Advertisement

Predicate Abstraction and Such...

  • Bernhard SteffenEmail author
  • Tiziana Margaria
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11119)

Abstract

Predicate abstraction is only a facet of Susanne Graf’s work, but an important and characteristic one. Aiming for the essence without being disrupted by ‘syntactic sugar’ appears like a red thread in her career, and it explains also her current vision for a contract-based composition of viewpoints. This paper sketches her accompanying associated keynote, as well as the nine papers of scientific relatives who came to FMICS for celebrating her 60th birthday.

Keywords

Verification Tools State explosion problem Scalability Compositionality Interface specifications Predicate abstraction CEGAR Viewpoints Cyber-physical systems Contracts Refinement Real time Security Communication protocols 

References

  1. 1.
    Angluin, D.: Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf. Comput. 75(2), 87–106 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bensalem, S., Graf, S., Lakhnech, Y.: Abstraction as the key for invariant verification. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 67–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39910-0_4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozga, M., Graf, S., Mounier, L.: IF-2.0: a validation environment for component-based real-time systems. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 343–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkart, O., Steffen, B.: Model checking for context-free processes. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630, pp. 123–137. Springer, Heidelberg (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0084787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M., Long, D.E., McMillan, K.L.: Compositional model checking. In: Proceedings of Fourth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 353–362 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleaveland, R., Parrow, J., Steffen, B.: The concurrency workbench: a semantics-based tool for the verification of concurrent systems. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 15(1), 36–72 (1993). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/151646.151648
  8. 8.
    Dmitriev, S.: Language oriented programming: the next programming paradigm. JetBrains onBoard Online Mag. 1 (2004). http://www.onboard.jetbrains.com/is1/articles/04/10/lop/
  9. 9.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mounier, L.: Compositional verification in action. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 189–210. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelle, L., Saidi, H., Gehani, A.: Wholly!: a build system for the modern software stack. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 242–257. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graf, S., Richier, J.-L., Rodríguez, C., Voiron, J.: What are the limits of model checking methods for the verification of real life protocols? In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 275–285. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52148-8_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, S., Passerone, R., Quinton, S.: Contract-based reasoning for component systems with rich interactions. In: Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A., Zeng, H., Di Natale, M., Marwedel, P. (eds.) Embedded Systems Development. Embedded Systems, vol. 20, pp. 139–154. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3879-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graf, S., Quinton, S., Girault, A., Gössler, G.: Building correct cyber-physical systems: why we need a multiview contract theory? In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 19–31. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63166-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graf, S., Sifakis, J.: A modal characterization of observational congruence on finite terms of CCS. In: Paredaens, J. (ed.) ICALP 1984. LNCS, vol. 172, pp. 222–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-13345-3_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graf, S., Sifakis, J.: A logic for the description of non-deterministic programs and their properties. Inf. Control 68(1–3), 254–270 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state systems. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 1990) (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications. Formal Aspects Comput. 8(5), 607–616 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gössler, G., Graf, S., Majster-Cederbaum, M., Martens, M., Sifakis, J.: An approach to modelling and verification of component based systems. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 295–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69507-3_24CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: On observing nondeterminism and concurrency. In: de Bakker, J., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 1980. LNCS, vol. 85, pp. 299–309. Springer, Heidelberg (1980).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-10003-2_79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howar, F., Steffen, B., Merten, M.: Automata learning with automated alphabet abstraction refinement. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt, D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18275-4_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Isberner, M., Howar, F., Steffen, B.: Inferring automata with state-local alphabet abstractions. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 124–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonsson, B.: The quest for optimality in stateless model checking of concurrent programs. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. XI–XII. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karusseit, M., Margaria, T.: Feature-based modelling of a complex, online-reconfigurable decision support service. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 157(2), 101–118 (2006). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571066106002489
  26. 26.
    Legay, A.: A modeling language for security threats of IoT systems. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 258–268. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J., Bouajjani, A., Bensalem, S.: Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 6(1), 11–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lüttgen, G.: A note on refinement in hierarchical transition systems. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 211–222. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Margaria, T.: Generative model driven design for agile system design and evolution: a tale of two worlds. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Backtracking-free design planning by automatic synthesis in metaframe. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 188–204. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0053591
  31. 31.
    Naujokat, S., Lybecait, M., Kopetzki, D., Steffen, B.: CINCO: a simplicity-driven approach to full generation of domain-specific graphical modeling tools. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 20, 327–354 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nerode, A.: Linear automaton transformations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 9(4), 541–544 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ober, I.: Revisiting bounded reachability analysis of timed automata based on MILP. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 269–283. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-11494-7_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Quinton, S.: Evaluation and comparison of real-time systems analysis methods and tools. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 284–290. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Quinton, S., Graf, S.: Contract-based verification of hierarchical systems of components. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2008), pp. 377–381. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richier, J.L., Rodriguez, C., Sifakis, J., Voiron, J.: Verification in XESAR of the sliding window protocol. In: Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification VII, Proceedings of the IFIP WG6.1 Seventh International Conference on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Zurich, Switzerland, 5–8 May 1987 (1987)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roy, V., de Simone, R.: Auto/Autograph. In: Computer-Aided Verification, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop 1990, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, 18–21 June 1990. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 3, pp. 477–492. DIMACS/AMS (1990)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roy, V., de Simone, R.: Auto/Autograph. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 1(2/3), 239–249 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steffen, B.: Characteristic formulae. In: Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Della Rocca, S.R. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 723–732. Springer, Heidelberg (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Steffen, B.: Unifying models. In: Reischuk, R., Morvan, M. (eds.) STACS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1200, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Steffen, B., Gossen, F., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T.: Language-driven engineering: from general-purpose to purpose-specific languages. In: Steffen, B., Woeginger, G. (eds.) Computing and Software Science: State of the Art and Perspectives, LNCS, vol. 10000. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Claßen, A.: Heterogeneous analysis and verification for distributed systems. Softw. Concepts Tools 17(1), 13–25 (1996)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Freitag, B.: Module Configuration by Minimal Model Construction. Technical report, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Passau (1993)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steffen, B., Murtovi, A.: M3C: modal meta model checking. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, pp. 223–241. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. In: Computer-Aided Verification, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop 1990, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, 18–21 June 1990. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 3, pp. 25–42. DIMACS/AMS (1990)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ward, M.P.: Language oriented programming. Softw. Concepts Tools 15(4), 147–161 (1994)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yi, W.: The cause-effect latency problem in real-time systems. In: Howar, F., Barnat, J. (eds.) FMICS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11119, p. XIII. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Programming SystemsTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Software SystemsUniversity of Limerick, and LeroLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations