Advertisement

Reduction and Abstraction Techniques for BIP

  • Mohamad NoureddineEmail author
  • Mohamad Jaber
  • Simon Bliudze
  • Fadi A. Zaraket
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8997)

Abstract

Reduction and abstraction techniques have been proposed to address the state space explosion problem in verification. In this paper, we present reduction and abstraction techniques for component-based systems modeled in BIP (Behavior, Interaction and Priority). Given a BIP system consisting of several atomic components, we select two atomic components amenable for reduction and compute their product. The resulting product component typically contains constants and branching bisimilar states. We use constant propagation to reduce the resulting component. Then we use a branching bisimulation abstraction to compute an abstraction of the product component. The presented method is fully implemented and scales to large designs not possible to verify with existing techniques.

References

  1. 1.
    Aziz, A., Singhal, V., Swamy, G., Brayton, R.K.: Minimizing interacting finite state machines: a compositional approach to language to containment. In: ICCD, pp. 255–261 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basu, A., Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Combaz, J., Jaber, M., Nguyen, T.H., Sifakis, J.: Rigorous component-based system design using the bip framework. IEEE Softw. 28(3), 41–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Nguyen, T.-H., Sifakis, J.: D-Finder: a tool for compositional deadlock detection and verification. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 614–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: A notion of glue expressiveness for component-based systems. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 508–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blom, S., Orzan, S.: Distributed branching bisimulation reduction of state spaces. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89(1), 99–113 (2003). PDMC 2003, Parallel and Distributed Model Checking (Satellite Workshop of CAV 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloom, B.: Ready simulation, bisimulation, and the semantics of CCS-like languages. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaudron, M., Eskenazi, E., Fioukov, A., Hammer, D.: A framework for formal component-based software architecting. In: OOPSLA, pp. 73–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crouzen, P., Hermanns, H.: Aggregation ordering for massively compositional models. In: 2010 10th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD), pp. 171–180. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart reduction. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Orejas, F. (eds.) FASE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emerson, E.A., Wahl, T.: Efficient reduction techniques for systems with many components. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 130, 379–399 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and verification of lotos specifications. PSTV 10, 359–376 (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: CAV, pp. 186–196 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groote, J.F., Ponse, A.: The syntax and semantics of \(\mu \)CRL. In: Ponse, A., Verhoef, C., van Vlijmen, S.F.M. (eds.) Algebra of Communicating Processes, pp. 26–62. Springer, London (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kildall, G.A.: A unified approach to global program optimization. In: POPL 1973, pp. 194–206. ACM, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Komuravelli, A., Gurfinkel, A., Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M.: Automatic abstraction in SMT-based unbounded software model checking. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 846–862. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: a flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tai, K.C., Koppol, P.V.: Hierarchy-based incremental analysis of communication protocols. In: Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference on Network Protocols, 1993, pp. 318–325. IEEE (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Constant propagation with conditional branches. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13(2), 181–210 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wimmer, R., Herbstritt, M., Hermanns, H., Strampp, K., Becker, B.: Sigref – a symbolic bisimulation tool box. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds.) ATVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4218, pp. 477–492. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zaraket, F.A., Baumgartner, J., Aziz, A.: Scalable compositional minimization via static analysis. In: ICCAD, pp. 1060–1067 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamad Noureddine
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mohamad Jaber
    • 2
  • Simon Bliudze
    • 1
  • Fadi A. Zaraket
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations