Transformations for Compositional Verification of Assumption-Commitment Properties

  • Ahmed Mahdi
  • Bernd Westphal
  • Martin Fränzle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8762)


This paper presents a transformation-based compositional verification approach for verifying assumption-commitment properties. Our approach improves the verification process by pruning the state space of the model where the assumption is violated. This exclusion is performed by transformation functions which are defined based on a new notion of edges supporting a property. Our approach applies to all computational models where an automaton syntax with locations and edges induces a transition system semantics in a consistent way which is the case for hybrid, timed, Büchi, and finite automata. We have successfully applied our approach to Fischer’s protocol.


Fault Detection Operational Semantic Critical Section Mutual Exclusion Atomic Proposition 
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.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. TCS 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen, H.R.: Partial model checking (extended abstract). In: LICS, pp. 398–407. IEEE Computer Society (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on uppaal. In: Bernardo, M., Corradini, F. (eds.) SFM-RT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3185, pp. 200–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedetto, M.D.D., Gennaro, S.D., D’Innocenzo, A.: Verification of hybrid automata diagnosability by abstraction. IEEE TAC 56(9), 2050–2061 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budkowski, S., Cavalli, A.R., Najm, E. (eds.): Formal Description Techniques and Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, FORTE XI / PSTV XVIII 1998, IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol, vol. 135. Kluwer (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: An interpolating SMT solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damm, W.: Contract-based analysis of automotive and avionics applications: The SPEEDS approach. In: Cofer, D., Fantechi, A. (eds.) FMICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5596, pp. 3–3. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damm, W., et al.: Using contract-based component specifications for virtual integration testing and architecture design. In: DATE, pp. 1023–1028. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henzinger, T.A.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: LICS, pp. 278–292. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herbreteau, F., et al.: Lazy abstractions for timed automata. In: Sharygina et al. [20], pp. 990–1005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janowska, A., Janowski, P.: Slicing timed systems. FI 60(1-4), 187–210 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laarman, A., Olesen, M.C., et al.: Multi-core emptiness checking of timed büchi automata using inclusion abstraction. In: Sharygina et al. [20], pp. 968–983Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahdi, A.: Compositional verification of computation path dependent real-time system properties. Master’s thesis, University of Freiburg (April 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muñiz, M., Westphal, B., Podelski, A.: Timed automata with disjoint activity. In: Jurdziński, M., Ničković, D. (eds.) FORMATS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7595, pp. 188–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielson, F., et al.: Principles of program analysis (2. corr. print). Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olderog, E.R., Dierks, H.: Real-time systems. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: FOCS, pp. 46–57. IEEE (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SAE Int.: ARP-4761. Tech. rep., Aerospace Recommended Practice (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Damm, W., et al.: Taming Dr. Frankenstein: Contract-based design for cyber-physical systems. EJC 18(3), 217–238 (2012)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.): CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sher, F., Katoen, J.P.: Compositional abstraction techniques for probabilistic automata. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Ball, T., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) TCS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7604, pp. 325–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xu, D.N., Jones, S.L.P., Claessen, K.: Static contract checking for Haskell. In: Shao, Z., Pierce, B.C. (eds.) POPL, pp. 41–52. ACM (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Mahdi
    • 1
  • Bernd Westphal
    • 2
  • Martin Fränzle
    • 1
  1. 1.Carl von Ossietzky UniversitätOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Albert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations