Advertisement

Conclusions and Further Work

  • Wiktor B. DaszczukEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 817)

Abstract

Communication duality, expressed as the server view and the agent view of the verified system, is the sound effect of the author’s work. In the specification, it is simply grouping of actions in servers or in agents.

References

  1. Alexiou, N., Basagiannis, S., & Petridou, S. (2016). Formal security analysis of near field communication using model checking. Computers & Security, 60, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alur, R., & Dill, D. L. (1994). A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126(2), 183–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(94)90010-8.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrmann, G., David, A., & Larsen, K. G. (2006). A tutorial on Uppaal 4.0. Aalborg, Denmark. URL: http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/darts/papers/texts/new-tutorial.pdf.
  4. Chrobot, S., & Daszczuk, W. B. (2006). Communication dualism in distributed systems with Petri net interpretation. Theoretical and Applied Informatics, 18(4), 261–278. URL: https://taai.iitis.pl/taai/article/view/250/taai-vol.18-no.4-pp.261.
  5. Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, F., & Roveri, M. (2000). NUSMV: A new symbolic model checker. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 2(4), 410–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100090050046.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D. (1999). Model checking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN: 0-262-03270-8.Google Scholar
  7. Daszczuk, W. B. (2017). Communication and resource deadlock analysis using IMDS formalism and model checking. The Computer Journal, 60(5), 729–750.  https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxw099.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daszczuk, W. B., Bielecki, M., & Michalski, J. (2017). Rybu: Imperative-style preprocessor for verification of distributed systems in the Dedan environment. In KKIO’17—Software Engineering Conference, Rzeszów, Poland, 14–16 September, 2017. Polish Information Processing Society. arXiv:1710.02722.
  9. Godefroid P, and Wolper P. (1992). Using partial orders for the efficient verification of deadlock freedom and safety properties. In 3rd International Workshop, CAV’91, Aalborg, Denmark, LNCS 575 (pp. 332–342), 1–4 July, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55179-4_32.
  10. Holzmann, G. J. (1995). Tutorial: Proving properties of concurrent systems with SPIN. In 6th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR’95, Philadelphia, PA (pp. 453–455), 21–24 August, 1995. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60218-6_34.
  11. Holzmann, G. J. (1997). The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5), 279–295.  https://doi.org/10.1109/32.588521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hui, P., & Chikkagoudar, S. (2012). A formal model for real-time parallel computation. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 105, 39–55.  https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.105.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krystosik, A. (2006). Embedded systems modeling language. In 2006 International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems,, DepCos-RELCOMEX’06, Szklarska Poręba, Poland (pp. 27–34), 25–27 May, 2006 . Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1109/depcos-relcomex.2006.21.
  14. Krystosik, A., & Turlej, D. (2006). EMLAN: A language for model checking of embedded systems software. In IFAC Workshop on Programmable Devices and Embedded Systems, Brno, Czech Republic (pp. 126–131), 14–16 February, 2006. Elsevier Science.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)30171-4.
  15. Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., & Parker, D. (2011). PRISM 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In 23rd International Conference, CAV 2011, Snowbird, UT (pp. 585–591), 14–20 July, 2011. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_47.
  16. Lee, G. M., Crespi, N., Choi, J. K., Boussard, M. (2013). Internet of things. In Evolution of telecommunication services. LNCS 7768 (pp. 257–282). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41569-2_13.
  17. McMillan, K. L. (1993). Symbolic model checking. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 0792393805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Penczek, W., Gerth, R., Kuiper, R., & Szreter, M. (1999). Partial order reductions preserving simulations. In Concurrency Specification and Programming (CS&P), Warsaw, Poland (pp. 153–171), 28–30 September, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Penczek, W., Szreter, M., Rob, G., & Kuiper, R. (2000). Improving partial order reductions for universal branching time properties. Fundamenta Informaticae, 43(1–4), 245–267. url: http://www.ipipan.waw.pl/~penczek/WPenczek/papersPS/IPI843-97.ps.gz.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. van der Aalst, W. M. P. (1998). The application of Petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 08(01), 21–66.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218126698000043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations