model checking for high-level specifications in B, Z, CSP, and more. STTT 11, 9–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roscoe, A.W., Hoare, C.A.R., Bird R.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rubel, D., Wren, J., Clayberg, E.: The Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework (GEF). Addison-Wesley Professional (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Butler, M., Savicks, Vitaly, Colley, J.: Co-simulation environment for rodin: landing gear case study. Communications in Computer Information Science, vol. 433. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silva, R., Butler, M.: Shared event composition/decomposition in event-b. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6957, pp. 122–141. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silva, R., Pascal, C., Hoang, T .S., Butler, M .J.: Decomposition tool for event-b. Softw., Pract. Exp. 41(5), 199–208 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Su, W., Abrial, J.-R.: Aircraft landing gear system: Approaches with event-b to the modeling of an industrial system. In: ABZ 2014: The Landing Gear Case Study, pp. 19–35. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    W3C CSS Working Group. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Snapshot 2010. http://www.w3.org/TR/css-2010/ (2011)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Ladenberger
    • 1
  • Dominik Hansen
    • 1
  • Harald Wiegard
    • 1
  • Jens Bendisposto
    • 1
  • Michael Leuschel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations