Advertisement

Generating Event-B Specifications from Algorithm Descriptions

  • Joy Clark
  • Jens Bendisposto
  • Stefan Hallerstede
  • Dominik Hansen
  • Michael Leuschel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9675)

Abstract

We present a high-level algorithm description language which is translated to Event-B specifications for simulation, model checking and proof. Rather than trying to recover the program structure from a lower-level Event-B specification, we start with a high-level description of the algorithm. Our goals are more tractable code generation and more convenient modelling, while keeping the power of the Event-B method in terms of proof and refinement. We present various examples of algorithm descriptions and show that our translation ensures that they can be completely proven within Rodin while achieving a high-level of automatic proof.

Keywords

Event-B Code generation Sequential algorithm 

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider, S.: The B-Method: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lecomte, T.: Ten years disseminating the B method. In: Attiogbe, C., Mery, D. (eds.) Proceedings of TFM-B 2010, pp. 65–72. APCB, June 2010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M.: Experiments in program verification using Event-B. Formal Aspects Comput. 24(1), 97–125 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snook, C.F., Butler, M.J.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Méry, D.: Refinement-based guidelines for algorithmic systems. Int. J. Softw. Inf. 3(2–3), 197–239 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iliasov, A.: Use case scenarios as verification conditions: event-B/Flow approach. In: Troubitsyna, E.A. (ed.) SERENE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6968, pp. 9–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edmunds, A., Butler, M., Maamria, I., Silva, R., Lovell, C.: Event-B code generation: type extension with theories. In: Derrick, J., Fitzgerald, J., Gnesi, S., Khurshid, S., Leuschel, M., Reeves, S., Riccobene, E. (eds.) ABZ 2012. LNCS, vol. 7316, pp. 365–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmunds, A.: Templates for Event-B code generation. In: Ait Ameur, Y., Schewe, K.-D. (eds.) ABZ 2014. LNCS, vol. 8477, pp. 284–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petit, D., Poirriez, V., Mariano, G.: The B method and the component-based approach. Trans. SDPS 8(1), 65–76 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bert, D., Boulmé, S., Potet, M.-L., Requet, A., Voisin, L.: Adaptable translator of B specifications to embedded C programs. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 94–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Requet, A.: BART: a tool for automatic refinement. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, p. 345. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems, The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu, Y., Manolios, P., Lamport, L.: Model checking TLA+ specifications. In: Pierre, L., Kropf, T. (eds.) CHARME 1999. LNCS, vol. 1703, pp. 54–66. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chaudhuri, K., Doligez, D., Lamport, L., Merz, S.: Verifying safety properties with the TLA + proof system. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 142–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Developing verified programs with dafny. In: Proceedings ICSE 2013, pp. 1488–1490 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koenig, J., Rustan, K., Leino, M.: Getting started with dafny: a guide. In: Nipkow, T., Grumberg, O., Hauptmann, B. (eds.) Software Safety and Security - Tools for Analysis and Verification. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - D: Information and Communication Security, vol. 33, pp. 152–181. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leino, K.R.M., Rümmer, P.: A polymorphic intermediate verification language: design and logical encoding. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 312–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Déharbe, D., Fontaine, P., Guyot, Y., Voisin, L.: SMT solvers for rodin. In: Derrick, J., Fitzgerald, J., Gnesi, S., Khurshid, S., Leuschel, M., Reeves, S., Riccobene, E. (eds.) ABZ 2012. LNCS, vol. 7316, pp. 194–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allen, F.E.: Control flow analysis. SIGPLAN Not. 5(7), 1–19 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hallerstede, S.: On the purpose of Event-B proof obligations. Formal Asp. Comput 23(1), 133–150 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joy Clark
    • 1
  • Jens Bendisposto
    • 1
  • Stefan Hallerstede
    • 2
  • Dominik Hansen
    • 1
  • Michael Leuschel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut Für InformatikHeinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations