Providing automated support to deductive analysis of time critical systems

  • Andrea Alborghetti
  • Angelo Gargantini
  • Angelo Morzenti
Regular Sessions Formal Analysis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1301)

Abstract

We report on our experience in using a general purpose theorem prover to provide mechanical support to deductive analysis of specifications written in the TRIO temporal logic, and on applying the resulting tool to a widely known case study in the field of time. and safety-critical systems. First, we illustrate the required features for a general purpose theorem prover to satisfy our needs, we provide a rationale for our choice, and we briefly illustrate how TRIO was encoded into the prover's logic. Then we present the case study used to validate the obtained TRIO prover and to assess the overall approach. Finally we discuss the encouraging results of our experiment and provide some technical and methodological suggestions to researchers and practitioners willing to use our tool to analyze TRIO specifications, or aiming at customizing a general purpose theorem prover on any other formal language, especially if based on temporal logics.

Keywords

specification validation verification time- and safety-critical systems formal methods temporal logic automated theorem proving case study experience report 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  1. [CHH93]
    R. Cardell-Oliver R. Hale and J. Herbert. “An embedding of Timed Transition Systems in HOL”. Formal Methods in System Design, August 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [Daw92]
    Mark Dawson, “The Imperial College Logic Environment”. Technical report, imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [F&M94]
    M.Felder, A.Morzenti, “Validating real-time systems by history-checking TRIO specifications”, ACM TOSEM-Transactions On Software Engineering and Methodologies, vol.3, n.4, October 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [FMM94]
    M.Felder, D.Mandrioli, A.Morzenti, “Proving properties of real-time systems through logical specifications and Petri net models”, IEEE TSETransactions of Software Engineering, vol.20, no.2, Feb.1994, pp.127–141.Google Scholar
  5. [Gol90]
    D. Goldshlag, “Mechanizing Unity”. In M. Broy and C.B. Jones, editors, Programming Concepts and Methods, North Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [Gor89]
    M.C.J. Gordon, “Mechanizing programming logics in higher-order logic”. In G. Birtwistle and P.A. Subrahmanyam, editors, Current Trends in Hardware verification and Theorem Proving, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [H&M96]
    Heitmeyer C., Mandrioli D. (editors) “Formal Methods for Real-Time Computing”, John Wiley & Sons, Series Trends in Software vol. 5, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [HM83]
    Heitmeyer C., McLean J., Abstract requirements specifications: A new approach and its application. IEEE TSE-Transactions of Software Engineering, SE-9, 5, Sept. 1983, pp.580–589Google Scholar
  9. [HPSK78]
    Heninger K., Parnas D.L., Shore J.E., Kallander J.W., Software requirements for the A-7E aircraft. Tech. Rep. 3876, Naval Research Lab., Wash., DC, 1978Google Scholar
  10. [Jef96]
    R.D.Jeffords, “Encoding the Real-Time Logic TRIO in PVS”, Naval Research Laboratory Research Report, May 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [Kem85]
    R.A. Kemmerer, “Testing formal specifications to detect design errors,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 32–43, January 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [M&S96]
    A.K.Mok and D.Stuart, “Simulation vs. Verification: Getting the Best of Both Worlds”, Proc. of COMPASS, 11th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, June 1996, Gaitersburg, MA.Google Scholar
  13. [MMG92]
    A.Morzenti, D.Mandrioli, C.Ghezzi, “A Model-Parametric Real-Time Logic”, ACM TOPLAS-Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 14, n.4, October 1992 pp.521–573.Google Scholar
  14. [Pau90]
    L. Paulson, “The next 700 theorem provers”. In P. Odifreddi, editor, Logic and Computer Science, Academic Press, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [Pra65]
    D.Prawitz, “Natural Deduction. A Proof Theoretical Study”, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
  16. [Ric93]
    B.L. Richards, “Mollusc User's Guide”. Technical report, University of Edinburgh, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [Rus96]
    J.Rushby, “Automated Deduction and Formal Methods”, Proc. of CAV '96, Springer Verlag LNCS 1102, pp.169–183, July 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [SOR93]
    N. Shankar S. Owre and J.M. Rushby. “User guide for the PVS specification and verification system, language and proof checker (beta release)”. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA, February 1993.Google Scholar
  19. [SS94]
    J.U. Skakkebæk and N. Shankar, “Toward a Duration Calculus assistant in PVS”, in Willem-Paul de Roever Hans Laangmaack and Jan Vytopil, editors, Proc. 3rd Int'l Symp. on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [Wos84]
    Larry Wos, Ross Overbeek, Ezing Lusk and Jim Boyle, “Automated reasoning: introduction and applications”, Prentice Hall inc., 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Alborghetti
    • 1
  • Angelo Gargantini
    • 1
  • Angelo Morzenti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations