Synchronous Interfaces and Assume/Guarantee Contracts

  • Albert BenvenisteEmail author
  • Benoît Caillaud
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10460)


In this short note, we establish a link between the theory of Moore Interfaces proposed in 2002 by Chakraborty et al. as a specification framework for synchronous transition systems, and the Assume/Guarantee contracts as proposed in 2007 by Benveniste et al. as a simple and flexible contract framework. As our main result we show that the operation of saturation of A/G contracts (namely the mapping \((A,G)\mapsto (A,G{\vee }{\lnot }A)\)), which was considered a drawback of this theory, is indeed implemented by the Moore Game of Chakraborty et al. We further develop this link and come up with some remarks on Moore Interfaces.


Assume/Guarantee contract Moore interface Synchronous interface Compositional design 


  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Composing specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15(1), 73–132 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L., Wolper, P.: Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In: Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Rocca, S.R. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). doi: 10.1007/BFb0035748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abarbanel, Y., Beer, I., Gluhovsky, L., Keidar, S., Wolfsthal, Y.: FoCs – automatic generation of simulation checkers from formal specifications. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 538–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/10722167_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 15(1), 7–48 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.K., Tasiran, S.: MOCHA: modularity in model checking. In: Hu, A.J., Vardi, M.Y. (eds.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 521–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0028774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antonik, A., Huth, M., Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Complexity of decision problems for mixed and modal specifications. In: Amadio, R. (ed.) FoSSaCS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4962, pp. 112–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78499-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balarin, F., Passerone, R.: Functional verification methodology based on formal interface specification and transactor generation. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE 2006), pp. 1013–1018, Munich, Germany, 6–10 March 2006. European Design and Automation Association, 3001 Leuven, Belgium (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balarin, F., Passerone, R.: Specification, synthesis and simulation of transactor processes. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 26(10), 1749–1762 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, S.S., David, A., Hennicker, R., Guldstrand Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Passerone, R., Sofronis, C.: Multiple viewpoint contract-based specification and design. In: Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 5382, pp. 200–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92188-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Le Guernic, P.: Compositionality in dataflow synchronous languages: specification and distributed code generation. Inf. Comput. 163(1), 125–171 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Nickovic, D., Passerone, R., Raclet, J.-B., Reinkemeier, P., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Damm, W., Henzinger, T., Larsen, K.: Contracts for system design. Monograph to appear in Found. Trends Electron. Des. Autom. XX(XX), 1–259 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benveniste, A., Caspi, P., Edwards, S.A., Halbwachs, N., Le Guernic, P., de Simone, R.: The synchronous languages 12 years later. Proc. IEEE 91(1), 64–83 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benvenuti, L., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Mazzi, E., Passerone, R., Sofronis, C.: A contract-based formalism for the specification of heterogeneous systems. In: Proceedings of the Forum on Specification, Verification and Design Languages (FDL 2008), pp. 142–147, Stuttgart, Germany, 23–25 September 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bujtor, F., Fendrich, S., Lüttgen, G., Vogler, W.: Nondeterministic modal interfaces. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 642, 24–53 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bujtor, F., Vogler, W.: Error-pruning in interface automata. In: Geffert, V., Preneel, B., Rovan, B., Štuller, J., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) SOFSEM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8327, pp. 162–173. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04298-5_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bujtor, F., Vogler, W.: Error-pruning in interface automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 597, 18–39 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chakrabarti, A.: A framework for compositional design and analysis of systems. Ph.D. thesis, Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley, December 2007.
  19. 19.
    Chakrabarti, A., Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C.: Synchronous and bidirectional component interfaces. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 414–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45657-0_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chilton, C., Jonsson, B., Kwiatkowska, M.Z.: Compositional assume-guarantee reasoning for input/output component theories. Sci. Comput. Program. 91, 115–137 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Damm, W., Thaden, E., Stierand, I., Peikenkamp, T., Hungar, H.: Using contract-based component specifications for virtual integration and architecture design. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE 2011), March 2011. To appearGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2001), pp. 109–120. ACM Press (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B., Petrov, T.: Interface theories with component reuse. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM & IEEE International conference on Embedded software, EMSOFT 2008, pp. 79–88 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graf, S., Passerone, R., Quinton, S.: Contract-based reasoning for component systems with rich interactions. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Zeng, H., Di Natale, M., Marwedel, P. (eds.) Embedded Systems Development: From Functional Models to Implementations. Embedded Systems, vol. 20, pp. 139–154. Springer, New York (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3879-3_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71316-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: Modal interfaces: unifying interface automata and modal specifications. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT 2009), pp. 87–96, Grenoble, France, 12–16 October 2009Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: A modal interface theory for component-based design. Fundam. Inform. 108(1–2), 119–149 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inria, Campus de BeaulieuRennes cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations