Formal verification of parallel programs

Abstract

Two formal models for parallel computation are presented: an abstract conceptual model and a parallel-program model. The former model does not distinguish between control and data states. The latter model includes the capability for the representation of an infinite set of control states by allowing there to be arbitrarily many instruction pointers (or processes) executing the program. An induction principle is presented which treats the control and data state sets on the same ground. Through the use of “place variables,” it is observed that certain correctness conditions can be expressed without enumeration of the set of all possible control states. Examples are presented in which the induction principle is used to demonstrate proofs of mutual exclusion. It is shown that assertions-oriented proof methods are special cases of the induction principle. A special case of the assertions method, which is called parallel place assertions, is shown to be incomplete. A formalization of “deadlock” is then presented. The concept of a “norm” is introduced, which yields an extension, to the deadlock problem, of Floyd's technique for proving termination. Also discussed is an extension of the program model which allows each process to have its own local variables and permits shared global variables. Correctness of certain forms of implementation is also discussed. An Appendix is included which relates this work to previous work on the satisfiability of certain logical formulas.

Bisimulation for probabilistic transition systems: A coalgebraic approach

“…For instance, consider the familiar labeled transition systems (S, A, →), consisting of a set S of states, a set A of actions, and a transition relation → ⊆ S ×A×S (cf. [Kel76,Plo81]). Put L(X) = P(A×X), the collection of all subsets of A×X, for any set X, and, for f :…”

Distributed Execution of S-BPM Business Processes

“…A labelled transition system [19] LT S = (PROC, →) over ACT consists of -A set PROC of states and -A set → ⊆ PROC×ACT×PROC of transitions between states. Instead of (s, a, s ) ∈ → we use the more suggestive notation s a → s .…”

State-of-the-Art Assessment of Testing and Testability of Custom LSI/VLSI Circuits. Volume II. Hardware Design Verification.

“…A few hybrid models do take both control flow and data flow into account. These include UCLA graphs [Razouk 1977], extensions of denotational semantics, and transition systems [Keller 1976]. …”