Abstract
The explosion in the number of states due to several interacting components limits the application of model checking in practice. Compositional reasoning ameliorates this problem by reducing reasoning about the entire system to reasoning about individual components. Such reasoning is often carried out in the assume-guarantee paradigm: each component guarantees certain properties based on assumptions about the other components. Naïve applications of this reasoning can be circular and, therefore, unsound. We present a new rule for assume-guarantee reasoning, which is sound and complete. We show how to apply it, in a fully automated manner, to properties specified as synchronous timing diagrams. We show that timing diagram properties have a natural decomposition into assume-guarantee pairs, and liveness restrictions that result in simple subgoals which can be checked efficiently. We have implemented our method in a timing diagram analysis tool, which carries out the compositional proof in a fully automated manner. Initial applications of this method have yielded promising results, showing substantial reductions in the space requirements for model checking.
Partially supported by NSF 980-4736, TARP 003658-0650-1999 and SRC 98-DP-388.
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
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 T. Henzinger. Reactive modules. In IEEE LICS, 1996.
N. Amla, E.A. Emerson, R.P. Kurshan, and K.S. Namjoshi. Model checking synchronous timing diagrams. In FMCAD, volume 1954 of LNCS, 2000.
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies. PCI Core User’s Manual (Version 1.0). Technical report, July 1996.
T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, and R.L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms, chapter 34. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 1990.
W.P. de Roever, F. de Boer, U. Hannemann, J. Hooman, Y. Lakhnech, M. Poel, and J. Zwiers. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Non-compositional Proof Methods. 1999. Draft book.
R.H. Hardin, Z. Har’el, and R.P. Kurshan. COSPAN. In CAV, volume 1102 of LNCS, 1996.
J. Helbig, R. Schlor, W. Damm, G. Dohmen, and P. Kelb. VHDL/S-integrating statecharts, timing diagrams, and VHDL. Microprocessing and Microprogramming, 38, 1993.
B. Josko. Model checking of CTL formulae under liveness assumptions. In ICALP, volume 267 of LNCS, 1987.
B. Josko. Modular Specification and Verification of Reactive Systems. Universität Oldenburg, 1993.
K.L. McMillan. Circular compositional reasoning about liveness. In CHARME, volume 1703 of LNCS, 1999.
K.S. Namjoshi and R.J. Treer. On the completeness of compositional reasoning. In CAV, volume 1855 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
PCI Special Interest Group. PCI Local Bus Specification Rev 2.1. Technical report, June 1995.
A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular reasoning about programs. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, NATO ASI Series, 1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amla, N., Emerson, E.A., Namjoshi, K., Trefler, R. (2001). Assume-Guarantee Based Compositional Reasoning for Synchronous Timing Diagrams. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2031. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45319-9_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45319-9_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41865-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45319-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive