Correctness-by-Construction and Post-hoc Verification: Friends or Foes?

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
  • Reiner Hähnle
  • Ina Schaefer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9952)

Abstract

While correctness-by-construction and post-hoc verification are traditionally considered to provide two opposing views on proving software systems to be free from errors, nowadays numerous techniques and application fields witness initiatives that try to integrate elements of both ends of the spectrum. The ultimate aim is not merely to improve the correctness of software systems but also to improve their time-to-market, and to do so at a reasonable cost. This track brings together researchers and practitioners interested in the inherent ‘tension’ that is usually felt when trying to balance the pros and cons of correctness-by-construction versus post-hoc verification.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrendt, W., et al.: The KeY platform for verification and analysis of java programs. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Kroening, D. (eds.) VSTTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8471, pp. 55–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K.: The SLAM project: debugging system software via static analysis. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 37(1), 1–3 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnett, M., Leino, K.R.M., Schulte, W.: The Spec# programming system: an overview. In: Barthe, G., Burdy, L., Huisman, M., Lanet, J.-L., Muntean, T. (eds.) CASSIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3362, pp. 49–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckert, B., Bormer, T., Grahl, D.: Deductive verification of legacy code. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 749–765. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H.: Verification of Object-Oriented Software: The KeY Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ter Beek, M.H., Kleijn, J.: Team automata satisfying compositionality. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 381–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ter Beek, M.H., Kleijn, J., Carmona, J.: Conditions for compatibility of components: the case of masters and slaves. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 784–805. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ter Beek, M.H., Reniers, M.A., de Vink, E.P.: Supervisory controller synthesis for product lines using CIF 3. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 856–873. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Beek, D.A., Fokkink, W.J., Hendriks, D., Hofkamp, A., Markovski, J., van de Mortel-Fronczak, J.M., Reniers, M.A.: CIF 3: model-based engineering of supervisory controllers. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 575–580. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bertolino, A., Inverardi, P., Muccini, H.: Software architecture-based analysis and testing: a look into achievements and future challenges. Computing 95(8), 633–648 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beyer, D.: Partial verification and intermediate results as a solution to combine automatic and interactive verification techniques. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 874–880. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng, Z., Méry, D., Monahan, R.: On two friends for getting correct programs: automatically translating event-B specifications to recursive algorithms in Rodin. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 821–838. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sifakis, J.: Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. Commun. ACM 52(11), 74–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke, E.M., Faeder, J.R., Langmead, C.J., Harris, L.A., Jha, S.K., Legay, A.: Statistical model checking in BioLab: applications to the automated analysis of T-Cell receptor signaling pathway. In: Heiner, M., Uhrmacher, A.M. (eds.) CMSB 2008. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 5307, pp. 231–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cleophas, L., Kourie, D.G., Pieterse, V., Schaefer, I., Watson, B.W.: Correctness-by-construction \(\wedge \) taxonomies \(\Rightarrow \) deep comprehension of algorithm families. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 766–783. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cleophas, L.G., Watson, B.W., Kourie, D.G., Boake, A., Obiedkov, S.A.: TABASCO: using concept-based taxonomies in domain engineering. S. Afr. Comput. J. 37, 30–40 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen, E., Dahlweid, M., Hillebrand, M., Leinenbach, D., Moskal, M., Santen, T., Schulte, W., Tobies, S.: VCC: a practical system for verifying concurrent C. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cranen, S., Groote, J.F., Keiren, J.J.A., Stappers, F.P.M., de Vink, E.P., Wesselink, W., Willemse, T.A.C.: An overview of the mCRL2 toolset and its recent advances. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A constructive approach to the problem of program correctness. BIT Numer. Math. 8(3), 174–186 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Filliâtre, J.-C.: Deductive software verification. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 13(5), 397–403 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall, A.: Correctness by construction: integrating formality into a commercial development process. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, p. 224. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall, A., Chapman, R.: Correctness by construction: developing a commercial secure system. IEEE Softw. 19(1), 18–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hangal, S., Lam, M.S.: Tracking down software bugs using automatic anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2002), pp. 291–301. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Proof of a program: FIND. Commun. ACM 14(1), 39–45 (1971)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holthusen, S., Nieke, M., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Proof-Carrying Apps: Contract-based deployment-time verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 839–855. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W.: Finding bugs is easy. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 39(12), 92–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jegourel, C., Legay, A., Sedwards, S.: A platform for high performance statistical model checking – PLASMA. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 498–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lam, P., Bodden, E., Lhoták, O., Hendren, L.: The Soot framework for Java program analysis: a retrospective. In: Cetus Users and Compiler Infrastructure Workshop (CETUS 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathur, A.P.: Foundations of Software Testing, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pezzè, M., Young, M.: Software Testing and Analysis: Process Principles and Techniques. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quilbeuf, J., Cavalcante, E., Traonouez, L.-M., Oquendo, F., Batista, T., Legay, A.: A logic for the statistical model checking of dynamic software architectures. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 806–820. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robinson, J.A., Voronkov, A. (eds.): Handbook of Automated Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watson, B.W., Kourie, D.G., Schaefer, I., Cleophas, L.G.: Correctness-by-construction and post-hoc verification: a marriage of convenience? In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 730–748. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
    • 1
  • Reiner Hähnle
    • 2
  • Ina Schaefer
    • 3
  1. 1.ISTI–CNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.TU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.TU BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations