Refined Interfaces for Compositional Verification

The compositional verification approach of Graf & Steffen aims at avoiding state space explosion for individual processes of a concurrent system. It relies on interfaces that express the behavioural constraints imposed on each process by synchronization with the other processes, thus preventing the exploration of states and transitions that would not be reachable in the global state space.Krimm & Mounier, and Cheung & Kramer proposed two techniques to generate such interfaces automatically. In this paper, we propose a refined interface generation technique, in which the interface of a process is derived automatically from the examination of (a subset of) concurrent processes.This technique is applicable to formalisms in which concurrent processes are composed either using synchronization vectors or process algebra parallel composition operators (including those of Ccs, Csp, μCrl, Lotos, and E-Lotos), for which we developed a tool. Several experiments indicate state space reductions by more than two orders of magnitude for the largest processes.

[1]  Andrew William Roscoe,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Concurrency , 1997 .

[2]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[3]  Rupak Majumdar,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  Dimitra Giannakopoulou,et al.  Model checking for concurrent software architectures , 1999 .

[5]  Nadia Tawbi,et al.  Specification and Verification of the PowerScaleTM Bus Arbitration Protocol: An Industrial Experiment with LOTOS , 1996, FORTE.

[6]  Grzegorz Rozenberg Advances in Petri Nets 1993 , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Mihaela Sighireanu,et al.  A Graphical Parallel Composition Operator for Process Algebras , 1999, FORTE.

[8]  Krishan K. Sabnani,et al.  An algorithmic procedure for checking safety properties of protocols , 1989, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[9]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  The Syntax and Semantics of μCRL , 1995 .

[10]  Robert de Simone,et al.  The FC2TOOLS Set , 1996, AMAST.

[11]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems , 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  H McCarrick,et al.  The first 25 years , 1973, Nursing times.

[13]  Frédéric Lang,et al.  SVL: A Scripting Language for Compositional Verification , 2001, FORTE.

[14]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[15]  Frédéric Tronel,et al.  Compositional Verification Using CADP of the ScalAgent Deployment Protocol for Software Components , 2003, FMOODS.

[16]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  A Toolbox For The Verification Of LOTOS Programs , 1992, International Conference on Software Engineering.

[17]  Michael Goldsmith Operational Semantics for Fun and Profit , 2004, 25 Years Communicating Sequential Processes.

[18]  Scott A. Smolka,et al.  Winston: A Tool for Hierarchical Design and Simulation of Concurrent Systems , 1988, Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems.

[19]  André Arnold,et al.  MEC: A System for Constructing and Analysis Transition Systems , 1990, AMAST.

[20]  Radu Mateescu,et al.  An overview of CADP 2001 , 2001 .

[21]  Jean-Claude Fernandez ALDEBARAN : un système de vérification par réduction de processus communicants. (Aldebaran : a system of verification of communicating processes by using reduction) , 1988 .

[22]  Antti Valmari,et al.  Compositional State Space Generation , 1991, Applications and Theory of Petri Nets.

[23]  Shing-Chi Cheung,et al.  Context constraints for compositional reachability analysis , 1996, TSEM.

[24]  Kwok Hung Cheung Compositional analysis of complex distributed systems , 1998 .

[25]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes , 1984, JACM.

[26]  Kuo-Chung Tai,et al.  An incremental approach to reachability analysis of distributed programs , 1993, Proceedings of 1993 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design.

[27]  Laurent Mounier,et al.  Compositional State Space Generation from Lotos Programs , 1997, TACAS.

[28]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating Sequential Processes (Reprint) , 1983, Commun. ACM.

[29]  Iso Iec Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS) , 2001 .

[30]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  Algebraic Process Verification , 2001, Handbook of Process Algebra.

[31]  Frédéric Lang,et al.  Exp.Open 2.0: A Flexible Tool Integrating Partial Order, Compositional, and On-The-Fly Verification Methods , 2005, IFM.

[32]  Robin Milner,et al.  On Observing Nondeterminism and Concurrency , 1980, ICALP.

[33]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Safety for Branching Time Semantics , 1991, ICALP.

[34]  Shing-Chi Cheung,et al.  Enhancing compositional reachability analysis with context constraints , 1993, SIGSOFT '93.

[35]  Bernhard Steffen,et al.  Compositional minimisation of finite state systems using interface specifications , 1996, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[36]  Judi Romijn Model checking the HAVi leader election protocol , 1999 .

[37]  Shing-Chi Cheung,et al.  Compositional reachability analysis of finite-state distributed systems with user-specified constraints , 1995, SIGSOFT FSE.

[38]  Wei Jen Yeh Controlling state explosion in reachability analysis , 1993 .

[39]  Iso. Lotos,et al.  A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour , 1985 .

[40]  Bernhard Steffen,et al.  Compositional Minimization of Finite State Systems , 1990, CAV.

[41]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Compilation and verification of LOTOS specifications , 1990, PSTV.

[42]  Michal Young,et al.  Compositional reachability analysis using process algebra , 1991, TAV4.