Verifying Reachability-Logic Properties on Rewriting-Logic Specifications

  • Dorel Lucanu
  • Vlad Rusu
  • Andrei Arusoaie
  • David Nowak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9200)


Rewriting Logic is a simply, flexible, and powerful framework for specifying and analysing concurrent systems. Reachability Logic is a recently introduced formalism, which is currently used for defining the operational semantics of programming languages and for stating properties about program executions. Reachability Logic has its roots in a wider-spectrum framework, namely, in Rewriting Logic Semantics. In this paper we show how Reachability Logic can be adapted for stating properties of transition systems described by Rewriting-Logic specifications. We propose a procedure for verifying Rewriting-Logic specifications against Reachability-Logic properties. We prove the soundness of the procedure and illustrate it by verifying a communication protocol specified in Maude.



This paper is to celebrate the 65th birthday of Professor José Meseguer. His seminal achievements, together with his warm and professional advices often guided and inspired the research activity of the first author.

The second author has spent his postdoc a couple of offices away from José’s. At the time he was working on another topic and did not really understand what rewriting logic and Maude were about. He became aware of both of them several years later, and has been inspired by them and enjoying them ever since.


  1. 1.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992). Selected Papers of the 2nd Workshop on Concurrency and CompositionalityMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All about Maude - A High-performance Logical Framework: How to Specify, Program and Verify Systems in Rewriting Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A.: Checking reachability using matching logic. In: Leavens, G.T., Dwyer, M.B. (eds) OOPSLA, pp. 555–574. ACM (2012). also available as technical report
  4. 4.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A.: Towards a unified theory of operational and Axiomatic semantics. In: Czumaj, A., Mehlhorn, K., Pitts, A., Wattenhofer, R. (eds.) ICALP 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7392, pp. 351–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roşu, G., Ştefănescu, A., Ciobâcă, Ş., Moore, B.M.: One-path reachability logic. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2013), pp. 358–367. IEEE, June 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ştefănescu, A., Ciobâcă, Ş., Mereuta, R., Moore, B.M., Şerbănută, T.F., Roşu, G.: All-path reachability logic. In: Dowek, G. (ed.) RTA-TLCA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8560, pp. 425–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meseguer, J., Roşu, G.: The rewriting logic semantics project. Theor. Comput. Sci. 373(3), 213–237 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellison, C., Roşu, G.: An executable formal semantics of C with applications. In: Proceedings of the 39th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2012), pp. 533–544. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bogdănaş, D., Roşu, G.: K-Java: a complete semantics of Java. In Proceedings of the 42nd Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2015), pp. 445–456. ACM, January 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roşu, G., Şerbănuţă, T.F.: An overview of the K semantic framework. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 79(6), 397–434 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meseguer, J.: Twenty years of rewriting logic. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 81(7), 721–781 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eker, S., Meseguer, J., Sridharanarayanan, A.: The Maude LTL model checker. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 71, 162–187 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bae, K., Meseguer, J.: Model checking linear temporal logic of rewriting formulas under localized fairness. Sci. Comput. Program. 99, 193–234 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bae, K., Escobar, S., Meseguer, J.: Abstract logical model checking of infinite-state systems using narrowing. In: 24th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, RTA 2013, 24–26 June 2013, pp. 81–96, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rocha, C., Meseguer, J.: Proving safety properties of rewrite theories. In: Corradini, A., Klin, B., Cîrstea, C. (eds.) CALCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6859, pp. 314–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rusu, V.: Combining theorem proving and narrowing for rewriting-logic specifications. In: Fraser, G., Gargantini, A. (eds.) TAP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6143, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruni, R., Meseguer, J.: Semantic foundations for generalized rewrite theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 360(1), 386–414 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meseguer, J., Palomino, M., Martí-Oliet, N.: Equational abstractions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 403(2), 239–264 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meseguer, J., Palomino, M., Martí-Oliet, N.: Algebraic simulations. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 79(2), 103–143 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arusoaie, A., Lucanu, D., Rusu, V.: A generic framework for symbolic execution. In: Erwig, M., Paige, R.F., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8225, pp. 281–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rocha, C., Meseguer, J., Muñoz, C.: Rewriting modulo SMT and open system analysis. In: Escobar, S. (ed.) WRLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8663, pp. 247–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arusoaie, A., Lucanu, D., Rusu, V., Şerbănuţă, T.-F., Ştefănescu, A., Roşu, G.: Language definitions as rewrite theories. In: Escobar, S. (ed.) WRLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8663, pp. 97–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hendrix, J.: Decision Procedures for Equationally Based Reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorel Lucanu
    • 1
  • Vlad Rusu
    • 2
  • Andrei Arusoaie
    • 2
  • David Nowak
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceAlexandru Ioan Cuza UniversityIaşiRomania
  2. 2.Inria Lille Nord EuropeVilleneuve-d’AscqFrance
  3. 3.CRIStAL, CNRS and University of LilleVilleneuve-d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations