Logical and operational methods in the analysis of programs and systems

  • F. Nielson
  • P. Cousot
  • M. Dam
  • P. Degano
  • P. Jouvelot
  • A. Mycroft
  • B. Thomsen
Introduction and Overview
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1192)


Model Check Mobile Agent Operational Semantic Abstract Interpretation Process Algebra 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Amadio and M. Dam. Reasoning about higher-order processes. In Proc. CAAP'94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 915:202–217, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Amadio and M. Dam. A modal theory of types for the π-calculus. In Proc. FTRTFT'96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1135:347–365, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Andersen, C. Stirling, and G. Winskel. A compositional proof system for the modal μ-calculus. In Proc. LICS'94, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.-M Andreoli and R. Pareschi: ”Linear objects: Logical processes with built-in inheritance”. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, 7th Int. Conf. Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.-M Andreoli, R. Pareschi, L. Leth and B. Thomsen: ”True Concurrency Semantics for a Linear Logic Programming Language with Broadcast Communication”. In proc. Conf. on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT'93), vol 668 of LNCS, pp. 182–198. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-P. Banatre and D. Le Metayer. ”Programming by multiset transformations. CACM, 36(1):98, 1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bianchi, S. Coluccini, P. Degano, and C. Priami. An efficient verifier of truly concurrent properties. In V. Malyshkin, editor, Proceedings of PaCT'95, LNCS 964, pages 36–50. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Bodei, P. Degano, and C. Priami. Mobile processes with a distributed environment. In Proceedings of ICALP'96, LNCS 1099, pages 490–501. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roberta Borgia, Pierpaolo Degano, Corrado Priami, Lone Leth, and Bent Thomsen. Understanding mobile agents via a non-interleaving semantics for Facile. In R. Cousot and D.A. Schmidt, editors, Proceedings of SAS'96, LNCS 1145, pages 98–112. Springer-Verlag, 1996. Extended version in European Computer-Industry Research Center Tech. Rep. ECRC-96-4, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Boudol and I. Castellani. A non-interleaving semantics for CCS based on proved transitions. Fundamenta Informaticae, XI(4):433–452, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. R. Burch, E. M. Clarke, K. L. McMillan, D. L. Dill, and J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Proc. LICS'90, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Burkart and B. Steffen. Model checking for context-free processes. In Proc. CONCUR'92, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 630:123–137, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. L. Burn, C. Hankin, and S. Abramsky. Strictness Analysis for Higher-Order Functions. Science of Computer Programming, 7:249–278, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Carriero, D. Gelernter, T. Mattson and A. Sherman. ”The Linda alternative to message passing systems”. Parallel Computing 20(4):633–655, April 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Cau and P. Collette. Parallel composition of assumption-commitment specifications. Acta Informatica, 33:153–176, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench: A semantics-based tool for the verification of concurrent systems. ACM Transaction on Programming Languages and Systems, pages 36–72, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Cousot. Methods and logics for proving programs. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Formal Models and Semantics, volume B of Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, chapter 15, pages 843–993. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Inductive definitions, semantics and abstract interpretation. In 19th POPL, pages 83–94. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation frameworks. J. Logic and Comp., 2(4):511–547, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Comparing the Galois connection and widening/ narrowing approaches to abstract interpretation, invited paper. In M. Bruynooghe and M. Wirsing, editors, Proc. Int. Work. PLILP '92. LNCS 631, pages 269–295. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Higher-order abstract interpretation (and application to comportment analysis generalizing strictness, termination, projection and PER analysis of functional languages), invited paper. In Proc. 1994 ICCL, pages 95–112. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Formal language, grammar and set-constraint-based program analysis by abstract interpretation. In Proc. 7th FPCA, pages 170–181. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Compositional and inductive semantic definitions in fixpoint, equational, constraint, closure-condition, rule-based and game-theoretic form, invited paper. In P. Wolper, editor, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. CAV '95. LNCS 939, pages 293–308. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Cousot, R. Cousot, and A. Mycroft. Report on a Dagsthul seminar on abstract interpretation, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Cousot: Abstract Interpretation. Computing Surveys 28 2, pages 324–328, ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Cousot. Types as abstract interpretation. In 24th POPL. ACM Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Cridlig. Semantic analysis of shared-memory concurrent languages using abstract model-checking. In Proc. PEPM '95. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Dam. Compositional proof systems for model checking infinite state processes. In Proc. CONCUR'95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 962:12–26, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Dam. Model checking mobile processes. Information and Computation, 129:35–51, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Dam: Modalities in Analysis and Verification. ACM Computing Surveys 28 2, pages 346–348, ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Dam. Compositional verification of mobile process networks. In preparation, 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Degano, R. De Nicola, and U. Montanari. Partial ordering derivations for CCS. In Proceedings of FCT, LNCS 199, pages 520–533. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. Degano and C. Priami. Proved trees. In Proceedings of ICALP'92, LNCS 623, pages 629–640. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    P. Degano and C. Priami. Causality for mobile processes. In Proceedings of ICALP'95, LNCS 944, pages 660–671. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Degano and C. Priami: Enhanced Operational Semantics. Computing Surveys 28 2, pages 352–354, ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Degano and C. Priami: A Compact Representation of Finite State Processes. Report available via∼bra8130/LOMAPS-papers.html by selection of LOMAPS-DIPISA-2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    E. A. Emerson and A.P. Sistla. Symmetry and model checking. Formal Methods in System Design, 9:105–131, 1996.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Esparza. Decidability of model checking for infinite-state concurrent systems. Acta Informatica, 1996. (to appear).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. Giacalone, P. Mishra, and S. Prasad. Facile: A symmetric integration of concurrent and functional programming. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 18:121–160, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Goubault. Durations for truly-concurrent actions. In Proceedings of ESOP'96, LNCS, 1058, pages 173–187. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Gosling and H. McGilton. The Java language environment. White paper, May 1995. Sun Microsystems, 2550 Garcia Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Goubault. Schedulers as abstract interpretations of higher-dimensional automata. In Proc. PEPM '95, La Jolla, Calif., 21–23 jun 1995, pages 134–145. ACM Press, jun 1995.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    G. J. Holzmann. An analysis of bitstate hashing. In Proc. PSTV'95, Chapman and Hall, pages 301–314, 1995.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    P. Inverardi, C. Priami, and D. Yankelevich. Automatizing parametric reasoning on distributed concurrent systems. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6(6):676–695, 1994.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. P. Jones. A theory of qualified types. In Proc. ESOP '92, pages 287–306, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 582, 1992.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    N. D. Jones and F. Nielson. Abstract Interpretation: a Semantics-Based Tool for Program Analysis. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science volume 4. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    F. Levi. Verification of Temporal and Real-Time Properties of Statecharts. PhD Thesis in Computer Science, University of Pisa, to be discussed in January 1997.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    P. Lucas. Formal definition of programming languages and systems. In Springer Verlag, editor, Proceedings of IFIP'71, 1971.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    A. Maggiolo-Schettini and A. Peron Retiming Techniques for Statecharts In Proc. FTRTFT '96, LNCS 1135, pages 55–71. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    A. Maggiolo-Schettini, A. Peron and S. Tini Equivalences of Statecharts In Proc. CONCUR '96, LNCS 1119, pages 687–702. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    L. Mauborgne. Abstract interpretation using TDGs. In B. Le Charlier, editor, Proc. SAS '94, Namur, 20–22 sep 1994, LNCS 864, pages 363–379. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. McCarthy. Towards a mathematical science of computation. In C.M. Popplewell, editor, Information Processing 1962, pages 21–28, 1963.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes (I and II). Information and Computation, 100(1):1–77, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    B. Monsuez. Polymorphic types and widening operators. In P. Cousot, M. Falaschi, G. Filé, and A. Rauzy, editors, Proc. 3rd Int. Work. WSA '93 on Static Analysis. LNCS 724, pages 267–281. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    B. Monsuez. Polymorphic typing for call-by-name semantics. In D. Bjørner, M. Broy, and I.V. Pottosin, editors, Proc. FMPA. LNCS 735, pages 156–169. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    B. Monsuez. System F and abstract interpretation. In A. Mycroft, editor, Proc. SAS '95. LNCS 983, pages 279–295. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    B. Monsuez. Using abstract interpretation to define a strictness type inference system. In Proc. PEPM '95, pages 122–133. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    A. Mycroft and F. Nielson. Strong Abstract Interpretation using Power Domains. In Proc. ICALP '83, volume 154, pages 536–547. SLNCS, 1983.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    A. Mycroft and K.L. Solberg. Uniform PERs and comportment analysis. PLILP'95, 1995.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    A. Mycroft: On Integration of Programming Paradigms. ACM Computing Surveys 28 2, pages 309–311, ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    F. Nielson. Two-Level Semantics and Abstract Interpretation. Theoretical Computer Science — Fundamental Studies, 69:117–242, 1989.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    F. Nielson and H.R. Nielson. Semantics with applications: a formal introduction. Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    F Nielson and H.R. Nielson. Layered Predicates. In Proc. REX'92 workshop on “Semantics—foundations and applications”, pages 425–456, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 666, 1993.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    H. R. Nielson and F. Nielson. Higher-Order Concurrent Programs with Finite Communication Topology. In Proc. POPL '94, pages 84–97, ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    F. Nielson: Annotated Type and Effect Systems. ACM Computing Surveys 28 2, pages 344–345, ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    F Nielson. Semantics-Directed Program Analysis: A Tool-Maker's Perspective. In Proc. SAS'96, pages 2–21, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1145, 1996.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    S. Owre, S. Rajan, J. M. Rushby, N. Shankar, and M. K. Srivas. PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking. In Proc. CAV'96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1102:411–414, 1996.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    B. Pierce and D. Turner. PICT Language Definition. University of Indiana, December 1995.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    B. C. Pierce and D. N. Turner. Concurrent objects in a process calculus. In Theory and Practice of Parallel Programming, volume 907 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, April 1995.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, Denmark, 1981.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    C. Priami. Stochastic π-calculus. The Computer Journal, 38(6): 578–589, 1995.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    C. Priami. Enhanced Operational Semantics for Concurrency. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, March 1996. Available as Tech. Rep. TD-08/96.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    C. Priami. Integrating behavioural and performance analysis with topology information. In Proceedings of 29 th Hawaian International Conference on System Sciences, volume 1, pages 508–516, Maui, Hawaii, 1996. IEEE.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    H. B. Sipma, T. E. Uribe, and Z. Manna. Deductive model checking. In Proc. CAV'96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1102:208–219, 1996.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    G. S. Smith. Principal Type Schemes for Functional Programs with Overloading and Subtyping. Science of Computer Programming 23, pages 197–226, 1994.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    G. Smolka. The definition of kernal Oz, in Constraints: Basic and Trends, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 910. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    C. Stirling. Modal logics for communicating systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 49:311–347, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    J.-P. Talpin and P. Jouvelot. The type and effect discipline. Information and Computation 111, pages 245–296, 1994.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    B. Thomsen, L. Leth, and T.-M. Kuo. A Facile tutorial. In Proceedings of CON-CUR'96 — Seventh Intl. Conf. on Concurrency Theory, volume 1119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 278–298. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    B. Thomsen, F. Knabe, L. Leth and P.-Y. Chevalier. Mobile Agents Set to Work, In Communications International, July, 1995.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    M. Tofte and J.-P. Talpin: Implementation of the Typed Call-by-Value λ-Calculus using a Stack of Regions. In Proc. POPL '94, pages 188–210, ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    A. Valmari. A stubborn attack on state explosion. Formal Methods in System Design, 1:297–322, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    F. Védrine. Binding-time analysis and strictness analysis by abstract interpretation. In A. Mycroft, editor, Proc. SAS '95. LNCS 983, pages 400–417. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    A. Venet. Abstract cofibred domains: Application to the alias analysis of untyped programs. In R. Cousot and D.A. Schmidt, editors, Proc. SAS'96. LNCS 1145, pages 368–382. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    I. Walukiewicz. Pushdown processes: Games and model checking. In Proc. CAV'96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1102:62–74, 1996.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    J. E. White. ”Telescript technology: The foundation for the electronic market place”. General Magic white paper, 2465 Latham Street, Mountain View, CA 94040, 1994.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    P. Wolper and P. Godefroid. Partial-order methods for temporal verification. In Proc. CONCUR'93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 715:233–246, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Nielson
  • P. Cousot
  • M. Dam
  • P. Degano
  • P. Jouvelot
  • A. Mycroft
  • B. Thomsen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations