A Priori Verification of Reactive Systems

On Simultaneous Syntactic Action Refinement for TCSP and the Modal Mu-Calculus
  • Mila Majster-Cederbaum
  • Frank Salger
  • Maria Sorea
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 55)


In this paper we present a refinement operator ·[aQ], defined both on TCSP-like process terms P and formulas cp of the Modal Mu-Calculus. We show that

the system induced by a term P satisfies a specification φ if and only if the system induced by the refined term P[αQ] satisfies the refined specification φ[αQ]

where Q is a process term from an appropriate sublanguage of TCSP. We explain how this result can be used to reason about reactive systems. In particular it supplies a method to verify systems a priori: Provided Pφ holds, the refinement of φ into φ[aQ] induces a transformation of P into P[aQ] such that P[aQ] ╞ φ[aQ]. The above result holds under the restriction that the set of actions that occur in the term Q has to be disjoint from the set of actions occurring in the term P and the formula φ. Though such restrictions on alphabet disjointness are commonly adopted in approaches to syntactic action refinement for process term languages they preclude the possibility to carry out certain refinement steps that might be necessary in the stepwise development of reactive systems. We show, that while dropping the above restriction, the validity of the two implications comprised in the above result can still be established independently for different interesting fragments of the Modal Mu-Calculus.


Verification Syntactic Action Refinement Process Algebra Reactive Systems Temporal Logic. 


  1. [1]
    Aceto, L. and Hennessy, M. (1991). Adding action refinement to a finite process algebra. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 510: 506519.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Brookes, S. D., Hoare, C. A. R., and Roscoe, A. W. (1984). A theory of communicating sequential processes. Journal of the ACM, 31 (3): 560–599.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bryant, R. (1986). Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8): 677–691.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, D., and Long, D. (1994). Model Checking and Abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16 (5): 1512–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Clarke, E. M. and Wing, J. M. (1996). Formal methods: State of the art and future directions. Technical Report CMU-CS-96–178.– Scholar
  6. [6]
    Cousot, P. and Cousot, R. (1992). Abstract interpretation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2 (4): 511–547.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dam, M. (1994). CTL* and ECTL* as fragments of the modal it-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 126 (1): 77–96.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dams, D., Gerth, R., and Grumberg, 0. (1997). Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19 (2): 253–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Emerson, E. A. (1990). Temporal and Modal Logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pages 996–1072, Amsterdam. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Emerson, E. A. and Lei, C. L. (1986). Efficient model checking in fragments of the propositional p-calculus. In Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS ‘86), pages 267–278, Washington, D.C., USA. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Goltz, U., Gorrieri, R., and Rensink, A. (1994). On syntactic and semantic action refinement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 789: 385–404.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gorrieri, R. and Rensink, A. (1999). Action refinement. Technical Report UBLCS-99–9, University of Bologna (Italy). Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Huhn, M. (1996). Action refinement and property inheritance in systems of sequential agents. In Montanari, U. and Sassone, V., editors, CONCUR ‘86: Concurrency Theory, 7th International Conference, volume 1119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 639–654, Pisa, Italy. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kozen, D. (1983). Results on the propositional mu -calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27 (3): 333–354.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Majster-Cederbaum, M. and Salger, F. (1999). A verification technique based on syntactic action refinement in a TCSP-like process algebra and the Hennessy-Milner-Logic. In Advances in Computing Science-ASIAN’99 volume 1742 of LNCS, pages 379–380. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Milner, R. (1980). A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Springer, Berlin, 1 edition.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Olderog, R. (1986). TCSP: Theory of communicating sequential processes. In Advances in Petri Nets 1987, ed. Grzegorz Rozenberg, LNCS 266; Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, Advances in Petri Nets 1986, LNCS 254–255, 1987, LNCS 188 (1984), LNCS 340 (1988), LNCS 483 (1991).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Stirling, C. (1996). Modal and temporal logics for processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1043: 149–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice-theoretic fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5: 285–309.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    van Glabbeek, R. and Goltz, U. (1989). Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. In Kreczmar, A. and Mirkowska, G., editors, Proceedings of the Conference on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 379 of LNCS, pages 237–248, Berlin. Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mila Majster-Cederbaum
    • 1
  • Frank Salger
    • 1
  • Maria Sorea
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, D7, 27Universität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations