Advertisement

Compositional Semantics and Analysis of Hierarchical Block Diagrams

  • Iulia Dragomir
  • Viorel Preoteasa
  • Stavros Tripakis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9641)

Abstract

We present a compositional semantics and analysis framework for hierarchical block diagrams (HBDs) in terms of atomic and composite predicate transformers. Our framework consists of two components: (1) a compiler that translates Simulink HBDs into an algebra of transformers composed in series, in parallel, and in feedback; (2) an implementation of the theory of transformers and static analysis techniques for them in Isabelle. We evaluate our framework on several case studies including a benchmark Simulink model by Toyota.

Keywords

Composition Operator Basic Block Parallel Composition Hybrid Automaton Serial Composition 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, A., Simon, G., Karsai, G.: Semantic translation of Simulink/Stateflow models to hybrid automata using graph transformations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 109, 43–56 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Back, R.-J., von Wright, J.: Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Springer, New York (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boström, P.: Contract-based verification of Simulink models. In: Qin, S., Qiu, Z. (eds.) ICFEM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6991, pp. 291–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, C., Dong, J.S., Sun, J.: A formal framework for modeling and validating Simulink diagrams. Formal Aspects Comput. 21(5), 451–483 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook, J.A., Sun, J., Buckland, J.H., Kolmanovsky, I.V., Peng, H., Grizzle, J.W.: Automotive powertrain control - A survey. Asian J. Control 8(3), 237–260 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijkstra, E.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Comm. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dragomir, I., Preoteasa, V., Tripakis, S.: Translating hierarchical block diagrams into composite predicate transformers. CoRR, abs/1510.04873 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frehse, G., Han, Z., Krogh, B.: Assume-guarantee reasoning for hybrid I/O-automata by over-approximation of continuous interaction. In: CDC, pp. 479–484 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A graphical parallel composition operator for process algebras. In: FORTE XII. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 156, pp. 185–202. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin, X., Deshmukh, J., Kapinski, J., Ueda, K., Butts, K.: Benchmarks for model transformations and conformance checking. In: ARCH (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin, X., Deshmukh, J.V., Kapinski, J., Ueda, K., Butts, K.: Powertrain control verification benchmark. In: HSCC, pp. 253–262. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, E., Messerschmitt, D.: Synchronous data flow. Proc. IEEE 75(9), 1235–1245 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lublinerman, R., Szegedy, C., Tripakis, S.: Modular code generation from synchronous block diagrams - modularity vs. code size. In: POPL, pp. 78–89. ACM, January 2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lublinerman, R., Tripakis, S.: Modularity vs. reusability: code generation from synchronous block diagrams. In: DATE, pp. 1504–1509. ACM, March 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lynch, N., Segala, R., Vaandrager, F.: Hybrid I/O automata. Inf. Comput. 185(1), 105–157 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manamcheri, K., Mitra, S., Bak, S., Caccamo, M.: A step towards verification and synthesis from Simulink/Stateflow models. In: HSCC, pp. 317–318. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meenakshi, B., Bhatnagar, A., Roy, S.: Tool for translating Simulink models into input language of a model checker. In: Liu, Z., Kleinberg, R.D. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 606–620. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minopoli, S., Frehse, G.: SL2SX Translator: from Simulink to SpaceEx verification tool. In: HSCC (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Preoteasa, V., Tripakis, S.: Refinement calculus of reactive systems. In: EMSOFT, pp. 1–10, October 2014Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Preoteasa, V., Tripakis, S.: Towards compositional feedback in non-deterministic and non-input-receptive systems. CoRR, abs/1510.06379 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roy, P., Shankar, N.: SimCheck: a contract type system for Simulink. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 7(2), 73–83 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sfyrla, V., Tsiligiannis, G., Safaka, I., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Compositional translation of Simulink models into synchronous BIP. In: SIES, pp. 217–220, July 2010Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tripakis, S., Lickly, B., Henzinger, T.A., Lee, E.A.: A theory of synchronous relational interfaces. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33(4), 14:1–14:41 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tripakis, S., Sofronis, C., Caspi, P., Curic, A.: Translating discrete-time Simulink to Lustre. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 4(4), 779–818 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, C., Vyatkin, V.: Transformation of Simulink models to IEC 61499 Function Blocks for verification of distributed control systems. Control Eng. Pract. 20(12), 1259–1269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou, C., Kumar, R.: Semantic translation of Simulink diagrams to input/output extended finite automata. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 22(2), 223–247 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zou, L., Zhany, N., Wang, S., Franzle, M., Qin, S.: Verifying Simulink diagrams via a hybrid Hoare logic prover. In: EMSOFT, pp. 9:1–9:10, September 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iulia Dragomir
    • 1
  • Viorel Preoteasa
    • 1
  • Stavros Tripakis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Aalto UniversityEspooFinland
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations