Abstract
We propose a framework that closely ties together visual specification and modular reasoning of asynchronous systems. The basis of the framework is a new notation, called Modular Timing Diagrams (MTD’s), for specifying the universal properties about causality and timing of events in an asynchronous system. MTD’s are complementary in nature to Message Sequence Charts, that are typically used to specify existential properties. Our framework includes two algorithms for formal reasoning withMTD’s. The first is an efficient polynomial-time model checking algorithm. The second is an algorithm for automatically generating an assume-guarantee partitioning of an MTD, that exploits its inherent decompositional structure. We show how to use this decomposition for modular reasoning withMTD properties in conjunction with an asynchronous compositional reasoning rule. To illustrate the notation and our method, we describe a case study where we specified telephony features, suchas call forwarding withMTD’s, and verified these properties on an asynchronous telephony model. The compositional reasoning methods led to savings of 15%-80% in verification times, and comparable savings in space.
Supported in part by NSF CCR 009-8141 and TARP 003658-0650-1999.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, R.P. Kurshan, and K.S. Namjoshi. Model checking synchronous timing diagrams. In FMCAD, 2000.
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, R.P. Kurshan, and K.S. Namjoshi. RTDT: a front-end for e.cient model checking of synchronous timing diagrams. In CAV, 2001.
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, and K.S. Namjoshi. Efficient decompositional model checking for regular timing diagrams. In CHARME, 1999.
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, K.S. Namjoshi, and R. Trefler. Assumeguarantee based compositional reasoning for synchronous timing diagrams. In TACAS, volume 2031 of LNCS, 2001.
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, K. Namjoshi, and R. Trefler. Compositional Reasoning for Asynchronous Systems, 2002. URL: http://-www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/kedar/publications.html.
R. Alur and R. Grosu. Shared variable interaction diagrams. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2001.
M. Abadi and L. Lamport. Conjoining specifications. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), May 1995.
B. Alpern and F. Schneider. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters, 21(4), 1985.
R. Alur and M. Yannakakis. Model checking of message sequence charts. In Proc. TenthInternational Conference on Concurrency Theory, 1999.
W. Damm and D. Harel. LSCs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. Formal Methods in System Design, 19(1), 2001.
W. Damm, B. Josko, and Rainer Schlör. Specification and verification of VHDL-based system-level hardware designs. In Egon Borger, editor, Specification and Validation Methods. Oxford University Press, 1994.
W-P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Proof Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
W-P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli, editors. Compositionality: The Significant Difference, volume 1536 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
E.A. Emerson and C. Lei. Modalities for model checking: Branching time logic strikes back. Science of Computer Programming, 8(3):275–306, 1987.
K. Fisler. A Unified Approachto Hardware Verification Througha Heterogeneous Logic of Design Diagrams. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, August 1996.
R.H. Hardin, Z. Har’el, and R.P. Kurshan. COSPAN. In CAV, volume 1102 of LNCS, 1996.
G. Holzmann. The SPIN model checker. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5), May 1997.
G.J. Holzmann and D. Peled. An improvement in formal verification. In FORTE, 1994.
J. Klose and H. Wittke. An automata based interpretation of live sequence charts. In TACAS, volume 2031 of LNCS, 2001.
P.B. Ladkin and S. Leue. What do message sequence charts mean? In Formal Description Techniques, 1994.
O. Lichtenstein and A. Pnueli. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specifications. In POPL, 1985.
Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Specification and verification of concurrent programs by forall-automata. In POPL, 1987.
A. Muscholl and D. Peled. Analyzing message sequence charts. In 2nd Workshop on SDL and MSC, 2000.
A. Muscholl, D. Peled, and Z. Su. Deciding properties for message sequence charts. In FoSSaCS, 1998.
K.S. Namjoshi and R.J. Trefler. On the completeness of compositional reasoning. In CAV, volume 1855 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
M. Plathand M. Ryan. Feature integration using a feature construct. Science of Computer Programming, 41(1), 1999.
M.H. Smith, G.J. Holzmann, and K. Etessami. Events and constraints: A graphical editor for capturing logic requirements of programs. In 5th International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amla, N., Allen Emerson, E., Namjoshi, K.S., Trefler, R.J. (2002). Visual Specifications for Modular Reasoning about Asynchronous Systems. In: Peled, D.A., Vardi, M.Y. (eds) Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Sytems — FORTE 2002. FORTE 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2529. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36135-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36135-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00141-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36135-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive