Bounded Analysis and Decomposition for Behavioural Descriptions of Components

  • Pascal Poizat
  • Jean-Claude Royer
  • Gwen Salaün
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4037)


Explicit behavioural interfaces are now accepted as a mandatory feature of components to address architectural analysis. Behavioural interface description languages should be able to deal with data types and with rich communication means. Symbolic Transition Systems (STS) support the definition of component models which take into account control, concurrency, communication and data types. However, verification of components described with protocol modelled by STS, especially model-checking, is difficult since they possibly involve different sources of infinity. In this paper, we propose the notions of bounded analysis and bounded decomposition. They can be used to test boundedness of systems and to generate finite simulations for them so that standard model-checking techniques may be applied for verification purposes.


Mutual Exclusion Safety Property Bound Analysis Resource Allocator Client System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, A.: Finite Transition Systems. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bardin, S., Finkel, A., Leroux, J.: FASTer Acceleration of Counter Automata in Practice. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 576–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barros, T., Henrio, L., Madelaine, E.: Behavioural Models for Hierarchical Components. In: Godefroid, P. (ed.) SPIN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3639, pp. 154–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bensalem, S., Lakhnech, Y., Owre, S.: Computing Abstractions of Infinite State Systems Compositionally and Automatically. In: Y. Vardi, M. (ed.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 319–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) ETAPS 1999 and TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouajjani, A., Habermehl, P., Vojnar, T.: Abstract Regular Model Checking. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bracciali, A., Brogi, A., Canal, C.: A Formal Approach to Component Adaptation. Journal of Systems and Software 74(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brückner, I., Wehrheim, H.: Slicing an Integrated Formal Method for Verification. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 360–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calder, M., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C.: A Modal Logic for Full LOTOS Based on Symbolic Transition Systems. The Computer Journal 45(1), 55–61 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model-Checking and Abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract Interpretation of Reactive Systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(2), 253–291 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delzanno, G.: An Overview of MSR(C): A CLP-based Framework for the Symbolic Verification of Parameterized Concurrent Systems. In: Proc. of WFLP 2002. ENTCS, vol. 76, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esparza, J., Hansel, D., Rossmanith, P., Schwoon, S.: Efficient Algorithms for Model Checking Pushdown Systems. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 232–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finkel, A., McKenzie, P., Picaronny, C.: A Well-Structured Framework for Analysing Petri Nets Extensions. Information and Computation 195(1-2), 1–29 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An Overview of CADP 2001. EASST Newsletter 4, 13–24 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker, Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lin, H.: A Symbolic Approach to Value-passing Processes. Handbook of Process Algebra, ch. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeannet, B., Jéron, T., Rusu, V., Zinovieva, E.: Symbolic Test Selection Based on Approximate Analysis. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 349–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J., Uchitel, S.: Software Architecture Modeling and Analysis: A Rigorous Approach. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 44–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leue, S., Mayr, R., Wei, W.: A Scalable Incomplete Test for the Boundedness of UML RT Models. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S.: Property Preserving Abstractions for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. Formal Methods in System Design 6(1), 11–44 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mateescu, R.: A Generic On-the-Fly Solver for Alternation-Free Boolean Equation Systems. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) ETAPS 2003 and TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 81–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moschoyiannis, S., Shields, M.W., Krause, P.J.: Modelling Component Behaviour with Concurrent Automata. In: Proc. of FESCA 2005. ENTCS, vol. 114(3), pp. 199–220 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poizat, P., Royer, J.-C.: Korrigan: a Formal ADL with Full Data Types and a Temporal Glue. Technical Report 88-2003, LaMI, CNRS et Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne (September 2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Poizat, P., Royer, J.-C., Salaün, G.: Symbolic Bounded Analysis for Component Behavioural Protocols. Technical report, Écoles des Mines de Nantes (2005), Available at:
  27. 27.
    Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable Security Policies. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 3(1), 30–50 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal Poizat
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Royer
    • 2
  • Gwen Salaün
    • 3
  1. 1.IBISC – FRE 2873 CNRS Tour Évry 2Évry
  2. 2.OBASCO Group, EMN – INRIA LINANantes
  3. 3.VASY Project, INRIA Rhône-AlpesMontbonnot Saint-Martin

Personalised recommendations