Contract-Based Reasoning for Component Systems with Rich Interactions

Graf, Susanne; Quinton, Sophie

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3879-3_8

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Premise 1) M 1 |= g 2 g 1 (Premise 2) M 2 |= g 1 g 2 (Premise 3) g 1 ||g 2 |= P M 1 ||M 2 |= P Similar rules have been studied before [15,18,9]. The rule is both sound and complete.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Automated Circular Assume-Guarantee Reasoning

Elkader

Grumberg

Păsăreanu

et al. 2015

FM 2015: Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Compositional verification techniques aim to decompose the verification of a large system into the more manageable verification of its components. In recent years, compositional techniques have gained significant successes following a breakthrough in the ability to automate assume-guarantee reasoning. However, automation is still restricted to simple acyclic assume-guarantee rules.In this work, we focus on automating circular assume-guarantee reasoning in which the verification of individual components mutually depends on each other. We use a sound and complete circular assume-guarantee rule and we describe how to automatically build the assumptions needed for using the rule. Our algorithm accumulates joint constraints on the assumptions based on (spurious) counterexamples obtained from checking the premises of the rule, and uses a SAT solver to synthesize minimal assumptions that satisfy these constraints.We implemented our approach and compared it with an established learningbased method that uses an acyclic rule. In all cases, the assumptions generated for the circular rule were significantly smaller, leading to smaller verification problems. Further, on larger examples, we obtained a significant speedup as well.

show abstract

“…(Premise 1) M 1 |= g 2 g 1 (Premise 2) M 2 |= g 1 g 2 (Premise 3) g 1 ||g 2 |= P M 1 ||M 2 |= P Similar rules have been studied before [15,18,9]. The rule is both sound and complete.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Automated Circular Assume-Guarantee Reasoning

Elkader

Grumberg

Păsăreanu

et al. 2015

FM 2015: Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another form for A/G contracts has also been proposed, which supports reasoning about complex component interactions by avoiding using parallel composition of contracts to overcome the problems that certain models have with the effective computation of the operators [20]. Instead, composition is replaced with the concept of circular reasoning [21]: when circular reasoning is sound, it is possible to check relations between composite contracts based on their components only, without taking expensive compositions.…”

Section: ) Conjunctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Platform-Based Design Methodology With Contracts and Related Tools for the Design of Cyber-Physical Systems

Nuzzo

Sangiovanni-Vincentelli

Bresolin

et al. 2015

Proc. IEEE

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-We introduce a platform-based design methodology that uses contracts to specify and abstract the components of a cyber-physical system (CPS), and provide formal support to the entire CPS design flow. The design is carried out as a sequence of refinement steps from a high-level specification to an implementation built out of a library of components at the lower level. We review formalisms and tools that can be used to specify, analyze or synthesize the design at different levels of abstractions. For each level, we highlight how the contract operations can be concretely computed as well as the research challenges that should be faced to fully implement them. We illustrate our approach on the design of embedded controllers for aircraft electric power distribution systems.

show abstract

“…Several methods have been reported in the literature for checking contract refinement. Quinton et al have developed a hierarchical approach that deals with the problem of checking contract refinement by decomposing a large verification task into smaller problems that involve a limited number of assumptions and guarantees, and then relying on compositional methods and circular reasoning to deduce the global result [Graf et al 2014]. The tool is part of the BIP framework and uses a model based on modal transition systems (MTS).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contract-Based Requirement Modularization via Synthesis of Correct Decompositions

Fahrenberg²,

Legay³

2016

ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceIn distributed development of modern systems, contracts play a vital role in ensuring interoperability of components and adherence to specifications. It is therefore often desirable to verify the satisfaction of an overall property represented as a contract, given the satisfaction of smaller properties also represented as contracts. When the verification result is negative, designers must face the issue of refining the subproperties and components. This is an instance of the classical synthesis problems: " can we construct a model that satisfies some given specification? " In this work, we propose two strategies enabling designers to synthesize or refine a set of contracts so that their composition satisfies a given contract. We develop a generic algebraic method and show how it can be applied in different contract models to support top-down component-based development of distributed systems

show abstract

Contract-Based Reasoning for Component Systems with Rich Interactions

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Automated Circular Assume-Guarantee Reasoning

Automated Circular Assume-Guarantee Reasoning

A Platform-Based Design Methodology With Contracts and Related Tools for the Design of Cyber-Physical Systems

Contract-Based Requirement Modularization via Synthesis of Correct Decompositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About