Advertisement

Property-Preserving Parallel Decomposition

  • Bernhard Steffen
  • Marc Jasper
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10460)

Abstract

We propose a systematic approach to generate highly parallel benchmark systems with guaranteed temporal properties. Key to our approach is the iterative property-preserving parallel decomposition of an initial Modal Transition System, which is based on lightweight assumption commitment. Property preservation is guaranteed on the basis of Modal Contracts that permit a refinement into a component and its context while supporting the chaining of dependencies that are vital for the validity of considered properties. We illustrate our approach, which can be regarded as a simplicity-oriented variant of correctness by construction, by means of an accompanying example.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We are very grateful to Axel Legay and Maximilian Fecke for their suggestions and remarks regarding this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer, S.S., David, A., Hennicker, R., Guldstrand Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, S.S., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: A modal specification theory for components with data. Sci. Comput. Program. 83, 106–128 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beneš, N., Delahaye, B., Fahrenberg, U., Křetínský, J., Legay, A.: Hennessy-Milner logic with greatest fixed points as a complete behavioural specification theory. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40184-8_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beneš, N., Křetínský, J., Larsen, K.G., Møller, M.H., Srba, J.: Parametric modal transition systems. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.-A. (eds.) ATVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24372-1_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B.: Synchronous interfaces and assume/guarantee contracts. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Larsen Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 233–248. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/10722167_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). doi: 10.1007/BFb0025774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleaveland, R., Steffen, B.: A preorder for partial process specifications. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 141–151. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). doi: 10.1007/BFb0039057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahrenberg, U., Legay, A.: A linear-time–branching-time spectrum of behavioral specification theories. In: Steffen, B., Baier, C., Brand, M., Eder, J., Hinchey, M., Margaria, T. (eds.) SOFSEM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10139, pp. 49–61. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-51963-0_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fecher, H., Schmidt, H.: Comparing disjunctive modal transition systems with an one-selecting variant. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 77(1–2), 20–39 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flanagan, C., Godefroid, P.: Dynamic partial-order reduction for model checking software. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 40, 110–121 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geske, M., Jasper, M., Steffen, B., Howar, F., Schordan, M., Pol, J.: RERS 2016: parallel and sequential benchmarks with focus on LTL verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 787–803. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Godefroid, P. (ed.): Partial-Order Methods for the Verification of Concurrent Systems. LNCS, vol. 1032. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-60761-7 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B.: Compositional minimization of finite state processes. Comput.-Aided Verification 90, 57–73 (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graf, S., Steffen, B., Lüttgen, G.: Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications. Form. Asp. Comput. 8(5), 607–616 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 16(3), 843–871 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Lazy abstraction. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 37(1), 58–70 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. In: Hansen, P.B. (ed.) The Origin of Concurrent Programming, pp. 413–443. Springer, Heidelberg (1978). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3472-0_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howar, F., Isberner, M., Merten, M., Steffen, B., Beyer, D.: The RERS grey-box challenge 2012: analysis of event-condition-action systems. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 608–614. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hüttel, H., Larsen, K.G.: The use of static constructs in a model process logic. In: Meyer, A.R., Taitslin, M.A. (eds.) Logic at Botik 1989. LNCS, vol. 363, pp. 163–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). doi: 10.1007/3-540-51237-3_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jonsson, B., Larsen, K.G.: On the complexity of equation solving in process algebra. In: Abramsky, S., Maibaum, T.S.E. (eds.) CAAP 1991. LNCS, vol. 493, pp. 381–396. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi: 10.1007/3-540-53982-4_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kordon, F., Garavel, H., Hillah, L.M., Hulin-Hubard, F., Chiardo, G., Hamez, A.,Jezequel, L., Miner, A., Meijer, J., Paviot-Adet, E., Racordon, D., Rodriguez, C., Rohr, C., Srba, J., Thierry-Mieg, Y., Tri.nh, G., Wolf, K.: Complete Results for the 2016 Edition of the Model Checking Contest, June 2016. http://mcc.lip6.fr/2016/results.php
  23. 23.
    Kordon, F., et al.: Report on the model checking contest at petri nets 2011. In: Jensen, K., Aalst, W.M., Ajmone Marsan, M., Franceschinis, G., Kleijn, J., Kristensen, L.M. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency VI. LNCS, vol. 7400, pp. 169–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35179-2_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kourie, D.G., Watson, B.W.: The Correctness-by-Construction Approach to Programming. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-27919-5 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Křetínskỳ, J.: Modal transition systems: extensions and analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta informatiky (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Larsen, K.G., Steffen, B., Weise, C.: A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems. In: Brinksma, E., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 17–40. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-60630-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen, K.G., Steffen, B., Weise, C.: The methodology of modal constraints. In: Broy, M., Merz, S., Spies, K. (eds.) Formal Systems Specification. LNCS, vol. 1169, pp. 405–435. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi: 10.1007/BFb0024437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: Partial specifications and compositional verification. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 88(1), 15–32 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larsen, K.G.: Modal specifications. In: Sifakis, J. (ed.) CAV 1989. LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 232–246. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). doi: 10.1007/3-540-52148-8_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guldstrand Larsen, K.: Ideal specification formalism = expressivity + compositionality + decidability + testability +. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 33–56. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). doi: 10.1007/BFb0039050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larsen, K.G., Xinxin, L.: Equation solving using modal transition systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 1990, pp. 108–117. IEEE (1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Simplicity as a driver for agile innovation. Computer 43(6), 90–92 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peled, D.: All from one, one for all: on model checking using representatives. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 409–423. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi: 10.1007/3-540-56922-7_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE (1977)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raclet, J.B., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: A modal interface theory for component-based design. Fundamenta Informaticae 108(1–2), 119–149 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steffen, B.: Characteristic formulae. In: Ausiello, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Rocca, S.R. (eds.) ICALP 1989. LNCS, vol. 372, pp. 723–732. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). doi: 10.1007/BFb0035794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steffen, B., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: Characteristic formulas for processes with divergence. Inf. Comput. 110(1), 149–163 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steffen, B., Isberner, M., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Geske, M.: Property-driven benchmark generation: synthesizing programs of realistic structure. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 16(5), 465–479 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steffen, B., Jasper, M., van de Pol, J., Meijer, J.: Property-preserving generation of tailored benchmark petri nets. In: Proceedings of ACSD 2017. IEEE Computer Society (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Valmari, A.: Stubborn sets for reduced state space generation. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) ICATPN 1989. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 491–515. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi: 10.1007/3-540-53863-1_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wei, O., Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: Mixed transition systems revisited. In: Jones, N.D., Müller-Olm, M. (eds.) VMCAI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 349–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-93900-9_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations