Assume-Guarantee Scenarios: Semantics and Synthesis

  • Shahar Maoz
  • Yaniv Sa’ar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7590)


The behavior of open reactive systems is best described in an assume-guarantee style specification: a system guarantees certain prescribed behavior provided that its environment follows certain given assumptions. Scenario-based modeling languages, such as variants of message sequence charts, have been used to specify reactive systems behavior in a visual, modular, intuitive way. However, none have yet provided full support for assume-guarantee style specifications.

In this paper we present assume-guarantee scenarios, which extend live sequence charts (lsc) – a visual, expressive, scenario-based language – syntax and semantics, with an explicit distinction between system and environment entities and with support not only for safety and liveness system guarantees but also for safety and liveness environment assumptions. Moreover, the semantics is defined using a reduction to gr(1), a fragment of ltl that enables game-based, symbolic, efficient synthesis of a correct-by-construction controller.


Operational Semantic Sequence Diagram Linear Temporal Logic Synthesis Algorithm System Message 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alfonso, A., Braberman, V.A., Kicillof, N., Olivero, A.: Visual timed event scenarios. In: Finkelstein, A., Estublier, J., Rosenblum, D.S. (eds.) ICSE, pp. 168–177. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Autili, M., Inverardi, P., Pelliccione, P.: Graphical scenarios for specifying temporal properties: an automated approach. Autom. Softw. Eng. 14(3), 293–340 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behrmann, G., Cougnard, A., David, A., Fleury, E., Larsen, K.G., Lime, D.: UPPAAL-Tiga: Time for Playing Games! In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 121–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloem, R., Jobstmann, B., Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y.: Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 78(3), 911–938 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenyer, J.: Scenario-based Design of Mechatronic Systems. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn, Department of Computer Science (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H., Marelly, R., Pnueli, A.: Smart Play-out of Behavioral Requirements. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds.) FMCAD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2517, pp. 378–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 7(2), 237–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S., Szekely, S., Barkan, D.: PlayGo: towards a comprehensive tool for scenario based programming. In: ASE, pp. 359–360. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSC’s and the Play-Engine. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D., Pnueli, A.: On the Development of Reactive Systems. In: Apt, K.R. (ed.) Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems. ATO ASI Series, vol. F-13, pp. 477–498. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Segall, I.: Synthesis from scenario-based specifications. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 78(3), 970–980 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 4(4), 355–367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, M.: The world and the machine. In: Perry, D.E., Jeffrey, R., Notkin, D. (eds.) ICSE, pp. 283–292. ACM (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Könighofer, R., Hofferek, G., Bloem, R.: Debugging formal specifications using simple counterstrategies. In: FMCAD, pp. 152–159. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krüger, I., Grosu, R., Scholz, P., Broy, M.: From MSCs to Statecharts. In: DIPES, pp. 61–72 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kugler, H., Plock, C., Pnueli, A.: Controller Synthesis from LSC Requirements. In: Chechik, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) FASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5503, pp. 79–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kugler, H., Segall, I.: Compositional Synthesis of Reactive Systems from Live Sequence Chart Specifications. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Module Checking Revisited. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 36–47. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of concurrent and reactive systems: specification. Springer (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maoz, S., Harel, D.: From multi-modal scenarios to code: compiling LSCs into AspectJ. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 219–230. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maoz, S., Harel, D., Kleinbort, A.: A compiler for multimodal scenarios: Transforming LSCs into AspectJ. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 18 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maoz, S., Sa’ar, Y.: Counter play-out: Debugging unrealizable scenario-based specifications (in preparation, 2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piterman, N., Pnueli, A.: Faster solutions of Rabin and Streett games. In: LICS, pp. 275–284. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Piterman, N., Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y.: Synthesis of Reactive(1) Designs. In: Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K.S. (eds.) VMCAI 2006. LNCS, vol. 3855, pp. 364–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: FOCS, pp. 46–57. IEEE (1977)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pnueli, A., Sa’ar, Y., Zuck, L.D.: Jtlv: A Framework for Developing Verification Algorithms. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 171–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Streett, R.S.: Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse is elementarily decidable. Information and Control 54(1/2), 121–141 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: ICSE, pp. 314–323. ACM (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahar Maoz
    • 1
  • Yaniv Sa’ar
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceIsrael

Personalised recommendations