Advertisement

An Institution for Alloy and Its Translation to Second-Order Logic

  • Renato Neves
  • Alexandre Madeira
  • Manuel Martins
  • Luís Barbosa
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 263)

Abstract

Lightweight formal methods, of which Alloy is a prime example, combine the rigour of mathematics without compromising simplicity of use and suitable tool support. In some cases, however, the verification of safety or mission critical software entails the need for more sophisticated technologies, typically based on theorem provers. This explains a number of attempts to connect Alloy to specific theorem provers documented in the literature. This chapter, however, takes a different perspective: instead of focusing on one more combination of Alloy with still another prover, it lays out the foundations to fully integrate this system in the Hets platform which supports a huge network of logics, logic translators and provers. This makes possible for Alloy specifications to “borrow” the power of several, non dedicated proof systems. The chapter extends the authors’ previous work on this subject by developing in full detail the semantical foundations for this integration, including a formalisation of Alloy as an institution, and introducing a new, more general translation of the latter to second-order logic.

Keywords

Model finding Theorem proving Second–order logic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by ERDF—European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) and by National Funds through FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, within projects FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-028923, project FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-022690 and NORTE-01-0124-FEDER-000060.

References

  1. 1.
    Arkoudas, K., Khurshid, S., Marinov, D., Rinard, M.: Integrating model checking and theorem proving for relational reasoning. In: 7th International Seminar on Relational Methods in Computer Science (RelMiCS 2003). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3015, pp. 21–33 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., Tinelli, C.: Implementing the model evolution calculus. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 15(1), 21–52 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benzmüller, C., Rabe, F., Sutcliffe, G.: Thf0—the core of the tptp language for higher-order logic. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR ’08, pp. 491–506. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benzmüller, C., Theiss, F., Paulson, L., Fietzke, A.: LEO-II—a cooperative automatic theorem prover for higher-order logic. In: Armando A., Baumgartner P., Dowek G. (eds.) Automated Reasoning, 4th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2008, Sydney, Australia, August 12–15, 2008, Proceedings. LNCS, vol. 5195, pp. 162–170. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braüner, T.: Proof-theory of propositional hybrid logic. Hybrid Logic and Its Proof-Theory (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diaconescu, R.: Institution-independent Model Theory. Birkhäuser, Basel (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. J. ACM 39, 95–146 (January 1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd PLACES Workshop, EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macedo, N., Cunha, A.: Automatic unbounded verification of Alloy specifications with Prover9. CoRR, abs/1209.5773 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madeira, A., Faria, J.M., Martins, M.A., Barbosa, L.S.: Hybrid specification of reactive systems: an institutional approach. In: Barthe G., Pardo A., Schneider G. (eds.) Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2011, Montevideo, Uruguay, November 14–18, 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7041, pp. 269–285. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manzano, M.: Extensions of First Order Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martins, M.A., Madeira, A., Diaconescu, R., Barbosa, L.S.: Hybridization of institutions. In: Corradini A., Klin B., Cîrstea C. (eds.) Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science (CALCO 2011, Winchester, UK, August 30–September 2, 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6859, pp. 283–297. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mossakowski, T., Haxthausen, A., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: CASL: The common algebraic specification language: semantics and proof theory. Comput. Inform. 22, 285–321 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Lüttich, K.: The heterogeneous tool set, Hets. In: Grumberg O., Huth M. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2007—Braga, Portugal, March 24 - April 1, 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4424, pp. 519–522. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A formal model for declarative workflows: dynamic condition response graphs. PhD thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neves, R., Madeira, A., Martins, M.A., Barbosa, L.S.: Giving alloy a family. In: Zhang C., Joshi J., Bertino E., Thuraisingham B. (eds.) Proceedings of 14th IEEE International conference on information reuse and intergration, pp. 512–519. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nipkow, T., Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The design and implementation of vampire. AI Commun. 15(2–3), 91–110 (August 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ulbrich, M., Geilmann, U., El Ghazi, A.A., Taghdiri, M.: A proof assistant for alloy specifications. In: Flanagan C., König B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7214, pp. 422–436. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weidenbach, C., Dimova, D., Fietzke, A., Kumar, R., Suda, M., Wischnewski, P.: SPASS version 3.5. In: Schmidt R.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE 2009, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5663, pp. 140–145. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INESC TEC (HASLab)University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  3. 3.Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications—Department of MathematicsUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations