Advertisement

Hennessy-Milner Logic with Greatest Fixed Points as a Complete Behavioural Specification Theory

  • Nikola Beneš
  • Benoît Delahaye
  • Uli Fahrenberg
  • Jan Křetínský
  • Axel Legay
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8052)

Abstract

There are two fundamentally different approaches to specifying and verifying properties of systems. The logical approach makes use of specifications given as formulae of temporal or modal logics and relies on efficient model checking algorithms; the behavioural approach exploits various equivalence or refinement checking methods, provided the specifications are given in the same formalism as implementations.

In this paper we provide translations between the logical formalism of Hennessy-Milner logic with greatest fixed points and the behavioural formalism of disjunctive modal transition systems. We also introduce a new operation of quotient for the above equivalent formalisms, which is adjoint to structural composition and allows synthesis of missing specifications from partial implementations. This is a substantial generalisation of the quotient for deterministic modal transition systems defined in earlier papers.

Keywords

Model Check Modal Logic Residuated Lattice Linear Logic Structural 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, S.S., Mayer, P., Legay, A.: MIO workbench: A tool for compositional design with modal input/output interfaces. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 418–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beneš, N., Delahaye, B., Fahrenberg, U., Křetínský, J., Legay, A.: Hennessy-Milner logic with greatest fixed points as a complete behavioural specification theory. CoRR, abs/1306.0741 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beneš, N., Křetínský, J.: Process algebra for modal transition systemses. In: MEMICS, pp. 9–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beneš, N., Křetínský, J., Larsen, K.G., Møller, M.H., Srba, J.: Parametric modal transition systems. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beneš, N., Černá, I., Křetínský, J.: Modal transition systems: Composition and LTL model checking. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackburn, P.: Representation, reasoning, and relational structures: a hybrid logic manifesto. Logic J. IGPL 8(3), 339–365 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Børjesson, A., Larsen, K.G., Skou, A.: Generality in design and compositional verification using TAV. Formal Meth. Syst. Design 6(3), 239–258 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boudol, G., Larsen, K.G.: Graphical versus logical specifications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 106(1), 3–20 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruns, G.: An industrial application of modal process logic. Sci. Comput. Program. 29(1-2), 3–22 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 274–287. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caires, L., Cardelli, L.: A spatial logic for concurrency (part I). Inf. Comput. 186(2), 194–235 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Darondeau, P., Dubreil, J., Marchand, H.: Supervisory control for modal specifications of services. In: WODES, pp. 428–435 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Ippolito, N., Fischbein, D., Foster, H., Uchitel, S.: MTSA: Eclipse support for modal transition systems construction, analysis and elaboration. In: ETX, pp. 6–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fecher, H., Schmidt, H.: Comparing disjunctive modal transition systems with an one-selecting variant. J. Logic Algebr. Program. 77(1-2), 20–39 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fecher, H., Steffen, M.: Characteristic mu-calculus formulas for underspecified transition systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 128(2), 103–116 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fokkink, W., van Glabbeek, R.J., de Wind, P.: Compositionality of Hennessy-Milner logic by structural operational semantics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 354(3), 421–440 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Girard, J.-Y.: Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 1–102 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart, J.B., Rafter, L., Tsinakis, C.: The structure of commutative residuated lattices. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 12(4), 509–524 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hennessy, M.: Acceptance trees. J. ACM 32(4), 896–928 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. J. ACM 32(1), 137–161 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hüttel, H., Larsen, K.G.: The use of static constructs in a modal process logic. In: Logic at Botik, pp. 163–180 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Larsen, K.G., Liu, X.: Equation solving using modal transition systems. In: LICS, pp. 108–117 (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen, K.G.: Modal specifications. In: Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pp. 232–246 (1989)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larsen, K.G.: Ideal specification formalism = expressivity + compositionality + decidability + testability + ... In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 33–56. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larsen, K.G.: Proof systems for satisfiability in Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. Theor. Comput. Sci. 72, 265–288 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsen, K.G., Liu, X.: Compositionality through an operational semantics of contexts. In: Paterson, M. (ed.) ICALP 1990. LNCS, vol. 443, pp. 526–539. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nyman, U.: Modal Transition Systems as the Basis for Interface Theories and Product Lines. PhD thesis, Institut for Datalogi, Aalborg Universitet (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Hearn, P.W., Reynolds, J.C., Yang, H.: Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prior, A.N.: Papers on Time and Tense. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1968)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Symp. Program., pp. 337–351 (1982)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raclet, J.-B.: Residual for component specifications. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 215, 93–110 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raclet, J.-B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Passerone, R.: Why are modalities good for interface theories? In: ACSD, pp. 119–127 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: LICS, pp. 55–74 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uchitel, S., Chechik, M.: Merging partial behavioural models. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 43–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ward, M., Dilworth, R.P.: Residuated lattices. Trans. AMS 45(3), 335–354 (1939)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yetter, D.N.: Quantales and (noncommutative) linear logic. J. Symb. Log. 55(1), 41–64 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikola Beneš
    • 1
  • Benoît Delahaye
    • 2
  • Uli Fahrenberg
    • 2
  • Jan Křetínský
    • 1
    • 3
  • Axel Legay
    • 2
  1. 1.Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Irisa / INRIARennesFrance
  3. 3.Technische Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations