Advertisement

Symbolic Functional Evaluation

  • Nancy A. Day
  • Jeffrey J. Joyce
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1690)

Abstract

Symbolic functional evaluation (SFE) is the extension of an algorithm for executing functional programs to evaluate expressions in higher-order logic. SFE carries out the logical transformations of expanding definitions, beta-reduction, and simplification of built-in constants in the presence of quantifiers and uninterpreted constants. We illustrate the use of symbolic functional evaluation as a “universal translator” for linking notations embedded in higher-order logic directly with automated analysis without using a theorem prover. SFE includes general criteria for when to stop evaluation of arguments to uninterpreted functions based on the type of analysis to be performed. SFE allows both a novice user and a theorem-proving expert to work on exactly the same specification. SFE could also be implemented in a theorem prover such as HOL as a powerful evaluation tactic for large expressions.

Keywords

Model Check Propositional Logic Theorem Prover Boolean Variable Novice User 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. D. Aagaard, M. E. Leeser, and P. J. Windley. Towards a super duper hardware tactic. In J. J. Joyce and C.-J. H. Seger, editors, HOL User’s Group Workshop. Springer-Verlag, August 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. H. Andrews. Executing formal specifications by translating to higher order logic programming. In TPHOLs, volume 1275 of LNCS, pages 17–32. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. H. Andrews, N. A. Day, and J. J. Joyce. Using a formal description technique to model aspects of a global air traffic telecommunications network. In FORTE/PSTV’97, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. M. Atlee and J. Gannon. State-based model checking of event-driven system requirements. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., 19(1):24–40, January 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Bharadwaj and C. Heitmeyer. Verifying SCR requirements specifications using state space exploration. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Automatic Analysis of Software, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Boulton et al. Experience with embedding hardware description languages in HOL. In Theorem Provers in Circuit Design, pages 129–156. North-Holland, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. Proving theorems about LISP functions. Jour. of the ACM, 72(1):129–144, January 1975.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, August 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. R. Burch and D. L. Dill. Automatic verification of pipelined microprocessor control. In CAV, volume 818 of LNCS, pages 68–79. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. J. Camilleri. Simulation as an aid to verification using the HOL theorem prover. Technical Report 150, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, October 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Cohn. The notion of proof in hardware verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5(2):127–139, June 1989.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Consel and O. Danvy. Tutorial notes on partial evaluation. In POPL, pages 493–501. ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Day and J. Joyce. The semantics of statecharts in HOL. In HOL User’s Group Workshop, volume 78, pages 338–351. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. A. Day. A Framework for Multi-Notation, Model-Oriented Requirements Analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. A. Day, J. J. Joyce, and G. Pelletier. Formalization and analysis of the separation minima for aircraft in the North Atlantic Region. In Fourth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, pages 35–49. NASA Conference Publication 3356, September 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. A. Day, J. R. Lewis, and B. Cook. Symbolic simulation of microprocessor models using type classes in Haskell. To appear in CHARME’99 poster session.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Gordon and T. Melham, editors. Introduction to HOL. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. J. C. Gordon. Combining deductive theorem proving with symbolic state enumeration. Transparencies from a presentation, summer 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. J. C. Gordon. Mechanizing programming logics in higher-order logic. In Current Trends in Hardware Verification and Automated Theorem Proving, pages 387–439. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. A. Greve. Symbolic simulation of the JEM1 microprocessor. In FMCAD, volume 1522 of LNCS, pages 321–333. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computing, 8:231–274, 1987.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. P. Heimdahl and N. G. Leveson. Completeness and consistency in hierarchical state-based requirements. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., 22(6):363–377, June 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. L. Heitmeyer, R. D. Jeffords, and B. G. Labaw. Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):231–261, July 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Johnsson. Efficient compilation of lazy evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Compiler Construction, pages 122–32, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. B. Jones, D. L. Dill, and J. R. Burch. Efficient validity checking for processor verification. In ICCAD, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Joyce. Multi-Level Verification of Microprocessor Based Systems. PhD thesis, Cambridge Comp. Lab, 1989. Technical Report 195.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Joyce, N. Day, and M. Donat. S: A machine readable specification notation based on higher order logic. In International Workshop on the HOL Theorem Proving System and its Applications, pages 285–299, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    N. G. Leveson et al. Requirements specification for process-control systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(9):684–707, September 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy A. Day
    • 1
  • Jeffrey J. Joyce
    • 2
  1. 1.Oregon Graduate InstitutePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Intrepid Critical Software Inc.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations