Advertisement

Pattern-Based Refinement of Assume-Guarantee Specifications in Reactive Synthesis

  • Rajeev AlurEmail author
  • Salar Moarref
  • Ufuk Topcu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9035)

Abstract

We consider the problem of compositional refinement of components’ specifications in the context of compositional reactive synthesis. Our solution is based on automatic refinement of assumptions and guarantees expressed in linear temporal logic (LTL). We show how behaviors of the environment and the system can be inferred from counter-strategies and strategies, respectively, as formulas in special forms called patterns. Instantiations of patterns are LTL formulas which hold over all runs of such strategies, and are used to refine the specification by adding new input assumptions or output guarantees. We propose three different approaches for compositional refinement of specifications, based on how much information is shared between the components, and demonstrate and compare the methods empirically.

Keywords

Transition Rule Linear Temporal Logic Synthesis Problem Label Transition System Truth Assignment 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosner, R.: Modular synthesis of reactive systems. Ann Arbor 1050, 41346–48106 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ozay, N., Topcu, U., Murray, R.: Distributed power allocation for vehicle management systems. In: CDC-ECC, pp. 4841–4848 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Moarref, S., Topcu, U.: Counter-strategy guided refinement of GR(1) temporal logic specifications. In: FMCAD, pp. 31–44 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, W., Dworkin, L., Seshia, S.: Mining assumptions for synthesis. In: MEMOCODE, pp. 43–50 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jobstmann, B.: Environment assumptions for synthesis. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In: FoCS, pp. 746–757 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkbeiner, B., Schewe, S.: Uniform distributed synthesis. In: LICS, pp. 321–330. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A.: Assume-guarantee synthesis. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 261–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    LaValle, S.M.: Planning algorithms. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloem, R., Cimatti, A., Greimel, K., Hofferek, G., Könighofer, R., Roveri, M., Schuppan, V., Seeber, R.: RATSY – A new requirements analysis tool with synthesis. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 425–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    McMillan, K.: Cadence SMV, http://www.kenmcmil.com/smv.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations