ProB: A Model Checker for B

Leuschel, Michaël; Butler, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45236-2_46

Cited by 438 publications

(311 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

300

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ProB model checker [17] and the prover tool Click'N'Prove/B4free [9] were used to verify the refinements. A final stage to refine the model towards code implementation is ongoing.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a Method for Rigorous Development of Generic Requirements Patterns

Snook

Poppleton

Johnson³

2006

Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present work in progress 3 on a method for the engineering, validation and verification of generic requirements using domain engineering and formal methods. The need to develop a generic requirement set for subsequent system instantiation is complicated by the addition of the high levels of verification demanded by safety-critical domains such as avionics. Our chosen application domain is the failure detection and management function for engine control systems: here generic requirements drive a software product line of target systems. A pilot formal specification and design exercise is undertaken on a small (twosensor) system element. This exercise has a number of aims: to support the domain analysis, to gain a view of appropriate design abstractions, for a B novice to gain experience in the B method and tools, and to evaluate the usability and utility of that method. We also present a prototype method for the production and verification of a generic requirement set in our UML-based formal notation, UML-B, and tooling developed in support. The formal verification both of the structural generic requirement set, and of a particular application, is achieved via translation to the formal specification language, B, using our U2B and ProB tools.

show abstract

“…The ProB model checker [17] and the prover tool Click'N'Prove/B4free [9] were used to verify the refinements. A final stage to refine the model towards code implementation is ongoing.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is supported by the U2B tool [24], which translates UML-B models into B, for subsequent formal verification. This verification includes model-checking with the ProB model-checker [17] for B. These tools have all been developed at Southampton, and continue to be extended in current work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Method for Rigorous Development of Generic Requirements Patterns

Snook

Poppleton

Johnson³

2006

Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both languages are rooted in set-theory and support different higher order data types like relations, functions and sequences. ProB [19,20] is a model checker for both languages featuring explicit state model checking as well as different constraint based techniques [13,18] for the analysis of specifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Originally, the ProB kernel has been tailored towards satisfiable formulas, acting primarily as a model finder [19,20]. Recent additions to ProB have extended the kernel in a different direction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SMT Solvers for Validation of B and Event-B Models

Krings

Leuschel

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present an integration of the constraint solving kernel of the ProB model checker with the SMT solver Z3. We apply the combined solver to B and Event-B predicates, featuring higher-order datatypes and constructs like set comprehensions. To do so we rely on the finite set logic of Z3 and provide a new translation from B to Z3, better suited for constraint solving. Predicates can then be solved by the two solvers working hand in hand: constraints are set up in both solvers simultaneously and (intermediate) results are transferred. We thus combine a constraint logic programming based solver with a DPLL(T) based solver into a single procedure. The improved constraint solver finds application in many validation tasks, from animation of implicit specifications, to test case generation, bounded and symbolic model checking on to disproving of proof obligations. We conclude with an empirical evaluation of our approach focusing on two dimensions: comparing low and high-level encodings of B as well as comparing pure ProB to ProB combined with Z3.

show abstract

“…The closest related work is [15,14] since it tries to combine the best of theorem proving and model finding by loosely coupling AtelierB 2 with the Alloy analyser 3 . The main difference is that the entire proof obligation is used for both theorem proving and model finding whereas we use theorem proving to simplify the formula so that only a small portion of it (ultimately responsible for its invalidity) is passed to a model finder, thereby considerably simplifying the task of the latter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scalable automated proving and debugging of set-based specifications

Couchot¹,

Déharbe

Giorgetti³

et al. 2003

J. Braz. Comp. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a technique to prove invariants of model-based specifications in a fragment of set theory. Proof obligations containing set theory constructs are translated to first-order logic with equality augmented with (an extension of) the theory of arrays with extensionality. The idea underlying the translation is that sets are represented by their characteristic function which, in turn, is encoded by an array of Booleans indexed on the elements of the set. A theorem proving procedure automating the verification of the proof obligations obtained by the translation is described. Furthermore, we discuss how a sub-formula can be extracted from a failed proof attempt and used by a model finder to build a counter-example. To be concrete, we use a B specification of a simple process scheduler on which we illustrate our technique.

show abstract

ProB: A Model Checker for B

Cited by 438 publications

References 15 publications

Towards a Method for Rigorous Development of Generic Requirements Patterns

Towards a Method for Rigorous Development of Generic Requirements Patterns

SMT Solvers for Validation of B and Event-B Models

Scalable automated proving and debugging of set-based specifications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About