Alternating refinement relations

Alur, Rajeev; Henzinger, Thomas A.; Kupferman, Orna; Vardi, Moshe Y.

doi:10.1007/bfb0055622

Cited by 246 publications

(370 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

368

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The models in this article are conceptually similar to interface automata [11], which are essentially finite state automata with I/O distinction on actions. A key difference is that our refinement preorder is a linear-time alternative to the alternating simulation of Alur et al [2] defined on interface automata. Both refinements are substitutive, but alternating simulation is overly strong due to the conflict between non-determinism in the automaton and the selection of a matching transition to complete the simulation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Substitutive refinement of interface automata is given by means of alternating simulation [2], with a covariant inclusion on inputs and contravariant inclusion on outputs. Again, we reproduce the general definition from [11], which is free of unnecessary restrictions.…”

Section: Interface Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The original theory of interface automata defines a substitutive refinement in terms of alternating simulation [2], along with a parallel composition operator for observing component interaction. In subsequent papers, variants of the framework have been extended with additional operators, including conjunction (defined by Doyen et al for synchronous automata [15]) and quotient for supporting incremental development (defined by Bhaduri and Ramesh for deterministic automata [4]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An algebraic theory of interface automata

Chilton

Jönsson

Kwiatkowska

2014

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We formulate a compositional specification theory for interface automata, where a component model specifies the allowed sequences of input and output interactions with the environment. A trace-based linear-time refinement is provided, which is the weakest preorder preserving substitutivity of components, and is weaker than the classical alternating simulation defined on interface automata. Since our refinement allows a component to be refined by refusing to produce any output, we also define a refinement relation that guarantees safety and progress. The theory includes the operations of parallel composition to support the structural composition of components, logical conjunction and disjunction for independent development, hiding to support abstraction of interfaces, and quotient for incremental synthesis of components. Our component formulation highlights the algebraic properties of the specification theory for both refinement preorders, and is shown to be fully abstract with respect to observation of communication mismatches. Examples of independent and incremental component development are provided.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interface Automatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An algebraic theory of interface automata

Chilton

Jönsson

Kwiatkowska

2014

Theoretical Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [1] this relation was extended to alternating simulation between alternating transition systems. For systems with fairness conditions, the simulation relation was extended to fair simulation in [15].…”

Section: Qualitative Simulation Gamesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation Distances

Černý

Henzinger

Radhakrishna

2010

CONCUR 2010 - Concurrency Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Boolean notions of correctness are formalized by preorders on systems. Quantitative measures of correctness can be formalized by realvalued distance functions between systems, where the distance between implementation and specification provides a measure of "fit" or "desirability." We extend the simulation preorder to the quantitative setting, by making each player of a simulation game pay a certain price for her choices. We use the resulting games with quantitative objectives to define three different simulation distances. The correctness distance measures how much the specification must be changed in order to be satisfied by the implementation. The coverage distance measures how much the implementation restricts the degrees of freedom offered by the specification. The robustness distance measures how much a system can deviate from the implementation description without violating the specification. We consider these distances for safety as well as liveness specifications. The distances can be computed in polynomial time for safety specifications, and for liveness specifications given by weak fairness constraints. We show that the distance functions satisfy the triangle inequality, that the distance between two systems does not increase under parallel composition with a third system, and that the distance between two systems can be bounded from above and below by distances between abstractions of the two systems. These properties suggest that our simulation distances provide an appropriate basis for a quantitative theory of discrete systems. We also demonstrate how the robustness distance can be used to measure how many transmission errors are tolerated by error correcting codes.

show abstract

“…Indeed, the authors promotes an optimistic approach of composition in which two interfaces are compatible if there exists a restriction of the permitted actions of the environment in order to prevent the reachability of a runtime error. They show that this form of compatibility is preserved in the design flow provided alternating refinement [2] is used. More precisely, starting from initial interfaces whose product satisfies a particular safety property (i.e., a runtime error cannot be reached), they can be refined independently and then composed, their product will also satisfy the same safety property.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Ensuring Reachability by Design

Caillaud

Raclet

2012

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modular design aims at decomposing systems as a set of distinct components that can be independently developed and then assembled all together. Interfaces are then attached to components; they abstract implementation details while exposing to the environment relevant information about cross-component interactions. Whereas state-of-the-art on interfaces essentially consider independent implementability of safety properties, we consider in this paper reachability properties, which are in general not compositional. The approach we advocate consists in controlling the design flow of components, that is, the evolution of their interfaces through combinations and refinements, in order to ensure a reachability property by construction. Modal specifications are widely acknowledged as a suitable specification formalism for interfacebased design. In order to obtain the required expressivity, we extend them with marked states to model states to be reached. We then develop an algebra with both logical and structural composition operators ensuring reachability properties by design.

show abstract

Alternating refinement relations

Cited by 246 publications

References 13 publications

An algebraic theory of interface automata

An algebraic theory of interface automata

Simulation Distances

Ensuring Reachability by Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About