Refined Interfaces for Compositional Verification

  • Frédéric Lang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4229)


The compositional verification approach of Graf & Steffen aims at avoiding state space explosion for individual processes of a concurrent system. It relies on interfaces that express the behavioural constraints imposed on each process by synchronization with the other processes, thus preventing the exploration of states and transitions that would not be reachable in the global state space.Krimm & Mounier, and Cheung & Kramer proposed two techniques to generate such interfaces automatically. In this paper, we propose a refined interface generation technique, in which the interface of a process is derived automatically from the examination of (a subset of) concurrent processes.This technique is applicable to formalisms in which concurrent processes are composed either using synchronization vectors or process algebra parallel composition operators (including those of Ccs, Csp, μ Crl, Lotos, and E-Lotos), for which we developed a tool. Several experiments indicate state space reductions by more than two orders of magnitude for the largest processes.


  1. 1.
    Arnold, A.: MEC: A System for Constructing and Analysing Transition Systems. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.-C., Graf, S., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: Safety for Branching Time Semantics. In: Leach Albert, J., Monien, B., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) ICALP 1991. LNCS, vol. 510. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouali, A., Ressouche, A., Roy, V., de Simone, R.: The Fc2Tools set: a Toolset for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes. Journal of the ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chehaibar, G., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Tawbi, N., Zulian, F.: Specification and Verification of the PowerScale Bus Arbitration Protocol: An Industrial Experiment with LOTOS. In: Proc. of FORTE/PSTV 1996. IFIP, Chapman & Hall (1996); Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-2958Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheung, K.H.: Compositional Analysis of Complex Distributed Systems. PhD thesis, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Enhancing Compositional Reachability Analysis with Context Constraints. In: Proc. of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Compositional Reachability Analysis of Finite-State Distributed Systems with User-Specified Constraints. In: Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheung, S.C., Kramer, J.: Context Constraints for Compositional Reachability. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 5(4), 334–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez, J.-C.: ALDEBARAN : un système de vérification par réduction de processus communicants. PhD thesis, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble) (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandez, J.-C., Garavel, H., Mounier, L., Rasse, A., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: A Toolbox for the Verification of LOTOS Programs. In: Proc. of ICSE. ACM, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a Scripting Language for Compositional Verification. In: Proc. of FORTE 2001. IFIP, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001); Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-4223Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: An Overview of CADP 2001. European Association for Software Science and Technology Newsletter 4, 13–24 (2001); Also available as INRIA Technical Report RT-0254 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and Verification of LOTOS Specifications. In: Proc. of PSTV 1990. IFIP, North-Holland (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A Graphical Parallel Composition Operator for Process Algebras. In: Proc. of FORTE/PSTV 1999. IFIP, Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giannakopoulou, D.: Model Checking for Concurrent Software Architectures. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldsmith, M.: Operational Semantics for Fun and Profit. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. LNCS, vol. 3525, pp. 265–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional Minimisation of Finite State Systems using Interface Specifications. Formal Aspects of Computation 8(5), 607–616 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional Minimization of Finite State Systems. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Groote, J.F., Reniers, M.: Algebraic Process Verification. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, ch. 17. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groote, J.F., Ponse, A.: Syntax and semantics of μ-CRL. In: Proc. of Algebra of Communicating Processes, Workshops in Computing (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO/IEC. LOTOS — A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization — Information Processing Systems — Open Systems Interconnection, Genève (1989)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC. Open Distributed Processing – Reference Model. International Standard 10746, International Organization for Standardization — Information Processing Systems, Genève (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO/IEC. Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS). International Standard 15437:2001, International Organization for Standardization — Information Technology, Genève (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krimm, J.-P.: Application des ordres partiels à la génération compositionnelle de systèmes asynchrones. PhD thesis, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krimm, J.-P., Mounier, L.: Compositional State Space Generation from LOTOS Programs. In: Brinksma, E. (ed.) TACAS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1217. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: A Flexible Tool Integrating Partial Order, Compositional, and On-The-Fly Verification Methods. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005); Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Malhotra, J., Smolka, S.A., Giacalone, A., Shapiro, R.: A Tool for Hierarchical Design and Simulation of Concurrent Systems. In: Proc. of the BCS-FACS Workshop on Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems, British Computer Society (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Romijn, J.: Model Checking the HAVi Leader Election Protocol. Technical Report SEN-R9915, CWI. Amsterdam. The Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sabnani, K.K., Lapone, A.M., Uyar, M.U.: An Algorithmic Procedure for Checking Safety Properties of Protocols. IEEE Transactions on Communications 37(9), 940–948 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: Hierarchy-Based Incremental Reachability Analysis of Communication Protocols. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tai, K.C., Koppol, V.: An Incremental Approach to Reachability Analysis of Distributed Programs. In: Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tronel, F., Lang, F., Garavel, H.: Compositional Verification Using CADP of the ScalAgent Deployment Protocol for Software Components. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2003); Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Valmari, A.: Compositional State Space Generation. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) APN 1993. LNCS, vol. 674. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yeh, W.J.: Controlling State Explosion in Reachability Analysis. PhD thesis, Software Engineering Research Center Laboratory, Purdue University, Technical Report SERC-TR-147-P (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yeh, W.J., Young, M.: Compositional Reachability Analysis Using Process Algebra. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Testing, Analysis, and Verification. ACM Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.Inria Rhône-Alpes / VasySt Ismier CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations