research-article

Public Access

When Do We Not Need Complex Assume-Guarantee Rules?

Authors:

Antti Siirtola,

Stavros Tripakis,

Keijo HeljankoAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), Volume 16, Issue 2

Article No.: 48, Pages 1 - 25

https://doi.org/10.1145/3012280

Published: 02 January 2017 Publication History

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.

Digital Library

[2]

Rajeev Alur and Thomas A. Henzinger. 1999. Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15 (1999), 7--48.

Digital Library

[3]

C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press.

Digital 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.

Digital 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.

[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.

[7]

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

Digital 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.

[9]

Luca de Alfaro and Thomas A. Henzinger. 2001a. Interface automata. ACM SIGSOFT 26, 5 (2001), 109--120.

Digital 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.

[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.

[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.

Digital 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.

Digital 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.

[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.

Digital 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.

[17]

Gerald Lüttgen and Walter Vogler. 2013. Modal interface automata. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9, 3, Article 4 (2013), 28 pages.

[18]

Nancy A. Lynch and Mark R. Tuttle. 1989. An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Quarterly 2 (1989), 219--246.

[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.

[20]

Robin Milner. 1980. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, Vol. 92. Springer.

[21]

Janardan Misra and K. Mani Chandy. 1981. Proofs of networks of processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 7, 4 (1981), 417--426.

Digital 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.

Digital 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.

[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.

Digital 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.

Digital Library

[26]

A. William Roscoe. 2010. Understanding Concurrent Systems. Springer.

[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.

[28]

Antti Siirtola. 2014. Parametrised interface automata. In Proceedings of ACSD’14, Andrey Mokhov, Luca Bernardinello, and Kamel Barkaoui (Eds.). IEEE, 176--185.

Digital 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.

Digital 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.

Digital 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.

Cited By

Preoteasa VDragomir ITripakis S(2022)The refinement calculus of reactive systemsInformation and Computation10.1016/j.ic.2021.104819285:PBOnline publication date: 1-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ic.2021.104819
Pandya PWakankar ARoop PZhan NGao SNuzzo P(2019)Logical specification and uniform synthesis of robust controllersProceedings of the 17th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design10.1145/3359986.3361213(1-11)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359986.3361213

Index Terms

When Do We Not Need Complex Assume-Guarantee Rules?

Recommendations

When Do We (Not) Need Complex Assume-Guarantee Rules?
ACSD '15: Proceedings of the 2015 15th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design

Assume-guarantee (AG) reasoning is a compositional verification method where a verification task involving many processes is broken into multiple verification tasks involving fewer and/or simpler processes. Unfortunately, AG verification rules, and ...
Multi-parameterised compositional verification of safety properties

We introduce a fully automatic technique for the parameterised verification of safety properties. The technique combines compositionality and completeness with support to multiple parameters and it is implemented in a tool. We start with an LTS-based (...
Automated circular assume-guarantee reasoning
Abstract
Model checking is a successful approach for verifying hardware and software systems. Despite its success, the technique suffers from the state explosion problem which arises due to the large state space of real-life systems. One solution to the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems Volume 16, Issue 2

Special Issue on LCETES 2015, Special Issue on ACSD 2015 and Special Issue on Embedded Devise Forensics and Security

May 2017

705 pages

ISSN:1539-9087

EISSN:1558-3465

DOI:10.1145/3025020

Editor:
Sandeep K. Shukla
Indian Institute of Technology, India

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 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

Journal Family

ACM Journals for the Design of Smart and Connected Systems

Publication History

Published: 02 January 2017

Accepted: 01 October 2016

Revised: 01 September 2016

Received: 01 February 2016

Published in TECS Volume 16, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

U.S.National Science Foundation
Academy of Finland
UCBerkeley's iCyPhy Research Center (supported by IBM and United Technologies)
SARANA project in the SAFIR 2014 programme

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
225
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)61
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Preoteasa VDragomir ITripakis S(2022)The refinement calculus of reactive systemsInformation and Computation10.1016/j.ic.2021.104819285:PBOnline publication date: 1-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ic.2021.104819
Pandya PWakankar ARoop PZhan NGao SNuzzo P(2019)Logical specification and uniform synthesis of robust controllersProceedings of the 17th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design10.1145/3359986.3361213(1-11)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359986.3361213

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

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

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents