Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study property preserving transformations for reactive systems. The main idea is the use of simulations parameterized by Galois connections (α, γ), relating the lattices of properties of two systems. We propose and study a notion of preservation of properties expressed by formulas of a logic, by a function α mapping sets of states of a systemS into sets of states of a systemS'. We give results on the preservation of properties expressed in sublanguages of the branching time μ-calculus when two systemsS andS' are related via (α, γ)-simulations. They can be used to verify a property for a system by verifying the same property on a simpler system which is an abstraction of it. We show also under which conditions abstraction of concurrent systems can be computed from the abstraction of their components. This allows a compositional application of the proposed verification method.

This is a revised version of the papers [2] and [16]; the results are fully developed in [28].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Abadi and L. Lamport. The existence of refinement mappings.Theoretical Computer Science, 82 (2), 1991. First published as Report SRC-29, DEC Research Center in 1988.

  2. A. Bouajjani, S. Bensalem, C. Loiseaux, and J. Sifakis. Property preserving simulations. InWorkshop on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV), Montréal. LNCS 630, June 1992.

  3. A. Bouajjani, J.-C. Fernandez, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, and C. Rodriguez, “Safety for branching semantics,” In18th ICALP, Madrid. LNCS 510, Springer Verlag, 1991.

  4. A. Bouajjani, “From Linear-Time Propositional Temporal Logics to a Branching-Time μ-calculus,” RTC 15, LGI-IMAG, Grenoble, 1989.

  5. R. E. Bryant, “Graph based algorithms for boolean function manipulation,”IEEE Trans. on Computation, 35 (8), 1986.

  6. J. R. Büchi, “On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic,” InInternational Congress on Logic, Method and Philosophical Science. Stanford University Press, 1962.

  7. P. Cousot and R. Cousot, “Systematic design of program analysis framework,” InProc. 6th ACM Symp. on Principle of Programming Languages, 1979.

  8. P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Comparing the Galois connection and widening/narrowing approaches to abstract interpretation. PLILP'92, LNCS 631, pp. 269–295. Springer Verlag.

  9. E. M. Clarke, E. A. Emerson, and E. Sistla, “Automatic verification of finite state concurrent systems using temporal logic specification: a practical approach,” In10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL83). Complete version published in ACM TOPLAS, 8(2):244–263, April 1986.

  10. E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. E. Long, “Model checking and abstraction,” InSymposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 92). ACM, January 1992.

  11. K.M. Chandy and J. Misra,Parallel Program Design. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Dams, O. Grumberg, and R. Gerth, “Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: Abstractions preserving ∀CTL*, ∃CTL* and CTL*,”IFIP Conference PROCOMET' 94.

  13. P. Ernberg, L. Fredlund, and B. Jonsson, “Specification and validation of a simple overtaking protocol using LOTOS,” Technical Report T90006, SICS, Sweden, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern, “’Sometimes’ and ‘not never’ revisited: On branching versus linear time,” In10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 83). Published in Journal of ACM, 33:151–178.

  15. O. Grumberg and E. Long, “Compositionnal model checking and modular verification,” In J.C.M. Baeten and J.F. Groote, editors,Concur'91, pp. 250–265. LNCS 527, Springer-Verlag, 1991.

  16. S. Graf and C. Loiseaux, “Program verification using compositional abstraction,” InTAPSOFT 93, joint conference CAAP/FASE. LNCS 668, Springer Verlag, April 1993.

  17. S. Graf and C. Loiseaux, “A tool for symbolic program verification and abstraction,” InConference on Computer Aided Verification CAV'93, Heraklion Crete. LNCS 697, Springer Verlag, 1993.

  18. S. Graf, “Verification of a distributed cache memory by using abstractions,”Conference on Computer Aided Verification CAV'94, Stanford. LNCS 818, Springer Verlag, 1994.

  19. C.A.R. Hoare.Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International, 1984.

  20. ISO. IS ISO/OSI 8807-LOTOS: a formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. International standard, ISO, 1989.

  21. H. Jifeng, “Various simulations and refinements”, InREX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, Mook. LNCS 430, Springer Verlag, 1989.

  22. B. Jonsson, “On decomposing and refining specifications of distributed systems,” InREX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, Mook. LNCS 430, Springer Verlag, 1989.

  23. J. Katzenelson and B. Kurshan, “S/R: A Language for Specifying Protocols and other Coordinating Processes,” In5th Ann. Int'l Phoenix Conf. Comput. Commun., pp. 286–292. IEEE, 1986.

  24. D. Kozen, “Results on the propositional μ-calculus”, InTheoretical Computer Science. North-Holland, 1983.

  25. R.P. Kurshan, “Analysis of discrete event coordination,” InREX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, Mook. LNCS 430, Springer Verlag, 1989.

  26. L. Lamport, “The temporal logic of actions”, Technical Report 79, DEC, Systems Research Center, 1991.

  27. C. Loiseaux, Vérification symbolique de programmes réactifs à l'aide d'abstractions. Thesis, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, February 1994.

  28. N.A. Lynch and M.R. Tuttle, “An introduction to Input/Output automata,” Report MIT/LCS/TM 373, MIT, Cambridge, Massachussetts, November 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Milner, “An algebraic definition of simulation between programs,” InProc. Second Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 481–489. BCS, 1971.

  30. R. Milner, “A calculus of communication systems” InLNCS 92. Springer Verlag, 1980.

  31. R. Milner, “A calculus for Synchrony and Asynchrony,”Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 25, 1983.

  32. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, “A hierarchy of temporal properties,” InProceedings of 9th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1990.

  33. O. Ore, “Galois connexions,”Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 55:493–513, February 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  34. A. Pnueli, “The Temporal Logic of Programs,” In18th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 77). IEEE, 1977. Revised version published in Theoretical Computer Science, 13:45–60, 1981.

  35. A. Pnueli, “Application of temporal logic to specification and verification of reactive systems: a survey of current trends,” InCurrent trends in Concurrency, Nordwijkerhout. LNCS 224, Springer Verlag, 1986.

  36. J.P. Queille. Le système CESAR: Description, spécification et analyse des applications réparties. Thesis, Université Scientifique et Médicale de Grenoble, June 1982.

  37. Luis E. Sanchis, “Data types as lattices: retractions, closures and projections,” InRAIRO Theorical computer science, vol 11, no. 4, pp. 339–344, 1977.

  38. J. Sifakis, “Property preserving homomorphisms and a notion of simulation of transition systems,” RR 332, IMAG, Grenoble, November 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. Sifakis, “Property preserving homomorphisms of transition systems,” In E. Clarke and D. Kozen, editors,4th Workshop on Logics of Programs, Pittsburgh. LNCS 164, Springer Verlag, June 1983.

  40. P. Wolper, “Temporal logic can be more expressive,”Information and Control, 56, 1983.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VERIMAG, Rue Lavoisier, F-38330, Monbonnot, France

    C. Loiseaux, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, A. Bouajjani & S. Bensalem

Authors
  1. C. Loiseaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Graf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Sifakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Bouajjani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Bensalem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Probst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work was partially supported by ESPRIT Basic Research Action “REACT’.

Verimag is a joint laboratory of CNRS, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Université J. Fourier and Verilog SA associated with IMAG.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loiseaux, C., Graf, S., Sifakis, J. et al. Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Form Method Syst Des 6, 11–44 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384313

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384313

Keywords

Search

Navigation