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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd: Failures-Divergence Refinement: FDR 2 User Manual (1992)
Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)
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)
Misra, J., Chandy, K.M.: Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 7(7), 417–426 (1981)
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)
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)
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)
Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)
Scattergood, J.B.: Tools for CSP and Timed CSP. DPhil thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory (1998)
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)
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)
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)
Zhou, C.: Weakest environment of communicating processes. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) Proceedings of NCC ‘82, Houston. AFIPS, Houston (1982)
Zwiers, J.: Compositionality, Concurrency and Partial Correctness—Proof Theories for Networks of Processes, and Their Relationship. LNCS 321. Springer, New York (1989)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The first author was supported in part by the UK Department of Trade and Industry project EVoCS.
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9111-8