Bounded Relational Analysis of Free Data Types

  • Andriy Dunets
  • Gerhard Schellhorn
  • Wolfgang Reif
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4966)


In this paper we report on our first experiences using the relational analysis provided by the Alloy tool with the theorem prover KIV in the context of specifications of freely generated data types. The presented approach aims at improving KIV’s performance on first-order theories. In theorem proving practice a significant amount of time is spent on unsuccessful proof attempts. An automatic method that exhibits counter examples for unprovable theorems would offer an extremely valuable support for a proof engineer by saving his time and effort. In practice, such counterexamples tend to be small, so usually there is no need to search for big instances. The paper defines a translation from KIV’s recursive definitions to Alloy, discusses its correctness and gives some examples.


First-order logic theorem proving SAT checking abstract data types model checking verification formal methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Menzel, W., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Schmitt, P.: Integrating Automated and Interactive Theorem Proving. In: Bibel, W., Schmitt, P. (eds.) Automated Deduction – A Basis for Applications. Systems and Implementation Techniques, Interactive Theorem Proving, vol. II, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balser, M.: Verifying Concurrent Systems with Symbolic Execution. PhD thesis, Universität Augsburg, Fakultät für Informatik (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balser, M., Bäumler, S., Knapp, A., Reif, W., Thums, A.: Interactive verification of UML state machines. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 434–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K.: KIV 3.0 for Provably Correct Systems. In: Hutter, D., Traverso, P. (eds.) FM-Trends 1998. LNCS, vol. 1641, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal system development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T.S.E. (ed.) ETAPS 2000 and FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, pp. 363–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Nivelle, H., Meng, J.: Geometric resolution: A proof procedure based on finite model search. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 303–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fontaine, P., Marion, J.-Y., Merz, S., Nieto, L.P., Tiu, A.: Expressiveness + automation + soundness: Towards combining SMT solvers and interactive proof assistants. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrison, J.: Inductive definitions: Automation and application. In: TPHOLs, pp. 200–213 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Alloy Project,
  11. 11.
    Jackson, D.: Automating first-order relational logic. In: SIGSOFT 2000/FSE-8: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pp. 130–139. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuncak, V., Jackson, D.: Relational analysis of algebraic datatypes. In: Joint 10th European Software Engineering Conference and 13th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meng, J., Quigley, C., Paulson, L.C.: Automation for interactive proof: First prototype. Inf. Comput. 204(10), 1575–1596 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Momtahan, L.: Towards a small model theorem for data independent systems in alloy. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 128(6), 37–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramananandro, T.: Mondex, an electronic purse: specification and refinement checks with the Alloy model-finding method. Formal Aspects of Computing 20(1), 21–39 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reif, W., Schellhorn, G.: Theorem Proving in Large Theories. In: Bibel, W., Schmitt, P. (eds.) Automated Deduction—A Basis for Applications, vol. III, 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K.: Interactive Correctness Proofs for Software Modules Using KIV. In: COMPASS 1995 – Tenth Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, IEEE press, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Thums, A.: Flaw detection in formal specifications. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 642–657. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schellhorn, G.: Verification of Abstract State Machines. PhD thesis, Universität Ulm, Fakultät für Informatik (1999),
  20. 20.
    Stenzel, K.: A formally verified calculus for full Java Card. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 491–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thums, A., Schellhorn, G., Ortmeier, F., Reif, W.: Interactive verification of statecharts. In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) INT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 355–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: A relational model finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andriy Dunets
    • 1
  • Gerhard Schellhorn
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Reif
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik und Programmiersprachen, Institut für InformatikUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations