skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

When Do We Not Need Complex Assume-Guarantee Rules?

Published:02 January 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study the need for complex circular assume-guarantee (AG) rules in formalisms that already provide the simple precongruence rule. We first investigate the question for two popular formalisms: Labeled Transition Systems (LTSs) with weak simulation and Interface Automata (IA) with alternating simulation. We observe that, in LTSs, complex circular AG rules cannot always be avoided, but, in the IA world, the simple precongruence rule is all we need. Based on these findings, we introduce modal IA with cut states, a novel formalism that not only generalizes IA and LTSs but also allows for compositional reasoning without complex AG rules.

References

  1. Martín Abadi and Leslie Lamport. 1995. Conjoining specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 17, 3 (1995), 507--535. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rajeev Alur and Thomas A. Henzinger. 1999. Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15 (1999), 7--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sebastian S. Bauer, Philip Mayer, Andreas Schroeder, and Rolf Hennicker. 2010. On weak modal compatibility, refinement, and the MIO workbench. In Proceedings of TACAS’10, Javier Esparza and Rupak Majumdar (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 6015. Springer, 175--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ferenc Bujtor and Walter Vogler. 2014. Error-pruning in interface automata. In Proceedings of SOFSEM’14, Viliam Geffert, Bart Preneel, Branislav Rovan, Július Štuller, and Amin Tjoa (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 8327. Springer, 162--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chris Chilton, Bengt Jonsson, and Marta Kwiatkowska. 2014. Compositional assume-guarantee reasoning for input/output component theories. Sci. Comput. Program. 91, A (2014), 115--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Edmund M. Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and Doron A. Peled. 1999. Model Checking. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jamieson M. Cobleigh, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, and Corina S. Păsăreanu. 2003. Learning assumptions for compositional verification. In Proceedings of TACAS’03, Hubert Garavel and John Hatcliff (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 2619. Springer, 331--346. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Luca de Alfaro and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2001a. Interface automata. ACM SIGSOFT 26, 5 (2001), 109--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Luca de Alfaro and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2001b. Interface theories for component-based design. In Proceedings of EMSOFT’01, Thomas A. Henzinger and Christoph M. Kirsch (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 2211. Springer, 148--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Luca de Alfaro and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2005. Interface-based design. In Engineering Theories of Software Intensive Systems, Manfred Broy, Johannes Grünbauer, David Harel, and Tony Hoare (Eds.). NATO Science Series, Vol. 195. Springer, 83--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Willem-Paul de Roever, Frank S. de Boer, Ulrich Hannemann, Jozef Hooman, Yassine Lakhnech, Mannes Poel, and Job Zwiers. 2001. Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Noncompositional Methods. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Michael Emmi, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, and Corina S. Păsăreanu. 2008. Assume-guarantee verification for interface automata. In Proceedings of FM’08, Jorge Cuéllar, Tom Maibaum, and Kaisa Sere (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 5014. Springer, 116--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Goran Frehse, Zhi Han, and B. Krogh. 2004. Assume-guarantee reasoning for hybrid I/O-automata by over-approximation of continuous interaction. In Proceedings of CDC’04, Vol. 1. IEEE, 479--484. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Orna Grumberg and David E. Long. 1994. Model checking and modular verification. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16, 3 (1994), 843--871. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Thomas A. Henzinger, Shaz Qadeer, and Sriram K. Rajamani. 1998. You assume, we guarantee: Methodology and case studies. In Proceedings of CAV’98, Alan J. Hu and Moshe Y. Vardi (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 1427. Springer, 440--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gerald Lüttgen and Walter Vogler. 2013. Modal interface automata. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9, 3, Article 4 (2013), 28 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nancy A. Lynch and Mark R. Tuttle. 1989. An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Quarterly 2 (1989), 219--246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenneth L. McMillan. 1998. Verification of an implementation of Tomasulo’s algorithm by compositional model checking. In Proceedings of CAV’98, Alan J. Hu and Moshe Y. Vardi (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 1427. Springer, 110--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Robin Milner. 1980. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, Vol. 92. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Janardan Misra and K. Mani Chandy. 1981. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 7, 4 (1981), 417--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kedar S. Namjoshi and Richard J. Trefler. 2010. On the completeness of compositional reasoning methods. ACM Transactions on Computer Logic 11, 3, Article 16 (2010), 22 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Amir Pnueli. 1985. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, Krzysztof R. Apt (Ed.). NATO ASI Series, Vol. 13. Springer, 123--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Viorel Preoteasa and Stavros Tripakis. 2014. Refinement calculus of reactive systems. In Proceedings of EMSOFT’14, Tulika Mitra and Jan Reineke (Eds.). IEEE, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jean-Baptiste Raclet, Eric Badouel, Albert Benveniste, Benoît Caillaud, Axel Legay, and Roberto Passerone. 2011. A modal interface theory for component-based design. Fundamenta Informaticae 108, 1--2 (2011), 119--149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. William Roscoe. 2010. Understanding Concurrent Systems. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Natarajan Shankar. 1998. Lazy compositional verification. In Compositionality: The Significant Difference, Willem-Paul de Roever, Hans Langmaack, and Amir Pnueli (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 1536. Springer, 541--564.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Antti Siirtola. 2014. Parametrised interface automata. In Proceedings of ACSD’14, Andrey Mokhov, Luca Bernardinello, and Kamel Barkaoui (Eds.). IEEE, 176--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Antti Siirtola, Stavros Tripakis, and Keijo Heljanko. 2015. When do we (not) need complex assume-guarantee rules? In Proceedings of ACSD’15, Stefan Haar and Roland Meyer (Eds.). IEEE, 30--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Stavros Tripakis, Ben Lickly, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Edward A. Lee. 2011. A theory of synchronous relational interfaces. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 33, 4, Article 14 (2011), 41 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Antti Valmari. 2001. Composition and abstraction. In Proceedings of MOVEP’00, Franck Cassez, Claude Jard, Brigitte Rozoy, and Mark Dermot Ryan (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 2067. Springer, 58--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. When Do We Not Need Complex Assume-Guarantee Rules?

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!