Tool Integration with the Evidential Tool Bus

  • Simon Cruanes
  • Gregoire Hamon
  • Sam Owre
  • Natarajan Shankar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7737)


Formal and semi-formal tools are now being used in large projects both for development and certification. A typical project integrates many diverse tools such as static analyzers, model checkers, test generators, and constraint solvers. These tools are usually integrated in an ad hoc manner. There is, however, a need for a tool integration framework that can be used to systematically create workflows, to generate claims along with supporting evidence, and to maintain the claims and evidence as the inputs change. We present the Evidential Tool Bus (ETB) as a tool integration framework for constructing claims supported by evidence. ETB employs a variant of Datalog as a metalanguage for representing claims, rules, and evidence, and as a scripting language for capturing distributed workflows. ETB can be used to develop assurance cases for certifying complex systems that are developed and assured using a range of tools. We describe the design and prototype implementation of the ETB architecture, and present examples of formal verification workflows defined using ETB.


Certification Formal techniques Hybrid techniques Tool integration Workflow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvaro, P., Marczak, W., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J.M., Maier, D., Sears, R.C.: Dedalus: Datalog in Time and Space. Technical report, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (December 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: A Modular Reusable Verifier for Object-Oriented Programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloomfield, R.E., Bishop, P.G., Jones, C.C.M., Froome, P.K.D.: Adelard Safety Case Development Manual. Adelard (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley, A.R.: Understanding IC3. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brayton, R., Mishchenko, A.: ABC: An Academic Industrial-Strength Verification Tool. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 24–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., Tanca, L.: What you always wanted to know about datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 1(1), 146–166 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., Rival, X.: The ASTREÉ Analyzer. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuoq, P., Kirchner, F., Kosmatov, N., Prevosto, V., Signoles, J., Yakobowski, B.: Frama-C - A Software Analysis Perspective. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Jong, H., Klint, P.: ToolBus: The Next Generation. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 220–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dennis, L.A., Collins, G., Norrish, M., Boulton, R., Slind, K., Robinson, G., Gordon, M., Melham, T.: The PROSPER Toolkit. In: Graf, S., Schwartzbach, M. (eds.) TACAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1785, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dutertre, B., de Moura, L.: A Fast Linear-Arithmetic Solver for DPLL(T). In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 81–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ernst, M.D., Perkins, J.H., Guo, P.J., McCamant, S., Pacheco, C., Tschantz, M.S., Xiao, C.: The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Science of Computer Programming (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C.: The Why/Krakatoa/Caduceus Platform for Deductive Program Verification. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 173–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grebenshchikov, S., Gupta, A., Lopes, N.P., Popeea, C., Rybalchenko, A.: HSF(C): A Software Verifier Based on Horn Clauses- (Competition Contribution). In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 549–551. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grumberg, O., Katz, S.: Veritech: a framework for translating among model description notations. STTT 9(2), 119–132 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallgren, T., Hook, J., Jones, M.P., Kieburtz, R.B.: An overview of the Programatica toolset. In: High Confidence Software and Systems Conference, HCSS 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harper, R., Honsell, F., Plotkin, G.D.: A framework for defining logics. In: IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Ithaca, NY (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang, S.S., Green, T.J., Loo, B.T.: Datalog and emerging applications: an interactive tutorial. In: Sellis, T.K., Miller, R.J., Kementsietsidis, A., Velegrakis, Y. (eds.) SIGMOD Conference, pp. 1213–1216. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Software model checking. ACM Computing Surveys 41(4), 21:1–21:54 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kitchin, D., Quark, A., Cook, W., Misra, J.: The Orc Programming Language. In: Lee, D., Lopes, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) FMOODS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5522, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Margaria, T., Nagel, R., Steffen, B.: Remote integration and coordination of verification tools in JETI. In: ECBS, pp. 431–436. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nelson, G.: Techniques for program verification. Technical Report CSL-81-10, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Ca. (1981)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1(2), 245–257 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.T. (eds.): Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002), Isabelle home page: zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfenning, F., Schürmann, C.: System Description: Twelf - A Meta-Logical Framework for Deductive Systems. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) CADE-16. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1632, pp. 202–206. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao, P., Sagonas, K.F., Swift, T., Warren, D.S., Freire, J.: XSB: A System for Effciently Computing WFS. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 430–440. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rushby, J.M.: An Evidential Tool Bus. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 36–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sen, K., Marinov, D., Agha, G.: CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. In: Wermelinger, M., Gall, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, September 5-9, pp. 263–272. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shankar, N.: Automated deduction for verification. ACM Computing Surveys 41(4), 20:1–20:56 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thain, D., Tannenbaum, T., Livny, M.: Distributed computing in practice: the Condor experience. Concurrency - Practice and Experience 17(2-4), 323–356 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Cruanes
    • 1
  • Gregoire Hamon
    • 2
  • Sam Owre
    • 2
  • Natarajan Shankar
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecole PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.Computer Science LaboratorySRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations