Tableaux for Verification of Data-Centric Processes

  • Andreas Bauer
  • Peter Baumgartner
  • Martin Diller
  • Michael Norrish
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8123)

Abstract

Current approaches to analyzing dynamic systems are mostly grounded in propositional (temporal) logics. As a consequence, they often lack expressivity for modelling rich data structures and reasoning about them in the course of a computation. To address this problem, we propose a rich modelling framework based on first-order logic over background theories (arithmetics, lists, records, etc) and state transition systems over corresponding interpretations. On the reasoning side, we introduce a tableau calculus for bounded model checking of properties expressed in a certain fragment of CTL* over that first-order logic. We also describe a k-induction scheme on top of that calculus for proving safety properties, and we report on first experiments with a prototypical implementation.

Keywords

Model Check Inference Rule Description Logic Predicate Symbol Bound Model Check 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Liu, H., ul Mehdi, A.: Verifying properties of infinite sequences of description logic actions. In: ECAI, pp. 53–58 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Logic and Computation 20(3), 651–674 (2010)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P., Waldmann, U.: Hierarchic superposition with weak abstraction. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7898, pp. 39–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bersani, M.M., Cavallaro, L., Frigeri, A., Pradella, M., Rossi, M.: SMT-based verification of LTL specification with integer constraints and its application to runtime checking of service substitutability. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Gnesi, S., Maggiolo-Schettini, A. (eds.) SEFM, pp. 244–254. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang, L., Shi, Z., Gu, T., Zhao, L.: A family of dynamic description logics for representing and reasoning about actions. J. Autom. Reasoning 49(1), 1–52 (2012)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crockford, D.: RFC 4627—The application/json media type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Technical report, IETF (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damaggio, E., Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 3–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghilardi, S., Nicolini, E., Ranise, S., Zucchelli, D.: Combination methods for satisfiability and model-checking of infinite-state systems. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 362–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goré, R.: Tableau methods for modal and temporal logics. In: D’Agostino, M., Gabbay, D., Hähnle, R., Posegga, J. (eds.) Handbook of Tableau Methods, ch. 6, pp. 297–396. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpern, J.: Presburger Arithmetic With Unary Predicates is \(\Pi_1^1\)-Complete. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56(2), 637–642 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hariri, B.B., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Masellis, R.D., Felli, P., Montali, M.: Verification of description logic knowledge and action bases. In: Raedt, L.D., Bessière, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F., Lucas, P.J.F. (eds.) ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, pp. 103–108. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahsai, T., Tinelli, C.: Pkind: A parallel k-induction based model checker. In: Barnat, J., Heljanko, K. (eds.) PDMC. EPTCS, vol. 72, pp. 55–62 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Moura, L., Rueß, H., Sorea, M.: Bounded model checking and induction: From refutation to verification. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 14–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reynolds, M.: A tableau for CTL*. In: Cavalcanti, A., Dams, D. (eds.) FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5850, pp. 403–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogers Jr., H.: Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schuele, T., Schneider, K.: Global vs. local model checking: A comparison of verification techniques for infinite state systems. In: SEFM, pp. 67–76. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, Dc (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutcliffe, G., Schulz, S., Claessen, K., Baumgartner, P.: The TPTP typed first-order form with arithmetic. In: Bjørner, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-18. LNCS, vol. 7180, pp. 406–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sheeran, M., Singh, S., Stålmarck, G.: Checking safety properties using induction and a SAT-solver. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Johnson, S.D. (eds.) FMCAD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1954, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of database-driven systems: a new frontier. In: Fagin, R. (ed.) ICDT. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 361, pp. 1–13. ACM (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bauer
    • 1
  • Peter Baumgartner
    • 1
  • Martin Diller
    • 1
  • Michael Norrish
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA and Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations