Automatic verification of distributed systems: The process algebra approach

Inverardi, Paola; Priami, Corrado

doi:10.1007/bf00121261

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Descriptions of more or less automatic software tools for proving bisimilarity in process algebra abound in the literature -see [18,21] for overviews. While most of these tools are dedicated to (and optimized for) particular process algebras (and many to finite-state systems), ECRINS [12] is based precisely on generic process algebra in de Simone format, meaning that the results of this paper on incremental coinduction apply directly to that setting (and, interestingly, a form of coinduction that "attempts to add more couples to the [previously specified] relation" is indicated in [12] as a direction for future research, to our knowledge not pursued so far).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental Pattern-Based Coinduction for Process Algebra and Its Isabelle Formalization

Popescu

Gunter

2010

Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present a coinductive proof system for bisimilarity in transition systems specifiable in the de Simone SOS format. Our coinduction is incremental, in that it allows building incrementally an a priori unknown bisimulation, and pattern-based, in that it works on equalities of process patterns (i.e., universally quantified equations of process terms containing process variables), thus taking advantage of equational reasoning in a "circular" manner, inside coinductive proof loops. The proof system has been formalized and proved sound in Isabelle/HOL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental Pattern-Based Coinduction for Process Algebra and Its Isabelle Formalization

Popescu

Gunter

2010

Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each component, we derive AC and AS from its component CHAM once a suitable configuration substitution has been applied. Following a common hypothesis in the automated checking of properties of complex systems [Inverardi and Priami 1996], our approach assumes that these representations of dynamic behavior can be finite. The model for both representations is a finite, directed, rooted graph, where both nodes and arcs are labeled.…”

Section: Deriving Actual and Assumed Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static checking of system behaviors using derived component assumptions

Inverardi

Wolf²,

Yankelevich³

2000

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical challenge faced by the developer of a software system is to understand whether the system's components correctly integrate. While type theory has provided substantial help in detecting and preventing errors in mismatched static properties, much work remains in the area of dynamics. In particular, components make assumptions about their behavioral interaction with other components, but currently we have only limited ways in which to state those assumptions and to analyze those assumptions for correctness. We have formulated a method that begins to address this problem. The method operates at the architectural level so that behavioral integration errors, such as deadlock, can be revealed early and at a high level. For each component, a specification is given of its interaction behavior. From this specification, assumptions that the component makes about the corresponding interaction behavior of the external context are automatically derived. We have defined an algorithm that performs compatibility checks between finite representations of a component's context assumptions and the actual interaction behaviors of the components with which it is intended to interact. A configuration of a system is possible if and only if a successful way of matching actual behaviors with assumptions can be found. The state-space complexity of this algorithm is significantly less than that of comparable approaches, and in the worst case, the time complexity is comparable to the worst case of standard reachability analysis. This article is a major revision and expansion of a paper presented at COORDINATION '97.

show abstract

“…Weak bisimulation has a time complexity that is cubic in the number of states, which is due to the most time-consuming step, the computation of the transitive closure of i −→ . Various tools for process algebras do exist that support the specication and analysis, see the overview in [31]. For our example telephone system we use the components CSAR [12] and ALD EBARAN [6] that are distributed as part of the CADP tool-box (CSAR=ALD EBARAN Development Package).…”

Section: Algorithmic and Tool Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%