Advertisement

Alternating Simulation and IOCO

  • Margus Veanes
  • Nikolaj Bjørner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6435)

Abstract

We propose a symbolic framework called guarded labeled assignment systems or GLASs and show how GLASs can be used as a foundation for symbolic analysis of various aspects of formal specification languages. We define a notion of i/o-refinement over GLASs as an alternating simulation relation and provide formal proofs that relate i/o-refinement to ioco. We show that non-i/o-refinement reduces to a reachability problem and provide a translation from bounded non-i/o-refinement or bounded non-ioco to checking first-order assertions.

Keywords

Label Transition System Output Label Bound Model Check Symbolic Analysis Predicate Transformer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book: Assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R., Hallerstede, S.: Refinement, decomposition and instantiation of discrete models: Application to Event-B. Fundamenta Informaticae 77(1-2), 1–28 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Alternating refinement relations. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Barrett, C., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S.A., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability Modulo Theories, ch. 26. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 825–885. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinksma, E., Tretmans, J.: Testing Transition Systems: An Annotated Bibliography. In: Cassez, F., Jard, C., Rozoy, B., Dermot, M. (eds.) MOVEP 2000. LNCS, vol. 2067, pp. 187–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler, M.: Decomposition structures for Event-B. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 20–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Alfaro, L.: Game models for open systems. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 269–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alfaro, L.d., Henzinger, T.A.: Interface automata. In: ESEC/FSE, pp. 109–120. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Moura, L., Rueß, H., Sorea, M.: Lazy theorem proving for bounded model checking over infinite domains. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 438–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frantzen, L., Tretmans, J., Willemse, T.: A symbolic framework for model-based testing. In: Havelund, K., Núñez, M., Roşu, G., Wolff, B. (eds.) FATES 2006 and RV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4262, pp. 40–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franzen, L., Tretmans, J., Willemse, T.: Test generation based on symbolic specifications. In: Grabowski, J., Nielsen, B. (eds.) FATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3395, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) (to appear) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacky, J., Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Schulte, W.: Model-based Software Testing and Analysis with C#. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keller, R.: Formal verification of parallel programs. Communications of the ACM, 371–384 (July 1976)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lynch, N., Tuttle, M.: Hierarchical correctness proofs for distributed algorithms. In: Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pp. 137–151. ACM Press, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poppleton, M.: The composition of Event-B models. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 209–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tretmans, J.: Model based testing with labelled transition systems. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) FORTEST. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 1–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tretmans, J., Belinfante, A.: Automatic testing with formal methods. In: EuroSTAR 1999: 7th European Int. Conference on Software Testing, Analysis & Review, Barcelona, Spain, November 8–12, EuroStar Conferences, Galway, Ireland (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Bij, M., Rensink, A., Tretmans, J.: Compositional testing with ioco. In: Petrenko, A., Ulrich, A. (eds.) FATES 2003. LNCS, vol. 2931, pp. 86–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veanes, M., Bjørner, N.: Input-Output Model Programs. In: Leucker, M., Morgan, C. (eds.) Theoretical Aspects of Computing - ICTAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5684, pp. 322–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veanes, M., Bjørner, N.: Alternating Simulation and IOCO. Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-38, Microsoft Research (April 2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Veanes, M., Bjørner, N., Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W.: Symbolic bounded model checking of abstract state machines. Int. J. Software Informatics 33(2-3), 1–22 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margus Veanes
    • 1
  • Nikolaj Bjørner
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations