Compositional Analysis Using Component-Oriented Interpolation

  • Viet Yen Nguyen
  • Benjamin Bittner
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
  • Thomas Noll
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8997)

Abstract

We present a novel abstraction technique that exploits the compositionality of a concurrent system consisting of interacting components. It uses, given an invariant and a component of interest, bounded model checking (BMC) to quickly interpolate an abstraction of that component’s environment. The abstraction may be refined by increasing the BMC bound. Furthermore, it is only defined over variables shared between the component and its environment, resulting in an aggressive abstraction with several applications. We demonstrate its use in a verification setting, as we report on our open source implementation in the NuSMV model checker which was used to perform a practical assessment with industrially-sized models from satellite case studies of ongoing missions. These models are expressed in a formalized dialect of the component-oriented and industrially standardized Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL).

References

  1. 1.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozzano, M., Cimatti, A., Katoen, J.-P., Nguyen, V.Y., Noll, T., Roveri, M.: Safety, dependability and performance analysis of extended AADL models. Comput. J. 54(5), 754–775 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buss, S.R.: Propositional proof complexity. In: Berger, U., Schwichtenberg, H. (eds.) Computational Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cobleigh, J.M., Giannakopoulou, D., Păsăreanu, C.S.: Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cofer, D., Gacek, A., Miller, S., Whalen, M.W., LaValley, B., Sha, L.: Compositional verification of architectural models. In: Goodloe, A.E., Person, S. (eds.) NFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7226, pp. 126–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, A., Namjoshi, K.S.: Local proofs for global safety properties. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 34(2), 104–125 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, A., Namjoshi, K.S.: Local proofs for linear-time properties of concurrent programs. In: Gupta, A., Malik, S. (eds.) CAV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5123, pp. 149–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig, W.: Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory. J. Symb. Log. 22(3), 269–285 (1957)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Purandare, M., Weissenbacher, G.: Interpolant strength. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esteve, M.-A., Katoen, J.-P., Nguyen, V.Y., Postma, B., Yushtein, Y.: Formal correctness, safety, dependability and performance analysis of a satellite. In: Proceedings of 34th Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1022–1031. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feiler, P.H., Gluch, D.P.: Model-Based Engineering with AADL: An Introduction to the SAE Architecture Analysis & Design Language. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flanagan, C., Qadeer, S.: Thread-modular model checking. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Pasareanu, C.S., Barringer, H.: Assumption generation for software component verification. In: Proceedings of 17th Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 3–12. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, A., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: Threader: a constraint-based verifier for multi-threaded programs. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 412–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jhala, R., McMillan, K.L.: Interpolant-based transition relation approximation. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malkis, A., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Thread-modular counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Cousot, R., Martel, M. (eds.) SAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6337, pp. 356–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malkis, A., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Thread-modular verification is Cartesian abstract interpretation. In: Barkaoui, K., Cavalcanti, A., Cerone, A. (eds.) ICTAC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4281, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McMillan, K.L.: Interpolation and SAT-based model checking. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McMillan, K.L.: Applications of Craig interpolants in model checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen, V.Y.: Trustworthy spacecraft design using formal methods. Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Germany (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viet Yen Nguyen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benjamin Bittner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Joost-Pieter Katoen
    • 2
  • Thomas Noll
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Software Modeling and Verification GroupRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.Embedded Systems GroupFondazione Bruno KesslerTrentoItaly
  4. 4.ICT SchoolUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations