Contract-Based Reasoning for Component Systems with Rich Interactions

In this chapter we propose a rule unifying circular and non-circular assume-guarantee reasoning and show its interest for contract-based design and verification. Our work was motivated by the need to combine, in the top-down methodology of the FP7 SPEEDS project, partial tool chains for two component frameworks derived from the HRC model and using different refinement relations. While the L0 framework is based on a simple trace-based representation of behaviors and uses set operations for defining refinement, the more elaborated L1 framework offers the possibility to build systems of components with complex interactions. Our approach in L1 is based on circular reasoning and results in a method for checking contract dominance which does not require the explicit composition of contracts. In order to formally relate results obtained in L0 and L1, we provide a definition of the minimal concepts required by a consistent contract theory and propose abstract definitions which smoothly encompass hierarchical components. Finally, using our relaxed rule for circular reasoning, we show how to use together the L0 and L1 refinement relations and as a result their respective tool chains.

[1]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  Contract-Based Reasoning for Component Systems with Complex Interactions , 2010 .

[2]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Modeling Heterogeneous Real-time Components in BIP , 2006, Fourth IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM'06).

[3]  Sophie Quinton,et al.  Contract-Based Verification of Hierarchical Systems of Components , 2008, 2008 Sixth IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods.

[4]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  A Generic Model of Contracts for Embedded Systems , 2007, ArXiv.

[5]  Joseph Sifakis A framework for component-based construction , 2005, Third IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM'05).

[6]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Composition for component-based modeling , 2005, Sci. Comput. Program..

[7]  Axel Legay,et al.  Modal interfaces: unifying interface automata and modal specifications , 2009, EMSOFT '09.

[8]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  Semantic foundations for heterogeneous systems , 2004 .

[9]  Werner Damm Controlling speculative design processes using rich component models , 2005, Fifth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'05).

[10]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Reactive Modules , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[11]  David L. Dill,et al.  Trace theory for automatic hierarchical verification of speed-independent circuits , 1989, ACM distinguished dissertations.

[12]  Axel Legay,et al.  Probabilistic Contracts: A Compositional Reasoning Methodology for the Design of Stochastic Systems , 2010, 2010 10th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[13]  Antonio Iannopollo,et al.  TAMING DR. FRANKENSTEIN: CONTRACT-BASED DESIGN FOR CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS , 2012 .

[14]  Patrick Maier,et al.  A lattice-theoretic framework for circular assume-guarantee reasoning , 2003 .

[15]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  A contract-based formalism for the specification of heterogeneous systems , 2008, 2008 Forum on Specification, Verification and Design Languages.

[16]  Sophie Quinton,et al.  Reasoning about Safety and Progress Using Contracts , 2010, ICFEM.

[17]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories , 2007, ESOP.

[18]  Radu Negulescu,et al.  Process spaces and formal verification of asynchronous circuits , 1998 .

[19]  W. Damm,et al.  Boosting Re-use of Embedded Automotive Applications Through Rich Components , 2005 .

[20]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  Multiple Viewpoint Contract-Based Specification and Design , 2008, FMCO.

[21]  R. Passerone,et al.  System level design paradigms: Platform-based design and communication synthesis , 2004 .

[22]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  On relational interfaces , 2009, EMSOFT '09.

[23]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  Why Are Modalities Good for Interface Theories? , 2009, 2009 Ninth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[24]  Axel Legay,et al.  A Modal Interface Theory for Component-based Design , 2011, Fundam. Informaticae.

[25]  George S. Avrunin,et al.  Breaking up is hard to do: An evaluation of automated assume-guarantee reasoning , 2008, TSEM.

[26]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Interface automata , 2001, ESEC/FSE-9.

[27]  Elizabeth Wolf Hierarchical models of synchronous circuits for formal verification and substitution , 1996 .

[28]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Interface Input/Output Automata , 2006, FM.

[29]  Radu Negulescu,et al.  Process Spaces , 2000, CONCUR.