An Approach to Combining B and Alloy

Mikhailov, L. A.; Butler, Michael

doi:10.1007/3-540-45648-1_8

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been various other works which translate B to other formalisms: B to the Express language [28], B to Alloy [29] and to Alloy's Kodkod library [30], B to SMTLib for proving [31]. It is interesting to see how these various technologies and translations interact and can be of benefit to the current B user: the SMTLib translation [31] is useful for proving, the proof information in turn can benefit ProB via proof-directed model checking [11], the Kodkod translation [30] is beneficial for constant finding and constraint-based checking, while the translation to TLA + can achieve efficient explicit state model checking, benefiting from ProB for constant finding and trace replay.…”

Section: Embeddings Of Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating B to TLA+ for validation with TLC

Hansen

Leuschel

2016

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state-based formal methods B and TLA + share the common base of predicate logic, arithmetic and set theory. However, there are still considerable differences, such as the way to specify state transitions, the different approaches to typing, and the available tool support. In this paper, we present a translation from B to TLA + so as to validate B specifications using the model checker TLC. The translation includes many adaptations and optimizations to allow for efficient checking by TLC. Moreover, we present a way to validate liveness properties for B specifications under fairness conditions. Our implemented translator, Tlc4B, automatically translates a B specification to TLA + , invokes the model checker TLC, and translates the results back to B. We use ProB to double check the counter examples produced by TLC and replay them in the ProB animator. Tlc4B can also transmit constant values, precalculated by ProB, to TLC. This allows the user to combine the strength of both tools, i.e. ProB's constraint solving abilities and TLC's highly tuned model checking core. Furthermore, we demonstrate an approach to optimize the model checking process by encoding proof information in the translated TLA + specification. We also present a series of case studies and benchmark tests comparing Tlc4B and ProB.

show abstract

Section: Embeddings Of Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating B to TLA+ for validation with TLC

Hansen

Leuschel

2016

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alloy in particular and model-checking approaches in general complement techniques and tools for formal development based on the notion of refinement, such as B [1]. A proposal for combining the strengths of B and Alloy is presented elsewhere [19].…”

Section: Alloymentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for analyzing exception flow in software architectures

Filho

Brito

Rubira

2005

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present Aereal, a framework for analyzing exception flow in architecture descriptions. Aereal works as a customizable architectural-level exception handling system that can be further constrained or have some of its rules relaxed. Since different architectural styles have different policies for exception flow, Aereal makes it possible to specify rules on how exceptions flow in a given style and to check for violations of these rules. As enabling technologies, Aereal uses Alloy, a first-order relational language, ACME, an interchange language for architecture description, and their associated tool sets.

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

An Approach to Combining B and Alloy

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Translating B to TLA+ for validation with TLC

Translating B to TLA+ for validation with TLC

A framework for analyzing exception flow in software architectures

Scalable automated proving and debugging of set-based specifications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About