research-article

Dynamite: A tool for the verification of alloy models based on PVS

Authors:

Mariano M. Moscato,

Carlos G. Lopez Pombo,

Marcelo F. FriasAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Volume 23, Issue 2

Article No.: 20, Pages 1 - 37

https://doi.org/10.1145/2544136

Published: 04 April 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Automatic analysis of Alloy models is supported by the Alloy Analyzer, a tool that translates an Alloy model to a propositional formula that is then analyzed using off-the-shelf SAT solvers. The translation requires user-provided bounds on the sizes of data domains. The analysis is limited by the bounds and is therefore partial. Thus, the Alloy Analyzer may not be appropriate for the analysis of critical applications where more conclusive results are necessary.

Dynamite is an extension of PVS that embeds a complete calculus for Alloy. It also includes extensions to PVS that allow one to improve the proof effort by, for instance, automatically analyzing new hypotheses with the aid of the Alloy Analyzer. Since PVS sequents may get cluttered with unnecessary formulas, we use the Alloy unsat-core extraction feature in order to refine proof sequents. An internalization of Alloy's syntax as an Alloy specification allows us to use the Alloy Analyzer for producing witnesses for proving existentially quantified formulas.

Dynamite complements the partial automatic analysis offered by the Alloy Analyzer with semi-automatic verification through theorem proving. It also improves the theorem proving experience by using the Alloy Analyzer for early error detection, sequent refinement, and witness generation.

Supplementary Material

a20-moscato-apndx.pdf (moscato.zip)

Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Dynamite: A tool for the verification of alloy models based on PVS

Download
68.62 KB

References

[1]

Alexandr Andoni, Dumitru Daniliuc, Sarfraz Khurshid, and Darko Marinov. 2004. Evaluating the “Small Scope Hypothesis”. Unpublished. http://mulsaw.lcs.mit.edu/papers/SSH.ps. (Last accessed 11/2012).

[2]

Konstantine Arkoudas. 2001. Type-ω DPLs. MIT AI Memo 2001-27. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

[3]

Konstantine Arkoudas, Sarfraz Khurshid, Darko Marinov, and Martin Rinard. 2004. Integrating model checking and theorem proving for relational reasoning. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Relational Methods in Computer Science (RelMiCS) - 2nd International Workshop on Applications of Kleene Algebra. R. Berghammer and B. Möller, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3051, Springer-Verlag, 204--213.

[4]

Bernhard Beckert, Reiner Hähnle, and Peter H. Schmitt (Eds.). 2007. Verification of Object-Oriented Software: The KeY Approach. Springer-Verlag.

Digital Library

[5]

Yves Bertot and Pierre Castéran. 2004. Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development—Coq'Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. EATCS Texts in Theoretical Computer Science.

Digital Library

[6]

Jasmin Blanchette and Tobias Nipkow. 2010. Nitpick: A counterexample generator for higher-order logic based on a relational model finder. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP 2010). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6172, Springer, 131--146.

Digital Library

[7]

Edmund M. Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and Doron A. Peled. 1999. Model Checking. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[8]

Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjorner. 2008. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4963, Springer, Berlin, 337--340.

Digital Library

[9]

Aboubakr A. El Ghazi and Mana Taghdiri. 2011. Relational reasoning via SMT solving. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6664, Springer, Berlin, 133--148.

Digital Library

[10]

Marcelo F. Frias. 2002. Fork Algebras in algebra, Logic and Computer science. In Advances in Logic, vol. 2. World Scientific Publishing Co.

Digital Library

[11]

Marcelo F. Frias, Armando M. Haeberer, and Paulo A. S. Veloso. 1997. A finite axiomatization for fork algebras. Logic J. IGPL, 5, 3, 311--319.

[12]

Marcelo F. Frias, Carlos G. López Pombo, and Nazareno Aguirre. 2004. An equational calculus for alloy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3308, Springer, Berlin, 162--175.

[13]

Marcelo F. Frias, Carlos G. López Pombo, and Mariano M. Moscato. 2007. Alloy Analyzer+PVS in the analysis and verification of Alloy specifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS'07). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4424, Springer-Verlag, 587--601.

Digital Library

[14]

Gerhard Gentzen. 1935. Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39:176--210, 405--431. (English translation in Manfred E. Szabo (Ed.), The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 55, 1969. Elsevier, 68--131.

[15]

Michael J. C. Gordon. 1989. Mechanizing programming logics in higher order logic. In Graham Birtwistle and P. A. Subrahmanyam (Eds.), Current Trends in Hardware Verification and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer, New York, NY, 387--439.

Digital Library

[16]

Gerard J. Holzmann. 2003. The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual (1st. ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Digital Library

[17]

Daniel Jackson, Ilya Shlyakhter, and Manu Sridharan. 2001. A micromodularity mechanism. In Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference Held Together with the 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM New York, NY, 62--73.

Digital Library

[18]

Daniel Jackson. 2012. Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. (Revised version). The MIT Press.

Digital Library

[19]

Todd Kaufmann, Chris McConnell, Ivan Vazquez, Marco Antoniotti, Rick Campbell, and Paolo Amoroso. 2000. ILISP User Manual, http://library.isr.ist.utl.pt/docs/ilisp/ilisp_toc.html (Last accessed 11/2012).

[20]

Roger D. Maddux. 1991. Pair-dense relation algebras. Trans. AMS, 328, 1, 83--131.

[21]

Mariano M. Moscato, Carlos G. López Pombo, and Marcelo F. Frias. 2010. Dynamite 2.0: New features based on UnSAT-Core extraction to improve verification of software requirements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC 2010). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6255, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 275--289.

Digital Library

[22]

Tobias Nipkow, Marcus Wenzel, and Lawrence C. Paulson. 2002. Isabelle/HOL -- A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2283, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Digital Library

[23]

Sam Owre. 2008. A brief overview of the PVS user interface. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITP'08).

[24]

Sam Owre, Natarajan Shankar, Joseph M. Rushby, and Dave W. J. Stringer-Calvert. 2001. PVS Prover Guide, Version 2.4. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

[25]

Sam Owre, Joseph M. Rushby, and Natarajan Shankar. 1992. PVS: A prototype verification system. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 607, Springer, 748--752.

Digital Library

[26]

Tahina Ramananandro. 2008. Mondex, an electronic purse: Specification and refinement checks with the Alloy model-finding method. Formal Aspects of Comput., 20, 1, 21--39.

[27]

Emina Torlak, Felix Chang, and Daniel Jackson. 2008. Finding minimal unsatisfiable cores of declarative specifications. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5014, Springer, Berlin, 326--341.

Digital Library

[28]

Mattias Ulbrich, Ulrich Geilmann, Aboubakr A. El Ghazi, and Mana Taghdiri. 2012. A proof assistant for alloy specifications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7214, Springer, Berlin, 422--436.

Digital Library

[29]

Pamela Zave. 2006. Compositional binding in network domains. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4085, Springer-Verlag, 332--347.

Digital Library

Cited By

Igler BMayer A(2024)ThoR: An Alloy5-Like DSL for Interactive Theorem Proving in CoqRigorous State-Based Methods10.1007/978-3-031-63790-2_19(248-254)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-63790-2_19
Cornejo CRegis GAguirre NFrias M(2023)A Study of the Electrum and DynAlloy Dynamic Behavior NotationsIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.332062549:11(4946-4963)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2023.3320625
Lustig DSahasrabuddhe SGiroux OBahar IHerlihy MWitchel ELebeck A(2019)A Formal Analysis of the NVIDIA PTX Memory Consistency ModelProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems10.1145/3297858.3304043(257-270)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297858.3304043
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Dynamite: A tool for the verification of alloy models based on PVS
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation
      1. Formal software verification
  2. Software organization and properties
    1. Software functional properties
      1. Formal methods

Recommendations

Reasoning about static and dynamic properties in alloy: A purely relational approach

We study a number of restrictions associated with the first-order relational specification language Alloy. The main shortcomings we address are:---the lack of a complete calculus for deduction in Alloy's underlying formalism, the so called relational ...
DynAlloy: upgrading alloy with actions
ICSE '05: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering

We present DynAlloy, an extension to the Alloy specification language to describe dynamic properties of systems using actions. Actions allow us to appropriately specify dynamic properties, particularly, properties regarding execution traces, in the ...
F-Alloy: a relational model transformation language based on Alloy

Model transformations are one of the core artifacts of a model-driven engineering approach. The relational logic language Alloy has been used in the past to verify properties of model transformations. In this paper we introduce the concept of functional ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Volume 23, Issue 2

March 2014

319 pages

ISSN:1049-331X

EISSN:1557-7392

DOI:10.1145/2600788

Editor:
David S. Rosenblum

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2014 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 April 2014

Received: 01 August 2012

Accepted: 01 November 2011

Published in TOSEM Volume 23, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Qatar Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
271
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)9
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 26 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Igler BMayer A(2024)ThoR: An Alloy5-Like DSL for Interactive Theorem Proving in CoqRigorous State-Based Methods10.1007/978-3-031-63790-2_19(248-254)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-63790-2_19
Cornejo CRegis GAguirre NFrias M(2023)A Study of the Electrum and DynAlloy Dynamic Behavior NotationsIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.332062549:11(4946-4963)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2023.3320625
Lustig DSahasrabuddhe SGiroux OBahar IHerlihy MWitchel ELebeck A(2019)A Formal Analysis of the NVIDIA PTX Memory Consistency ModelProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems10.1145/3297858.3304043(257-270)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297858.3304043
Souaf SLoulergue F(2019)A First Step in the Translation of Alloy to CoqFormal Methods and Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-32409-4_28(455-469)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-32409-4_28
Wang KSullivan AKhurshid SHuchard MKästner CFraser G(2018)Automated model repair for AlloyProceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/3238147.3238162(577-588)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3238147.3238162
Shankar N(2018)Formalizing Hoare Logic in PVSEngineering Trustworthy Software Systems10.1007/978-3-030-02928-9_3(89-114)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02928-9_3

View Options

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents