Translating Testing Theories for Concurrent Systems

  • Jan PeleskaEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9360)


In this article the “classical” topic of theory translation is re-visited. It is argued that the importance of this research field is currently growing fast, due to the necessity of re-using known theoretical results in the context of novel semantic frameworks. As a practical background, we consider cyber-physical systems and their development and verification in distributed collaborative environments, where multiple modelling formalisms are used for different sub-systems. For verification of the integrated system, these different views need to be integrated and consolidated as well, in order to ensure that the required emergent properties have been realised as intended. The topic is illustrated by a practical problem from the field of runtime verification. It is shown how a class of complete health monitors (i.e. checkers monitoring system behaviour) elaborated within the semantic framework of Kripke structures and LTL assertions can be re-used for runtime verification in the context of the CSP process algebra with trace/refusal specifications. We point out how crucial ideas for this theory translation have already been anticipated in Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog’s early work.


Semantics Institutions Cyber-physical systems Model-based testing Runtime verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aeronautical Radio Inc: ARINC SPECIFICATION 653P1-2: Avionics Application Software Standard Interface, Part 1 - Required Services, December 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrés, C., Cavalli, A.R.: How to reduce the cost of passive testing. In: 14th International IEEE Symposium on High-Assurance Systems Engineering, HASE 2012, Omaha, NE, USA, October 25–27, 2012, pp. 209–216. IEEE Computer Society (2012).
  3. 3.
    Apt, K.R., de Boer, F.S., Olderog, E.R.: Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babiak, T., Kretínský, M., Řehák, V., Strejček, J.: LTL to Büchi automata translation: fast and more deterministic. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 95–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diaconescu, R.: Institution-independent Model Theory. Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gastin, P., Oddoux, D.: Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 53–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: Dembinski, P., Sredniawa, M. (eds.) PSTV, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV, Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFIP WG6.1 International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Warsaw, Poland, June 1995. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 38, pp. 3–18. Chapman & Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming. J. ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Havelund, K.: Rule-based runtime verification revisited. STTT 17(2), 143–170 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoare, C.A.R., Jifeng, H.: Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice-Hall (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoare, T.: Communication Sequential Processes, vol. 07632. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1985) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, W.l., Peleska, J.: Complete model-based equivalence class testing. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1–19 (2014).
  13. 13.
    Huang, W.l., Peleska, J., Schulze, U.: Contract Support for Evolving SoS. Public Document D34.3, COMPASS (2014).
  14. 14.
    Mossakowski, T., Roggenbach, M.: Structured CSP – a process algebra as an institution. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Schobbens, P.-Y. (eds.) WADT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4409, pp. 92–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Netravali, A.N., Sabnani, K.K., Viswanathan, R.: Correct passive testing algorithms and complete fault coverage. In: König, H., Heiner, M., Wolisz, A. (eds.) FORTE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2767, pp. 303–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peleska, J.: Design and verification of fault tolerant systems with csp. Distributed Computing 5(2), 95–106 (1991). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peleska, J.: Formal methods for test automation - hard real-time testing of controllers for the airbus aircraft family. In: Proc. of the Sixth Biennial World Conference on Integrated Design & Process Technology (IDPT2002), Pasadena, California, June 23–28, 2002. Society for Design and Process Science, June 2002. ISSN 1090–9389Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roscoe, A.W. (ed.): A Classical Mind: Essays in Honour of C.A.R. Hoare. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd., Hertfordshire (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roscoe, A.W., Hoare, C.A.R., Bird, R.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1997) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sistla, A.P.: Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. Formal Aspects of Computing 6(5), 495–511 (1994). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations